Can I still make money without a commercial licence on private land ?

The simple answer to this is "how much is it worth it to you?" The analogy to murder was simply - the law is the law, regardless of where it is broken. Technically, if someone hires you and you film the front of his store, even if you do it for free, and he uses that footage to promote his store it's a violation of the law. Technically. Profile is everything. The Dallas Cowboys got busted at training camp for using theirs to shoot practice. If you can live with it - who are any of us to stop you? As a fellow drone pilot, I would hope you consider what the potential is to everyone, but we don't live in a world like that any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuadBart
The simple answer to this is "how much is it worth it to you?" The analogy to murder was simply - the law is the law, regardless of where it is broken. Technically, if someone hires you and you film the front of his store, even if you do it for free, and he uses that footage to promote his store it's a violation of the law. Technically. Profile is everything. The Dallas Cowboys got busted at training camp for using theirs to shoot practice. If you can live with it - who are any of us to stop you? As a fellow drone pilot, I would hope you consider what the potential is to everyone, but we don't live in a world like that any more.
Good point, I think criminalizing drone pilots has just become sensationalized...even by other pilots. The consequences are the consequences and people should know for sure...but if you choose not to comply (like registering with the FAA), that's on you.

Speaking of the Cowboys thing...how and why did they get busted? Obviously-an organization THAT large would need to know all the laws (and have lawyers on hand), but was this done BEFORE the 333 exemptions? What was the FAA policy in regards to commercial work prior to formulating the UAV Registration & 333 exemption process? If there was no law...how can a law be broken?
 
If you are flying for payment, direct or indirect, or in the furtherance of a business, your flight is commercial. And it doesn't matter what land you are on unless the drone stays on the ground. Once in the air, it is in the National Airspace System which is regulated by the FAA.

There's no way around it. End of story. There's nothing left of the horse to beat.
 
Thanks GoodnNuff, but next time when you provide your 'facts' via random links you Googled regarding FAA complaints vs. people, just do a little more research first.

Since it turns out that the FAA was as wrong to label Youtube videos as 'commercial' as you were to post it as a 'fact' supporting your point, I think I'll be doing my OWN research on the matter instead of relying on the drone law 'experts' in this forum. [emoji6]
 
If you are flying for payment, direct or indirect, or in the furtherance of a business, your flight is commercial. And it doesn't matter what land you are on unless the drone stays on the ground. Once in the air, it is in the National Airspace System which is regulated by the FAA.

There's no way around it. End of story. There's nothing left of the horse to beat.
I don't disagree...as I stated before if you read the whole thread.

My essential points are that 1) The rules for hobbyist use of a drone are stupid and defy common sense and need changing 2) The FAA is someone I'm not afraid of 3) The FAA has no resources to police anything. 4) Being America, you choose to break the rules and face the consequences-which I don't do, but people have every right to. [emoji1]
 
Thanks GoodnNuff, but next time when you provide your 'facts' via random links you Googled regarding FAA complaints vs. people, just do a little more research first.

Since it turns out that the FAA was as wrong to label Youtube videos as 'commercial' as you were to post it as a 'fact' supporting your point, I think I'll be doing my OWN research on the matter instead of relying on the drone law 'experts' in this forum. [emoji6]
Fact, the FAA investigated some YouTube videos. There is no disputing that fact. I posted that, answered the OP's question, ran a few errands, flew 2 batteries worth of time on my P3P before the rain started, stopped by the Aquarium Co Op and picked up my new 90 gallon tank. A great afternoon.

I see you spent the day researching beyond what I found. I'm glad you found the FAA dropped the prosecution of an individual who had posted a YouTube video they investigated. Great news for both the pilot, and you! It seems very important to you that your facts trump the facts that you are debating. I'm glad you feel vindicated.

I encourage everyone to do their own research, I often caution forum members not to take the advice dispensed here without doing their own research. If you care to look at my posts from the past week, you will find that very advice!

Now, lets not lose sight of the OP's question...
Glad I was able to answer it.
 
Well, it was about 15 minutes of research at lunch at work, so not quite all day. [emoji6]

Glad you were able to answer the OP question...this has been addressed however multiple times in other threads.

Sometimes though threads change and discourse occurs bringing up other aspects that the OP may not have thought of, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.

Vigorous discussion and debate is good IMO. Regarding the video, that is a fairly major point that should have not gone overlooked. Since it was determined that the FAA dropped their investigation on posting of videos on Youtube, a casual reader may accidentally have the wrong takeaway believing that it is NOT ok.

BTW...90 gallon freshwater or saltwater and what are you stocking with?
 
Last edited:
Would the following situation be any different regarding "commercial" use? What if someone is an employee of a nonprofit... the nonprofit has a drone and the employee is tasked with flying the drone only on the nonprofit's property. Thoughts? I would think the FAA would still consider it commercial use.
 
Would the following situation be any different regarding "commercial" use? What if someone is an employee of a nonprofit... the nonprofit has a drone and the employee is tasked with flying the drone only on the nonprofit's property. Thoughts? I would think the FAA would still consider it commercial use.

