is this legit loophole for hobbyist offering aerials??

[GadgetGuy]

Well GadgetGuy that doesn't awnser my question, and not to encourage you if you don't have a 107 cert. but selling the images is the easiest part as almost ANY stock footage house will buy your images without any questions about if you are a 107 pilot or not. They don't seem to care at all, they just want the money.
I don't claim to be an expert because I hold a 107 cert. but I am well educated on the subject. I had a debate with the LAPD who tried to tell me where I could fly, which ended with a commanding officer calling my home to let me know I had educated one of his officers at the air unit and to have a nice flight so I think I must have some idea how the laws work.
Sometimes I am wrong, it happens, but not this time!

This link is for Meta4 (about the fines)
The FAA Gave Us a List of Every Drone Pilot Who Has Ever Been Fined.

Always good to debate, you guys are certainly fun!
Spend some time studying instead of interpreting it may be enlightening.

I think you missed my point. It's not that without a 107 that no one will buy your images. It is that the value of drone images shot on spec to a stock agency is minimal. Finding someone to buy them, whether or not you have a 107 cert, is the real challenge. They are no longer unique. Every recreational drone flyer can create them without a 107, and later decide to sell them, as we have been telling you. The bar to entry has been lowered to the price of a Mavic or a Spark. A 107 cert costs $250. That's hardly a deal breaker for your competition. It's no longer limited to licensed airplane pilots, as it once was.

As to your list of fines, I think you also missed the point of that article. Out of all the millions of drone pilots in the United States, the FAA only fined "24 different people or companies, and the FAA's FOIA office says they are the entirety of the Federal Aviation Administration's enforcement efforts against drone pilots thus far." None of those were for selling drone images shot as a hobbyist. Carry on!

 

[sar104]

I have read the laws. I do have my 107 cert. the FAR/AIM Book is sitting here on my bookshelf. And yes I read it too.

Just out of curiosity sar104 and GadgetGuy, do either of you guys have a 107 cert?

I spent a lot of time throwing the zagi glider off a hilltop just for fun, that was hobby flight. Now I'm flying for $$$.

I'm sure the subject has been beaten to death here online, but an aviation lawyer would tell you different. Hope you never need one.

Have fun flying!

Not that it's relevant to the debate but, yes, I'm Part 107 certified.

So I'll ask you a question - can you quote a single part of any applicable law (those being the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and 14 CFR Parts 101 and 107) that support your assertion in any way?

I'll add into the mix the formal legal interpretation by the FAA of the question of intent of flight vs. later sale of photos or videos and the impact on recreational vs. non-recreational flight under Section 336. It is unambiguous. Subsequent opportunities to sell material do not change the original intent of the flight.

Dropbox - williams-afs-80 - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf

 

[dangerd]

My point is that although as a hobbyist you are technically not supposed to sell your shots that shots ARE being sold all the time by hobbyist and there is barely ANY enforcement of law anywhere!! You are absolutely correct GadgetGuy that the market is saturated and the shots are devalued.

I don't think it makes any difference weather or not you sell your shots from a safety point of view at all.

And you are right sar104 it makes no difference to the debate if you are 107 or not, I was just curious.

Things will only get worse for every independent commercial operator and hobbyist, since the Drone Innovation Act, as that thing was designed to use small government such as cities to clear out the sky from the ground to 200 AGL of small operators so corporations can use 200 - 400 for their own.
It's all about taking more authority away from the FAA and dropping it into the hands of cities, counties, states etc.
Just wait till preemption is gone, then you will see every fiefdom in the USA fining the hell out of everyone with a quad copter.
It doesn't make me want to invest any more money in UAV's as a business.
Right now it's not so bad.

 

[sar104]

My point is that although as a hobbyist you are technically not supposed to sell your shots that shots ARE being sold all the time by hobbyist and there is barely ANY enforcement of law anywhere!! You are absolutely correct GadgetGuy that the market is saturated and the shots are devalued.

I don't think it makes any difference weather or not you sell your shots from a safety point of view at all.

And you are right sar104 it makes no difference to the debate if you are 107 or not, I was just curious.

