I was just wondering that every time someone post a problem with their drone and mention that maybe they're doing a photograph or video and giving it to somebody else that there is always this question of whether it's a part 107 or hobbyist flat. There were even post where someone was asking a question because their drone did something strange but they mentioned the purpose of their flight and the discussion went off track. To me it seems clear if the flight is for anyone else then it is not a hobby flight. If you fly as a hobbyist and someone contacts you about a video or pictures you have posted on social media and you give that to them I would assume and believe that to be a hobbyist flight as long as no money actually exchanged or some other gift for receiving those pictures or videos. Just wondered what you thought?
Why is it so hard to distinguish 107 or hobby flight?
- Thread starter drvrbobob
- Start date
INTENT of the flight is what determines Hobby vs Commercial.
You pretty much you nailed it with "To me it seems clear if the flight is for anyone else then it is not a hobby flight ". You can not HOBBY for someone else regardless how you try to word it.
As a side note.... something CAN be sold/monetized at a later time so long as it was taken with a genuine HOBBY/RECREATIONAL intent at the time of the flight. For instance you can be flying as a hobbyist and capture an AMAZING image/video that has value and it CAN be sold/monetized. Now proving one way or the other is a whole other ball of wax. At some point your own morals come into play . . .
You pretty much you nailed it with "To me it seems clear if the flight is for anyone else then it is not a hobby flight ". You can not HOBBY for someone else regardless how you try to word it.
As a side note.... something CAN be sold/monetized at a later time so long as it was taken with a genuine HOBBY/RECREATIONAL intent at the time of the flight. For instance you can be flying as a hobbyist and capture an AMAZING image/video that has value and it CAN be sold/monetized. Now proving one way or the other is a whole other ball of wax. At some point your own morals come into play . . .
I don't think it's that hard to decide -- the FAA has made that part simple. If money changes hands, you need the cert. My beef is the contradiction inherent in the Part 107 requirement. To me it goes like this. The FAA's primary justification is airspace safety. They don't want a drone bringing down an airliner. No one can disagree with that. But, saying only those who want to make a buck with their drone need to pass the test does nothing to further the intent of the operational rules already in place. The nutcase that wants to prove he can get his bird to 20,000 feet may very well be a "hobbyist". The laws about max AGL apply to everyone. The cert does nothing to expand or enhance their enforcement. DJI has done far more to protect airspace than the FAA by incorporating altitude limits, GPS "guardrails", and other safety measures that inherently limit the operational envelope. Seems to me, that's a more effective approach to the FAA's real intent.
problem is, money doesn’t have to change hands. If it was only that simple, it would be fine. As it sits now, I can walk outside my house, fly fifty yards on a purely hobby flight, see on the screen that there’s one of my cattle out there that seems to need some attention, and all of a sudden I’m in full violation of the commercial-flight rules. A fifty yard flight at 40’ AGL on my own property, and now I need a license. One way of thinking would disallow me from flying under hobby rules on the property at all, since it’s a place of my business. Does that sound reasonable?
Another example: a guy flies a drone up to his roof to see if there is something visibly wrong with his satellite-internet dish. If he’s joe homeowner watching the game,that’s okay. (Maybe,of course. I’m sure there’s somebody out there that will say he’s moonlighting as a satellite-repair tech by doing so). If he works from home on his laptop using that connection,now he’s in violation.
Go to “money changes hands”, and it would be pretty easy to distinguish between the two. You’re getting paid to be a drone pilot as part of all of your means of gainful employment. Simple. Just using it as a tool, coincidentally or otherwise, to help with something you would do anyway with or without a drone, doesn’t really apply.
I agree. It's this kind of confusion and regulatory overkill that causes indifference to the law. At some point, you're just going to say, "I'm gonna check on my cattle -- catch me if you can". As I said, money changing hands is a poor criterion, since it has nothing to do with the safety intent. People who make money with their drones have more than enough incentive to fly safe and lawful -- they're not the ones to worry about.
Well, it’s become pretty obvious that safety is just the excuse,not the intent here..
Your example doesn't put in the Part 107 category because you clearly stated that the purpose of your flight was recreational. Now if you were to start using the drone specifically to do cattle surveillance then that would require Part 107, because you would be using it in furtherance of a business. It's really not that confusing or complicated at all.
Wrong. The second that recreational flight ended up with me seeing cattle that needed attention, it became “in furtherance of the business” rather than recreational. . the fact remains that NO money changed hands as a result of the flight,even if I intentionally set out to look at the cattle. If I didn’t have the drone,I wouldn’t be hiring someone to fly it,I’d get in the truck and drive there.
