Can videos/stills already taken as part of a "hobby flight" be donated to a public agency if not compensated in any way? The reason being is that most of the forested land around me is conservation land, including my own, and my local parks manager might like to include some of the footage in a 2-3 minute video showing local conservation lands.
Footage taken during a Hobby Flight...
- Thread starter Fester
- Start date
Actually, the _only_ thing that matters is what was happening when the flight occured. What happens when the drone is not in the air (later) does not matter (the FAA has confirmed this).
The FAA regulates drones that are in the airspace controlled by the FAA. If the person, at the time, meets the hobby requirements, then it's a hobby flight. What happens later does not change that. I won't get into too many details but there certainly are grey areas. If the FAA can show that the person flying had the intention to sell the footage, then it's not hobby use.
The FAA is not looking to go after someone who flies for fun and then later decides to sell photos or video (again, they have stated this). They are looking at people who are obviously flying to make a buck at the time (i.e. companies).
The FAA regulates drones that are in the airspace controlled by the FAA. If the person, at the time, meets the hobby requirements, then it's a hobby flight. What happens later does not change that. I won't get into too many details but there certainly are grey areas. If the FAA can show that the person flying had the intention to sell the footage, then it's not hobby use.
The FAA is not looking to go after someone who flies for fun and then later decides to sell photos or video (again, they have stated this). They are looking at people who are obviously flying to make a buck at the time (i.e. companies).
No - you have that entirely backwards. The intent of the flight during which it is taken is all that matters. Subsequent use, even if paid, of images or video taken during a recreational flight does not invalidate the recreational (special rule) status of the flight.
Tcope got it right. This has been discussed on several threads and as he mentioned, asked of and confirmed by the FAA. I would just urge caution! There is always someone that thinks this is a loophole for getting around Part 107 certification. As soon as you start 'offering' your videos or photos to the public, you will call into question the intent of your flight. Sounds like the situation that the OP described would fall into the 'OK' category.
I see several correct answers, and one incorrect one (your post #5). Insulting others when you got it wrong is not very helpful.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 12
I'd urge caution with this interpretation. The FAA has already fined people who posted their "hobby" flights on Youtube. The justification...because the user could "potentially" earn revenue from advertising. It mattered not why they were flying, or what their original intent was, or even if they had earned $0.01 from the video. This is what the FAA had done:
Minnesota Man Faces $55K in Fines After Flying Drone
The FAA Says You Can't Post Drone Videos on YouTube
The difficulty with Part 107 being new is that all the true interpretations being vetted out by the FAA. For many years, the FAA has interpreted "commercial" very broadly. Manned aircraft pilots know this all too well. Say you have a friend who wants to fly to Point B and you are willing to do it. If the private pilot doesn't pay their "proportional share", it is considered a commercial flight, even if the pilot only recovers what it cost them. I'd say that unless you want to get into a test case with the FAA, which can be extremely expensive to defend, tread lightly, even if you think you are in the right.
I'm sure at some point, the "commercial" and "hobby" line will be drawn a little tighter through test cases and better interpretation from the FAA, but until then...be careful with it. A Part 107 certificate isn't very hard to get and will save you a TON of headaches if the above incident happens to you.
I'm afraid that you are conflating different issues here.
In the Minnesota case the flight simply did not meet the definitions of recreational use - the pilot was asked to cover an event. That's non-recreational use by intent and it's irrelevant whether or not he was paid.
The YouTube event discussed was one of the standard FAA informational letters sent as a result of a complaint received. There were no infraction details, no followup and no fine, and the FAA stated subsequently that it was reviewing its policy on this kind of response. Do you have any examples of pilots fined for YouTube videos created from valid special rule flights?
That said, I completely agree that anyone who is thinking ahead about this issue would be well advised to become Part 107 certified.
"Whether an individual taking pictures or videos or gathering other infmmation using a model aircraft under the section 336 carve-out could later sell those pictures, videos, or other information would depend on the person's original intentions in conducting the operation. Ifthe individual's takes the pictures or videos or gathers other information as part of a hobby or recreational activity, then a later decision to sell some or all of those pictures, videos, or other information would not change the character of the operation as part of a hobby or recreational activity that falls within the section 336 carve-out for model aircraft. No FAA authorization for that operation would be required. "
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 12
Yes, I should have clarified why I was posting such different cases and the outcomes. My point was really to indicate how the FAA thinks and how they view "compensation". Not so much to indicate whether they won their case or not. In fact, both cases were actually prior to Part 107 being released. But I think it is important to look at things like this because it gives some insight on how the FAA might interpret cases moving forward.
The problem right now is the FAA still has yet to fully vet out its Part 107 rules and how it will be enforced. I only caution people about this because you can easily become a test case for them and it will be VERY costly! Having a Part 107 certificate alleviates much of the problem, and it's so easy to get.
No - that is also incorrect. The memo, and the issue, is not about Part 107 because that did not change the Special Rule on Model Aircraft. The memo is interpreting the Special Rule, and what falls under it. That has not changed.
So you are now arguing that drones do not fall under the Special Rule at all. If that were the case (which it obviously isn't) then there would be no provision to fly drones outside Part 107.
At this point you appear to be uninterested in the actual discussion, and are simply trying to salvage an unsupported position. I'm certainly not here to convince you otherwise.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 126
- Age
- 63
I do the same thing I just upload to my you tube then give links to the Park Rangers or other people want to see my footage. However I am in Taiwan so even if I gave them the video that is legal. After all it's MY video to give away.