Things will only get worse for every independent commercial operator and hobbyist, since the Drone Innovation Act, as that thing was designed to use small government such as cities to clear out the sky from the ground to 200 AGL of small operators so corporations can use 200 - 400 for their own.
It's all about taking more authority away from the FAA and dropping it into the hands of cities, counties, states etc.
Just wait till preemption is gone, then you will see every fiefdom in the USA fining the hell out of everyone with a quad copter.
It doesn't make me want to invest any more money in UAV's as a business.
Right now it's not so bad.

The discussion (I thought) was not about whether hobbyists are selling material, but about your assertion that selling material was, by definition, always illegal. I'm sure that there are plenty of non-Part 107 pilots taking photos and videos with the intent to sell. That is not legal, specifically because that intent takes them out of Part 101 and subjects them to the Part 107 regulations, which require (among other things) a Remote Pilot in Command certification that they do not have.

But it is still legal, as several posters noted and was clearly stated in the FAA memo that I linked, to fly recreationally with no other intent at the time of the flight, and then to sell photos or video later if the opportunity arises. That might look like a loophole and in a way it is, as long as it doesn't become a pattern and no evidence arises that the flights were contracted or requested. So it's not really a long-term exploitable loophole, at least not without risk.

 

[JGutz138]

What did you use to study?

I used a combination of things but mainly...
FAA study guide... https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...s/aviation/media/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf
Free study video from Tony Dunlop...

Pilots handbook of aeronautical knowledge ...https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf
And sign up for a free account at faasaftey.gov where they have some more resources AND a practice test. I also watched a ton of videos on sectional maps and weather reports since they we're new to me. I recommend that anyone taking the test make sure you understand those 2 things and know how to read a map based on latitude and longitude since a major portion of the test has to do with map reading to determine airspace and find airports/towers etc.

 

[Buk]

Look at the pool of 200-300 questions that makes up the 60 on the test, only 42 of which you must answer correctly. How many were about "business". One question was about accepting tickets to a football game. Accepting tickets (a gain) makes this a 107 activity.

So in my scenario, the person does what they have done for years for fun, but gives the photos to a local government entity.

There is no "football tickets", there is no 107 activity.

The 107 test is primarily, mainly, mostly, nearly entirely about safety, insuring you fly safely, insuring you can read charts and stay the heck away from airports.

In my opinion, the FAA should not give a hoot if I give my photos to anyone. Their test reenforces my opinion.

 

[sar104]

Look at the pool of 200-300 questions that makes up the 60 on the test, only 42 of which you must answer correctly. How many were about "business". One question was about accepting tickets to a football game. Accepting tickets (a gain) makes this a 107 activity.

So in my scenario, the person does what they have done for years for fun, but gives the photos to a local government entity.

There is no "football tickets", there is no 107 activity.

The 107 test is primarily, mainly, mostly, nearly entirely about safety, insuring you fly safely, insuring you can read charts and stay the heck away from airports.

In my opinion, the FAA should not give a hoot if I give my photos to anyone. Their test reenforces my opinion.

That's a perfectly reasonable idea, but not how the law stands at present. And the law in question is not defined by the test questions - it's defined in Public Law 112-95 Section 336 and codified in 14 CFR Part 101, both of which make it clear that the criterion is not that the flight is not for gain, but rather that it is purely recreational.

So if you fly for fun and subsequently give away (or even sell) your photos, whether to individuals, businesses or government then, technically, that is within the law. But there had better be no evidence that the intent of the flight was other than recreational if you get reported to the FAA or otherwise come to their attention.

 

[Buk]

Interesting discussion. Thanks folks.

 

[ribjig]

Dropbox - williams-afs-80 - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf

...if you fly for fun and subsequently give away (or even sell) your photos, whether to individuals, businesses or government then, technically, that is within the law.

Thanks for FAA memo!
Its dated May 2015. Is it still current???
Has it been replaced by later memo on
that specific subject?

What's interesting is that "for fun" seems
to be defined by # of times images later sell???!!
Its easy for anyone to say, "I fly for fun."
I still question our First Amendment Freedom
of Press being trumped by FAA defining selling
to press as "commercial endeavor"...
If any dronist decides to challenge this in
court I hope many of us will donate a dollar or
two each to their legal costs via FundMe or similar!!!

Yes this discussion became much more interesting
AFTER surviving earlier less educated "just bite the
bullet, take the 107 test" bullying...

 

[sar104]

Thanks for FAA memo!
Its dated May 2015. Is it still current???
Has it been replaced by later memo on
that specific subject?

What's interesting is that "for fun" seems
to be defined by # of times images later sell???!!
Its easy for anyone to say, "I fly for fun."
I still question our First Amendment Freedom
of Press being trumped by FAA defining selling
to press as "commercial endeavor"...
If any dronist decides to challenge this in
court I hope many of us will donate a dollar or
two each to their legal costs via FundMe or similar!!!

Yes this discussion became much more interesting
AFTER surviving earlier less educated "just bite the
bullet, take the 107 test" bullying...

The memo has not been superseded, and so presumably still stands. It predates Part 107, but not Section 336.

 

[BigAl07]

Yes this discussion became much more interesting
AFTER surviving earlier less educated "just bite the
bullet, take the 107 test" bullying...

You have a lot to learn young grass hoppa . . .

 

[dangerd]

The memo has not been superseded, and so presumably still stands. It predates Part 107, but not Section 336.

It is a very interesting memo Sar104. It seems to be concerning "for news gathering", so I'm not sure that you could use that memo to sell for other reasons but it is a bit ambiguous, and of course the buyer would also have to come to you unsolicited, it also says

"Evidence that may indicate an individual's true intentions in conducting an operation may include the frequency with which pictures,videos,or other information collected using an unmanned aircraft is later resold."

So it would be inadvisable to sell content on a regular basis. A one off would probably pass the test if it were to a news outlet.

I can not speak as to if this memo would still be valid after part 107 was issued though. I would still think that if you believe that you are going to sell shots it would be smart to pass the 107 first.
If this memo is still valid though then you would be correct and it would be legal to sell in certain situations.

Definitely a good find. Thanks for the link!

 

[GadgetGuy]

It is a very interesting memo Sar104. It seems to be concerning "for news gathering", so I'm not sure that you could use that memo to sell for other reasons but it is a bit ambiguous, and of course the buyer would also have to come to you unsolicited, it also says

"Evidence that may indicate an individual's true intentions in conducting an operation may include the frequency with which pictures,videos,or other information collected using an unmanned aircraft is later resold."

So it would be inadvisable to sell content on a regular basis. A one off would probably pass the test if it were to a news outlet.

I can not speak as to if this memo would still be valid after part 107 was issued though. I would still think that if you believe that you are going to sell shots it would be smart to pass the 107 first.
If this memo is still valid though then you would be correct and it would be legal to sell in certain situations.

Definitely a good find. Thanks for the link!

Where does it say that the buyer has to be unsolicited? It is not the act of solicitation, but the intent at the time of the flight where the images were taken that controls. You can solicit all you want later, and actively sell, without a 107, as long as your intent at the time of the flight was purely recreational. Best to use this after you have stopped flying recreationally, as after you have sold one and keep flying recreationally thereafter, and repeatedly soliciting the sale of more recently shot recreational images, your true intentions will be questioned. The totality of the circumstances have to be evaluated to establish your true intentions. However, this discussion is purely academic, since we all know finding a buyer willing to pay for any drone images shot on spec, whether recreationally, or for business with a 107, is a pipe dream! The real business comes from finding someone to pay for your services in advance, and that always requires a 107, and some real marketing talent!

 

[dangerd]

It does not explicitly say the buyer has to be unsolicited, I am just saying that if buyers were to state that you came to them, with frequency, that would tend to point to intent in the eyes of the FAA.
This memo seems like a fair way for someone to provide a news agency with information without getting in trouble with the FAA, if they happened upon a newsworthy event as they were flying for recreation.

 

[dangerd]

This whole discussion reminds me of this thread https://phantompilots.com/threads/photos-of-violations.115331/
It is ambiguous but in the end if you go looking for where the news is at, this could be construed as intent, even if you just happened to be at 3 or 4 newsworthy events (in which case you had NO intent).
I believe that was the consensus at the end of that discussion and most agreed the flights would be looked at as civil.
As you said though Gadget Guy,purely academic!

 

[Bazza.]

I find this thread interesting, you guy’s in the USA seem to have it a bit easier than the UK. What are your full set up costs?

Over here the tests are carried out through a number of CAA approved contractors who all require you to do a course at a cost of about £1,000 or so then it’s an operators manual (H&S) registration fee an annual renewal and insurance so to get air bourne professionally can cost £1,500 or so plus £500.00 a year in fees and insurances.

The only saving grace I had was as a PPL Pilot I was spared the course as I already have air law etc. Still a high cost for a flight competence test though..

 

[BigAl07]

I find this thread interesting, you guy’s in the USA seem to have it a bit easier than the UK. What are your full set up costs?

Over here the tests are carried out through a number of CAA approved contractors who all require you to do a course at a cost of about £1,000 or so then it’s an operators manual (H&S) registration fee an annual renewal and insurance so to get air bourne professionally can cost £1,500 or so plus £500.00 a year in fees and insurances.

The only saving grace I had was as a PPL Pilot I was spared the course as I already have air law etc. Still a high cost for a flight competence test though..

If you aren't already a current Part 61 Pilot then you have to study on your own (you can purchase a course which I do suggest) and take the test at an FAA authorized testing center for $150. That's really it. The test has zero "hands on" training what so ever. It's almost comical when you think about it.

 

[68charger440]

You have a lot to learn young grass hoppa . . .

In other words,if you don't see it my way then your indoctrination is not yet complete!
Perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror aided by the constitution, the Bill of Rights and more importantly the supporting correspondence of the founding fathers Who drafted these documents.
Those documents will show the true intend of the founding fathers and should be referenced to see who truely has a lot to learn.

 

[sar104]

It is a very interesting memo Sar104. It seems to be concerning "for news gathering", so I'm not sure that you could use that memo to sell for other reasons but it is a bit ambiguous, and of course the buyer would also have to come to you unsolicited, it also says

"Evidence that may indicate an individual's true intentions in conducting an operation may include the frequency with which pictures,videos,or other information collected using an unmanned aircraft is later resold."

So it would be inadvisable to sell content on a regular basis. A one off would probably pass the test if it were to a news outlet.

I can not speak as to if this memo would still be valid after part 107 was issued though. I would still think that if you believe that you are going to sell shots it would be smart to pass the 107 first.
If this memo is still valid though then you would be correct and it would be legal to sell in certain situations.

Definitely a good find. Thanks for the link!

As I pointed out in another post above, the memo refers to Section 336, which is the legal basis for Part 101, which in turn is the regulation that applies to recreational flights. If you satisfy the criteria of Section 336 then you are flying under Part 101. Part 107 is only relevent if you don't meet the criteria of Section 336. Questioning if the memo applies is equivalent to questioning if Section 336 applies.

The memo was issued in response to the question of news gathering, but the response is clearly more general:

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. If the 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.
​

That statement is completely unambiguous.

 

[BigAl07]

In other words,if you don't see it my way then your indoctrination is not yet complete!
Perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror aided by the constitution, the Bill of Rights and more importantly the supporting correspondence of the founding fathers Who drafted these documents.
Those documents will show the true intend of the founding fathers and should be referenced to see who truely has a lot to learn.

You really have that much free time on your hands? Couldn't you have used it to provide some input to help as opposed to sitting on your perch preaching?

I can 100% assure you that any advice I give is backed by law, decades of experience, and most of all if followed will NOT require you to need an attorney or bail $$. I've been "Doing this" longer than some of our members have been sucking air and I've been in the FAA realm (as a paying participant) for almost all of my adult life.

So please enlighten me as to what you would suggest a hobbyist flying to make money should handle this moving forward. I'd hate to think I've been doing something wrong all these years now.

You can leave your indoctrination garbage at the door. That's not going to fly here and adds nothing to the OP's request what so ever.