This would be akin to the department of agriculture fining or arresting me for practicing veterinary care without a license as a result of me giving a sick calf an antibiotic shot: It’s legally available to the public, in common use by “amateurs” for their own cattle in accordance with business best practices and label restrictions, and fully confined to my own property. If I was to do the same for the neighbors for money, I would expect tighter scrutiny.
I’d be all for reasonable licensure to fly these things: the 107 testing procedure quite simply isn’t reasonable for the purpose: the cost/benefit doesn’t dollar out there. Do an actual, pertinent online safety course, charge me twenty bucks, and send me a card. As it is, I’d spend dozens of hours, hundreds of dollars, and drive a hundred miles or more in order to know the thrust velocity needed for a fixed wing aircraft to maintain a thirty degree bank angle, know how to discern approach vector to any airport on the map, and understand weather patterns several thousand feet above the hard limit of my drone, so that I can “be legal” on 10 minutes’ flight time a year... and they wonder why people bootleg it.
You are simply wrong. Your flight was recreational. You are attempting to contrive a problem where there was none. The FAA has made it perfectly clear that it was the intent of the flight, not any result of the flight, that matters. You can even sell photos/video obtained on a recreational flight if commercial purpose or furtherance of a business was not the intent at the time. Don't let me stop you fretting about it though if you are quite determined to feel guilty.
....are you trying to say that changing the intent of a flight mid-course is an impossibility? Sounds good. From here on out, I’ll make a point of flying for fun in the first three seconds of any flight, then go to work until the battery runs out. I’ll tell the investigator you said it was okay.
No - you can't change the intent of the flight in mid-flight. Have you never bothered to read any of the FAA rules and interpretations on this? Rhetorical question, of course.
Just jumping in here with a question. What about YouTube? My channel is not large enough yet to make money but of the thousands that are, many use the drone in their videos for b-roll as you know. Alot of those people make serious money on those videos and dont believe many have a 107. Should the YouTube community be worried?
If it's a monetized channel then yes - it requires Part 107.
Ok this topic is getting somewhat "diluted" so let's take a moment to try and get things back on track and clear up some things. Be patient and we'll get there!
#1 - @Canyon Mike the reason for the "variations" in rules/guidelines is simply because Congress tied their hands with the "2012 FAA Modernization Act". They thought they were doing a good thing by protecting those of us who were simply hobbyists but in reality they created a multi-layered FIASCO making the FAA unable to create any new (and badly needed) regulations for our industry EXCEPT if it is a Commercial operation. Once you bust the HOBBY bubble you're free game for the FAA. FAA wants to have the rules but simpler and easier to understand (and enforce) than they are now but until 336 is pulled and re-written (well on it's way now) we have a mess of sUAS regulations. It's not a MONEY grab or anything even though many try to push that agenda.
#2 - Looking at your roof: The only way that would be a violation is if you initiated the flight in furtherance of your business. Seeing a head of cattle wandering while your in the air does not change your intent of the flight. Just like capturing a breathtaking and "potentially profitable" picture as a hobbyist does not change the intent of the flight. If you continue to fly within the rules that you initiated flight you are not breaking the rules. INTENT at time of the flight and following all rules that pertain to that intent are what matters.
#2b - If you go up with the intention of "Commercial Flying" after taking off for a Hobby flight you are changing the rules (intentionally) in flight which is not allowed. You're trying to split hairs to prove your point which is useless.
#3 - The FAA has made it clear that a YouTube Channel does not automatically mean Commercial Intent (although I think it probably should). I'd say their attorneys advised them against that can of worms after they initially said it did for a while.
#1 - @Canyon Mike the reason for the "variations" in rules/guidelines is simply because Congress tied their hands with the "2012 FAA Modernization Act". They thought they were doing a good thing by protecting those of us who were simply hobbyists but in reality they created a multi-layered FIASCO making the FAA unable to create any new (and badly needed) regulations for our industry EXCEPT if it is a Commercial operation. Once you bust the HOBBY bubble you're free game for the FAA. FAA wants to have the rules but simpler and easier to understand (and enforce) than they are now but until 336 is pulled and re-written (well on it's way now) we have a mess of sUAS regulations. It's not a MONEY grab or anything even though many try to push that agenda.