Sure. I'll take the last word. As I'm sure that other contributors here would agree, passing on information obtained from research, whether from news sources, published regulations, FAA attorneys, or wherever, does not constitute being a "self-appointed expert"; it constitutes trying to share knowledge and help the community. Having such information tested by robust discussion makes it even more useful. Your approach, in contrast, making bald assertions with no supporting information at all followed by taking offence and insulting those who actually bother to do the research, is both tiresome and unhelpful.
"But officer, I only just found this here can, how wuz I to know it was that full of worms..." I think I'll just keep my footage to myself, unless of course the Parks folks are willing to pay for me to take the part 107 test. As for YouTube, I've got zero interest in uploading anything to it, but have learned lots from the videos of people who should not allowed to have Sharp Objects in their hands, let alone "Drones"...
This case goes back two years and the FAA has since put out a statement that they used incorrect information in the letters. They state that it should have _only_ been a warning about flying over people and that they incorrectly added information in the letter about non-hobby use. Did you read the article to the end?
All together a different issue then what is being discussed.
You may want to read this notice put out by the FAA:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.292.pdf
"Note: Electronic media posted on a video Web site does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use."
-only
What I stated above is correct... the FAA _only_ regulates airspace and what happens in that airspace. They can use whatever information they can to show what was happening in that airspace... but it's still limited to what was happening at the time. They can use information after the fact to show what was happening but it's still limited to the use at the time in the air. I'd _not_ recommend anyone try to come up with a scheme such as knowing you are going to fly commercially and then simply not making the "deal" until afterwards. I'd _highly_ recommend if you want to stay hobby that you consider your thoughts _while you are flying_.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 12
tcope:
I think perhaps my point has been missed, but with forums like this, it's not difficult to do. If you will read my updated post, I think you will see I'm using these examples as a big picture look at the FAA and how they interpret things, rather than down in the weeds details. You are correct they have changed some of their interpretations, which is somewhat my point. They are still working this all out and it will certainly change as time goes on. The grey areas will become clearer, but I think for the OP, donating to a non-profit is a grey area. I point this out because even if you shoot video for law enforcement, rescue agencies such as Civil Air Patrol, or other non profits, and donate that footage, the FAA has advised those organizations their operations fall under Part 107 now, not as hobby. I know this because I assist with these types of flights. So, taking this into consideration, you could extrapolate that the FAA would interpret donating the footage/pictures to ANY non-profit would also fall outside of hobby rules. However, I don't see where they have put that out in writing specifically. And I can't find where someone has asked them for a determination either. If you have seen such a determination, I'd be interested in reading it.
This goes back to how the FAA has interpreted "compensation" for many, many years. Compensation does not necessarily have to include money and this is a very hard and fast rule they have followed for years. You can learn a lot from reading even older news articles, FAA notices, even if they are expired such as what you have posted. Unfortunately, the FAA is one of the most powerful civil enforcement agencies and can make your life miserable if you aren't careful. Now that they have established hard rules for sUAVs, people should be wary of what they do so as to not become a test case. Well, unless that is their thing of course.
I think perhaps my point has been missed, but with forums like this, it's not difficult to do. If you will read my updated post, I think you will see I'm using these examples as a big picture look at the FAA and how they interpret things, rather than down in the weeds details. You are correct they have changed some of their interpretations, which is somewhat my point. They are still working this all out and it will certainly change as time goes on. The grey areas will become clearer, but I think for the OP, donating to a non-profit is a grey area. I point this out because even if you shoot video for law enforcement, rescue agencies such as Civil Air Patrol, or other non profits, and donate that footage, the FAA has advised those organizations their operations fall under Part 107 now, not as hobby. I know this because I assist with these types of flights. So, taking this into consideration, you could extrapolate that the FAA would interpret donating the footage/pictures to ANY non-profit would also fall outside of hobby rules. However, I don't see where they have put that out in writing specifically. And I can't find where someone has asked them for a determination either. If you have seen such a determination, I'd be interested in reading it.
This goes back to how the FAA has interpreted "compensation" for many, many years. Compensation does not necessarily have to include money and this is a very hard and fast rule they have followed for years. You can learn a lot from reading even older news articles, FAA notices, even if they are expired such as what you have posted. Unfortunately, the FAA is one of the most powerful civil enforcement agencies and can make your life miserable if you aren't careful. Now that they have established hard rules for sUAVs, people should be wary of what they do so as to not become a test case. Well, unless that is their thing of course.
I don't think that anyone has missed your point but, again, you are using, as examples, flights that are performed with the intent of using the resulting footage for possibly unpaid but definitely non-recreational purposes. That is the distinction that matters, as stated in the memo that I posted earlier and indicated by FAA policy and actions.
The OP's question, however, was specifically about material recorded during a flight that was done recreationally, but subsequently requested for non-recreational use (paid or unpaid). Under current regulations and interpretation, that is permitted and does not retroactively change the status of the flight.
Yes - that obviously raises the objection that it is, effectively, a loophole in Part 107, to be able to claim that all the footage one sells was obtained incidentally while flying recreationally. And it is a loophole, but not one that is going to be easy to exploit repeatedly. Any evidence that a flight was requested by a third party (i.e. potential customer) would almost certainly invalidate such a claim. One might get away with it a few times, but it's not a good long-term strategy compared to your good advice simply to get certified.
Of course, as you note, regulations and laws may change in future, but it is a fundamental legal principle that laws are not retroactive, and so that's not really part of this discussion.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 126
- Age
- 63
The FAA came out and said an over zealous official who was not authorized to issue such letters was involved.
Just another person going beyond their remit who misinterpreted the rules. The FAA had to come out and say those letters were wrong.
End of story.
Just another person going beyond their remit who misinterpreted the rules. The FAA had to come out and say those letters were wrong.
End of story.
Similar threads