ANY activity in the furtherance of a business is commercial use. For profit or not.
 
Would the following situation be any different regarding "commercial" use? What if someone is an employee of a nonprofit... the nonprofit has a drone and the employee is tasked with flying the drone only on the nonprofit's property. Thoughts? I would think the FAA would still consider it commercial use.
Still is commercial use. FAA doesn't care whether the commercial use is profitable or not.
 
Would the following situation be any different regarding "commercial" use? What if someone is an employee of a nonprofit... the nonprofit has a drone and the employee is tasked with flying the drone only on the nonprofit's property. Thoughts? I would think the FAA would still consider it commercial use.

"The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation in terms of whether the operator receives direct or indirect payment for the operation. It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit. The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts. Administrator v. Roundtree, 2 NTSB 1712 (1975); Administrator v. Mims, NTSB Order No. EA-3284, review denied 988 F.2d 1380; Consolidated Flower Shipments, Inc., Bay Area, 16 C.A.B. 804 (1953), aff'd. 213 F.2d 814 (2nd Cir. 1954)."

I'm planning on doing some volunteer work for a non-profit and I'll wait until my 333 Exemption is approved.

S
 
"The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation in terms of whether the operator receives direct or indirect payment for the operation. It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit. The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts. Administrator v. Roundtree, 2 NTSB 1712 (1975); Administrator v. Mims, NTSB Order No. EA-3284, review denied 988 F.2d 1380; Consolidated Flower Shipments, Inc., Bay Area, 16 C.A.B. 804 (1953), aff'd. 213 F.2d 814 (2nd Cir. 1954)."

I'm planning on doing some volunteer work for a non-profit and I'll wait until my 333 Exemption is approved.
What if you get a really big hug from the person you did it for? Or maybe, put a smile on their face. Or maybe they put you up for the night to hang out. Too much payment? You can see how asinine this definition is. Pretty much anything the FAA wants to say commercial IS under this guideline. So even if you don't make money or didn't PLAN to make money it's commercial? LOL.
 
Good point, I think criminalizing drone pilots has just become sensationalized...even by other pilots. The consequences are the consequences and people should know for sure...but if you choose not to comply (like registering with the FAA), that's on you.

Speaking of the Cowboys thing...how and why did they get busted? Obviously-an organization THAT large would need to know all the laws (and have lawyers on hand), but was this done BEFORE the 333 exemptions? What was the FAA policy in regards to commercial work prior to formulating the UAV Registration & 333 exemption process? If there was no law...how can a law be broken?
It was just this past training camp. The rule was in effect. They just assumed since they were using it to only film practice, they didn't have to have the exemption. Makes sense, right? They weren't selling the footage, just using it afterwards. But it was used to further their commercial business. It's a confusing regulation.
 
"The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation in terms of whether the operator receives direct or indirect payment for the operation. It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit. The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts. Administrator v. Roundtree, 2 NTSB 1712 (1975); Administrator v. Mims, NTSB Order No. EA-3284, review denied 988 F.2d 1380; Consolidated Flower Shipments, Inc., Bay Area, 16 C.A.B. 804 (1953), aff'd. 213 F.2d 814 (2nd Cir. 1954)."

I'm planning on doing some volunteer work for a non-profit and I'll wait until my 333 Exemption is approved.

S
Sagebrush excellent write-up. You're smart to hold off until the 333 is granted or the regulations change (part 107 maybe??) later this year or next.

For others reading this please... Keep in mind that even volunteer work (Search & Rescue for instance) is still commercial and as of this writing requires the 333 Exemption and all the stipulations this entails.

It's not as "Grey" as some want it to be. Basically with the FAA it comes down to this... are you flying purely for sport/fun? If yes then you fall under hobby flight. Anything else (even if $$ doesn't directly change hands) falls under commercial work. Also the "intent of the flight" comes into play if you want to really muddy the waters LOL.

Do I completely agree with this? Nope. Do I abide by it each and every day? Yep!
 
LOL...so, if a teacher wanted to film rocket launches for a science unit using their personal drone from the air and used it in a cool video on the school website, even though it is a non-profit (governmental) entity they are violating COMMERCIAL FAA rules?

I hope SOME readers are starting to see the hypocrisy and stupidity of the over-regulation of so-called "commercial" use of drones. A teacher works and makes money-using a drone in class would be akin to a realtor using it to take photos, no? See...the problem is the FAA (and some on this board) can spin this 333 thing ANY way they want with BROAD and vague language classifying almost ANYTHING as commercial.

Using drones at school ideas:
7 Ways to Use Drones in the Classroom

I'm gonna guess none of these kids in the drone club have pilot licenses or 333 exemptions either:
District Approves Drone Use for Educational Purposes
 
Last edited:
LOL...so, if a teacher wanted to film rocket launches for a science unit using their personal drone from the air and used it in a cool video on the school website, even though it is a non-profit (governmental) entity they are violating COMMERCIAL FAA rules?