#2 - Looking at your roof: The only way that would be a violation is if you initiated the flight in furtherance of your business. Seeing a head of cattle wandering while your in the air does not change your intent of the flight. Just like capturing a breathtaking and "potentially profitable" picture as a hobbyist does not change the intent of the flight. If you continue to fly within the rules that you initiated flight you are not breaking the rules. INTENT at time of the flight and following all rules that pertain to that intent are what matters.
#2b - If you go up with the intention of "Commercial Flying" after taking off for a Hobby flight you are changing the rules (intentionally) in flight which is not allowed. You're trying to split hairs to prove your point which is useless.
#3 - The FAA has made it clear that a YouTube Channel does not automatically mean Commercial Intent (although I think it probably should). I'd say their attorneys advised them against that can of worms after they initially said it did for a while.
I agree YouTube content should require a 107. Even though it may not be a monetized channel someone is indeed making money, a lot of money. YouTube doesn’t allow you to stream your content just to be nice.
Last I had researched it...a couple years ago faa had sent warnings to YouTube channel creators regarding requiring 107. Have they made a more recent statement backing away from that?
Last edited:
Yes they stated that simply having a monetized YT channel does not constitute a purely Commercial designation. I'm sure it's only because their legal dept knew that would be next to impossible to enforce let alone the daunting task of being the YT police. . .
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
Forums are full of these heated discussions about contrived scenarios.
But forum members take this much more seriously that the FAA does.
No-one has ever been fined for such trivial things which are the standard subjects of commercial/non-commercial discussions on forums.
When I see this topic come up, I can't help thinking of this: Skip to 3:14
Last edited:
Aerial photography provides a unique view of just about anything. It is a view that most folks don't see, but really do appreciate seeing when the opportunity presents itself.
I hope drone photographers share this unique perspective with as many people as they wish to.
All the hoopla about 107 vs. hobbyist, is, in my opinion, really overblown. It seems that we are victims of our own over thinking. If you drive for hire, you need a chauffer's license, and if you drive a friend to the store you do not. If you fly airplanes for hire, you need a commercial license, but if you share expenses on a flight you do not. If you promote a business with drone photography you need a 107, but if you give someone a picture or video that they may enjoy, you do not.
Drone photography has been around long enough that we can see who has gotten in trouble, and who has not. The folks that are running a business (real estate pics as an example) who choose not to get a 107 are violators. People who do free photography for a business, and they expect it to be used for business purposes, are violators. Pretty much everybody else is perfectly fine.
Take the pictures and do with them as you please. Share them in any non-commercial way and show the world what a great perspective that aerial photography provides.
I hope drone photographers share this unique perspective with as many people as they wish to.
All the hoopla about 107 vs. hobbyist, is, in my opinion, really overblown. It seems that we are victims of our own over thinking. If you drive for hire, you need a chauffer's license, and if you drive a friend to the store you do not. If you fly airplanes for hire, you need a commercial license, but if you share expenses on a flight you do not. If you promote a business with drone photography you need a 107, but if you give someone a picture or video that they may enjoy, you do not.
Drone photography has been around long enough that we can see who has gotten in trouble, and who has not. The folks that are running a business (real estate pics as an example) who choose not to get a 107 are violators. People who do free photography for a business, and they expect it to be used for business purposes, are violators. Pretty much everybody else is perfectly fine.
Take the pictures and do with them as you please. Share them in any non-commercial way and show the world what a great perspective that aerial photography provides.
WELL SAID!
It is my belief that if you are trying to follow the rules and trying to fly safely you are a lot better than many folks out there and are probably going to be okay. Not saying you won't end up in court but if your intent is good, you will be less likely to cause an incident that will land you there.
But the Youtubers out there that clearly and intentionally skirt the rules drive me crazy! I once called a popular Youtuber (Billy Kyle) out when he announced that he had recently passed the 107. He had been flying for years without it and posting to his channel (which contains ads so somebody is furthering a business) . During our back and forth he even stated that he does a lot of "free" videos with the purpose of building his portfolio for his future business. So how is that not flying with the intent to further a business even though the business may not be in existence yet? He also claimed that he only made a little money off of his channel. Kinda like being a little bit pregnant.
That doesn't cut it!
That's great to know BigA!!! because I have taken hundreds of videos with NO intent of making money, but I am now working on (learning) Part 107 because some of my videos and pictures are good enough to 1: monetize and 2: some people have asked if they can have/pay for video I have taken (but I have done the right thing and told them they have to wait until I get Part 107)...
Similar threads
