Does posting your drone video on youtube when you have an "advertising" agreement with youtube, which could lead to income, constitute commercial operation of a drone?
Youtube and Commercial Flying
- Thread starter gkjunk757
- Start date
Yes.gkjunk757 said:
The FAA considers that any profit by anyone in as a result of the flight makes the flight commercial. A drone lawyer recently speculated that by strict interpretation of the FAA rules, if you post a video on your YouTube site and someone unknown to you posts it on a site with advertising, that your flight would be considered commercial.
But, the FAA can't even field the manpower to send Cease and Desist letters to the thousands of photographers who advertise aerial video or photos by drone. I wouldn't worry a bit.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 23
Sorry Steve, but I have to say no.
Although the FAA wants you to think that any profit, yours or someone elses makes it commercial, I believe the courts would not agree.
To be a commercial flight, money has to exchange between the pilot and customer.
When youtube slaps a commercial on your video, were you paid? No.
Was your customer paid? No.
The FAA also looks at the nature of the person's use of the craft to determine if it is commercial or not.
For instance, if ESPN owns the craft, then yeah, it is being used commercially.
If you own the craft and ESPN hires you to fly it, then yeah, it's commercial.
But just because a third party earned a profit on your work, doesn't make the filght commercial.
Peter Sachs says he once did a video with his bird just for the fun of it and offered it to the FAA for $1.
They didn't say a word.
I said he should have offered a $1,000.
Although the FAA wants you to think that any profit, yours or someone elses makes it commercial, I believe the courts would not agree.
To be a commercial flight, money has to exchange between the pilot and customer.
When youtube slaps a commercial on your video, were you paid? No.
Was your customer paid? No.
The FAA also looks at the nature of the person's use of the craft to determine if it is commercial or not.
For instance, if ESPN owns the craft, then yeah, it is being used commercially.
If you own the craft and ESPN hires you to fly it, then yeah, it's commercial.
But just because a third party earned a profit on your work, doesn't make the filght commercial.
Peter Sachs says he once did a video with his bird just for the fun of it and offered it to the FAA for $1.
They didn't say a word.
I said he should have offered a $1,000.
msinger
Approved Vendor
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 31,959
- Reaction score
- 10,786
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Website
- phantomhelp.com
This is definitely not true. A farmer is not allowed to fly a UAS over his field to check his crops -- and there is no money exchanged in this example either.Suwaneeguy said:
The OP is suggesting you would be paid though. I think that's how ads work on YouTube. It's a revenue share.Suwaneeguy said:
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 23
This is pure horsehockey from the FAA.
Yes a farmer is a commercial business, IF, he sells his crops.
But the FAA says he can't fly a drone over his own property? That's just the FAA meddling where they don't belong.
Loophole? What if the farmer has his neighbor fly the bird? He watches the monitor.
The neighbor does not own the property and he has permission to fly the craft.
This is kind of like the DOT trying to get farmers to be required to have CDL's just because the vehicles are being used in a commercial business. Even though none of the vehicles are licensed for the road.
The law is, under 400 feet, the FAA has NO authority. Period.
Or how about this? I have a ground based robot with a 50 foot pole on which I attach a camera.
I send the robot around to do the same thing.
What can the FAA do about it? Nothing.
Yes a farmer is a commercial business, IF, he sells his crops.
But the FAA says he can't fly a drone over his own property? That's just the FAA meddling where they don't belong.
Loophole? What if the farmer has his neighbor fly the bird? He watches the monitor.
The neighbor does not own the property and he has permission to fly the craft.
This is kind of like the DOT trying to get farmers to be required to have CDL's just because the vehicles are being used in a commercial business. Even though none of the vehicles are licensed for the road.
The law is, under 400 feet, the FAA has NO authority. Period.
Or how about this? I have a ground based robot with a 50 foot pole on which I attach a camera.
I send the robot around to do the same thing.
What can the FAA do about it? Nothing.
FAA staff are people from the aviation industry so they are doing this to protect jobs in the aviation industry.
There is no safety reason why you would ban commercial but not recreation use of drones.
There is no safety reason why you would ban commercial but not recreation use of drones.
Ok I'm kinda confused now, so if you're a farmer, and you fly over your own crops, even if it's private property, it's still considered commercial flying? If so, the FAA is getting ridiculous with some of these drone laws. Yes I can agree with the under 400' rule, don't fly over crowds, and other logical safety reasons, but preventing people from flying over their own fields, even if it's on private property is just stupid! Why is the FAA trying to dip their fingers into everything? Drone technology has sooo many good uses, and they're just constantly trying to make things hard for us. :x
msinger
Approved Vendor
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 31,959
- Reaction score
- 10,786
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Website
- phantomhelp.com
Correct. It's also commercial flying if I take photos of a house on private property so the owner can use them when selling it. The fact that it's public/private property makes no difference.kitari said:
msinger
Approved Vendor
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 31,959
- Reaction score
- 10,786
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Website
- phantomhelp.com
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
kitari said:
Meglomania? I don't know the clinical definition of "colossal overreach" but at the rate the FAA is going, throwing a baseball will soon require a pilot's license.
If I am a self sustaining farmer (growing my own crops to feed myself or my livestock, I can most certainly fly my own drone over my own property to check irrigation patterns, pest damage, etc.
If I am a commercial farmer who makes a living from the crops I produce, I cannot legally fly my drone over my business (crops).
However there have been ZERO cases brought against farmers for using a drone ("Where is the blood? Where is the Mayhem?").
I know first hand that vintners here in Washington state are using drones to help manage their vineyards and the FAA hasn't come knocking yet.
I haven't seen any blood or mayhem or jailed YouTube videographers yet, have any of you?
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/02/dear-mo ... rone-farm/
If I am a commercial farmer who makes a living from the crops I produce, I cannot legally fly my drone over my business (crops).
However there have been ZERO cases brought against farmers for using a drone ("Where is the blood? Where is the Mayhem?").
I know first hand that vintners here in Washington state are using drones to help manage their vineyards and the FAA hasn't come knocking yet.
I haven't seen any blood or mayhem or jailed YouTube videographers yet, have any of you?
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/02/dear-mo ... rone-farm/
msinger
Approved Vendor
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 31,959
- Reaction score
- 10,786
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Website
- phantomhelp.com
Nope. The FAA is not large enough to catch everyone. They have to pick and choose who they go after.GoodnNuff said:
ianwood said:
Well they already consider any "contrivance" that is manipulated by human means to fly through the air as meeting the legal definition of "aircraft".
So yes, in the FAA's beady little eyes, a baseball, rock, or wet snot tossed in the air is an "aircraft" and must be registered and hold a current airworthiness certificate.
Is the video advertising anything? If not, I can't see a problem.
Welcome to the forum!
Edit: There was only one reply when I posted! Wow! I guess it wasn't updated.
Welcome to the forum!
Edit: There was only one reply when I posted! Wow! I guess it wasn't updated.
MadMitch88 said:ianwood said:
Well they already consider any "contrivance" that is manipulated by human means to fly through the air as meeting the legal definition of "aircraft".
So yes, in the FAA's beady little eyes, a baseball, rock, or wet snot tossed in the air is an "aircraft" and must be registered and hold a current airworthiness certificate.
So kids shooting spit balls, in school, will have to get the spit balls registered and see if they qualify for an airworthiness certificate? The FAA has gone nuts!
I can't say with any authority that the FAA is not nuts.
However spit balls, baseballs, paper airplanes, kites, or tethered balloons are NOT considered aircraft by the FAA. I think most of us know this, but I see this repeated so often on this forum that I wonder if new members are taking this adage as fact.
Don't even know the purpose of this post, other than I'm just thinking out loud.
However spit balls, baseballs, paper airplanes, kites, or tethered balloons are NOT considered aircraft by the FAA. I think most of us know this, but I see this repeated so often on this forum that I wonder if new members are taking this adage as fact.
Don't even know the purpose of this post, other than I'm just thinking out loud.