I hope SOME readers are starting to see the hypocrisy and stupidity of the over-regulation of so-called "commercial" use of drones. A teacher works and makes money-using a drone in class would be akin to a realtor using it to take photos, no? See...the problem is the FAA (and some on this board) can spin this 333 thing ANY way they want with BROAD and vague language classifying almost ANYTHING as commercial.

Using drones at school ideas:
7 Ways to Use Drones in the Classroom

I'm gonna guess none of these kids in the drone club have pilot licenses or 333 exemptions either:
District Approves Drone Use for Educational Purposes
Exactlty. I think all anyone was really trying to point out how ambiguous the regulation is. Now - there's all kinds of "legal" ways around it. Maybe the School District, or an Teacher has applied for it, and received it. You can cover anyone under the single Exemption. That's how a lot of companies are dealing with it. They get an exemption for the Company or Organization, and covering anyone they need to. But, yes - it is that broad, and that ambiguous. I've looked into many ideas I've had to try to circumvent the Exemption. Can I just charge for my editing time, and consider the video time "gratis"? No. Don't actually pay me - pay my wife for her bookkeeping, or managerial fees. However the revenue is paid, if it's generated from the use of the drone, it's subject to the exemption. I don't think anyone is agreeing with the policy, but again, just stating what has been reported to be true about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Exactlty. I think all anyone was really trying to point out how ambiguous the regulation is. Now - there's all kinds of "legal" ways around it. Maybe the School District, or an Teacher has applied for it, and received it. You can cover anyone under the single Exemption. That's how a lot of companies are dealing with it. They get an exemption for the Company or Organization, and covering anyone they need to. But, yes - it is that broad, and that ambiguous. I've looked into many ideas I've had to try to circumvent the Exemption. Can I just charge for my editing time, and consider the video time "gratis"? No. Don't actually pay me - pay my wife for her bookkeeping, or managerial fees. However the revenue is paid, if it's generated from the use of the drone, it's subject to the exemption. I don't think anyone is agreeing with the policy, but again, just stating what has been reported to be true about it.
True, but in your case you actually ARE making money with it. The annoying part is people who imply or think that literally ANY type of compensation EVEN if you didn't WANT or INTEND to get compensated for it would make it "commercial" and the FAA nazis will pop out at any minute (3 guys wearing jersey #3?) and confiscate your bird and fine you.

Ok, here we go, FAA...my friend is gonna pay my greens fee to golf this weekend and I will do a couple of flyover shots and POI's of the golf course as we play. Come get me...it's a public golf course.

Ah...but THEN...I'm going to go into his PRIVATE backyard (public FAA airspace still though, right?) and do some flips into the pool and I'm going to film that. He will be providing me with dogs and beer as compensation. FURTHERMORE, I'm even gonna post that onto Youtube and try and monetize it. Come and get me, I have no Pilot's license (and therefore no 333).

Don't EVEN make me ask for a ride (using his gas & vehicle of course) to the park to film around the lake & fountain. ;)
 
LOL...so, if a teacher wanted to film rocket launches for a science unit using their personal drone from the air and used it in a cool video on the school website, even though it is a non-profit (governmental) entity they are violating COMMERCIAL FAA rules?

I hope SOME readers are starting to see the hypocrisy and stupidity of the over-regulation of so-called "commercial" use of drones. A teacher works and makes money-using a drone in class would be akin to a realtor using it to take photos, no? See...the problem is the FAA (and some on this board) can spin this 333 thing ANY way they want with BROAD and vague language classifying almost ANYTHING as commercial.

Using drones at school ideas:
7 Ways to Use Drones in the Classroom

I'm gonna guess none of these kids in the drone club have pilot licenses or 333 exemptions either:
District Approves Drone Use for Educational Purposes
You are trying to confuse educational use of a drone with commercial use of drone. It doesn't work that way.

If the school is a private school and features their rocketry club video in recruitment or advertising for their school - it is commercial use. If the drone video is used to market an Estes brand rocket, it is commercial use. A realtor works and makes money just like a teacher and everyone else who has a job. However a realtor makes money by selling real estate. If a drone is used to feature that property in a presentation to a client, it is commercial use.

If the rocket video is used in the classroom for entertainment and education, it is not commercial use.

Commercial Use is, IMO, quite a simple concept. I don't understand why so many have a difficult time with the concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Frye
Care to address the real point in my previous post about how the FAA has massive leniency on deciding just what is commercial vs. not?

When they say NO compensation is required to be considered commercial for instance. Why can't you people just speak in common sense and plain English about this? BLACK and WHITE, not a gray that covers every possible instance just to CYA.

We can go back and forth on this, but there ARE posters on here who would probably say that even the CLASSROOM use is commercial use due it to being used in their job. What if a teacher bought a drone FOR use in their class and then wrote it off on their taxes? Clearly...it's a "tool" to do their work in that case.

Like I said...too many gray areas.
 
Last edited:

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic