interesting. What is to prevent anyone from just claiming it was a hobby flight? We all have to go through these hoops now to legally fly commercially so obviously there are people out there who abuse the regs.
FAA definition of "Commercial"
- Thread starter KRProton
- Start date
Phaedrus
Well-Known Member
People can act illegally if they choose to do so. Nothing actually prevents illegal behavior. It is a huge problem in this industry. I have several realtor friends who do their own drone photography and don't care about being 107 certified. So far the FAA has shown sparse enthusiasm for enforcing their own rules.
You can fly under the hobby rules or 107. You can switch at will. You cannot combine both in the same flight. You would need to be flying under 107 for the entire flight to sell any photos.
Yeah I get that. My question was along the lines if a drone photo was shot during a hobby flight but a year later, someone wanted to use it commercially. Not a mid-flight change, but after the fact.
If you make money then you should be flying 107. Even after the fact. If you flew the flight as a hobby flight, you shouldn't sell it.
Is that your opinion or is that stated in the regulations? Because now Im getting conflicting answers if that is stated in the regs.
From what I read it stated that the flight type is determined at the time of the flight. It doesn't say anything about someone wanting a photo later on after the flight has been concluded. I would really appreciate your help in locating the wording in the regulations that states the rules on previous flights that were done for hobby purposes not being allowed to end up being used commercially at a later date.
Please keep in mind, I am not saying you are wrong, but I cant find the section that confirms your statement.
"original intent" is the key phrase.
If you want bulletproof answers called your local FSDO and watch the fun ensue...
I can say with a certain amount of confidence the following (I am a liaison with the FAA for our region):
Intent of the Flight is what matters. If, at the time of the flight, you were honestly flying as hobbyist and flying 100% within Hobby Reg etc that's all that matters. The FAA doesn't care what you do with the product later on. But if you take off as a hobbyist and then think. "Oh I'll zip over here and take some pics that I can send to Disney/Fox/Any Company to sell" then you are mixing regs and outside of the Hobby protection.
The FAA has even stated (many times in webinars etc) that a Hobbyist can later sell an image/video created during a HOBBY flight. It's possible you or someone else can see a VALUE in something you snapped during a hobby flight and you're welcome to sell it. If it becomes a trend/pattern you might then get a phone call or visit from someone from the FAA.
Here's another example:
You're flying over your home town and you see something "Interesting" while you're flying. Let's say you snap some pics and even snag some video of it. Later you realize, "This is a significant event". You're more than welcome to share/sell your footage because at the time of the flight you were operating strictly as a hobbyist and flying 100% within the hobby regs.
One key point to note... Part 107/Civil Operation is the DEFAULT for every sUAS flight. Every signle sUAS operator in the US is "technically" Part 107 unless they are flying under a Public Use COA, Military COA, or operating within the PROTECTION of Hobby/Recreational bubble. If any portion of your flight punctures the protective bubble of Hobby/Recreation then you are not protected and held responsible for all Part 107 regulations (regardless if you know what they are or if you have Part 107 or not).
That's probably way more than you wanted to know but it's fact and you can take it to the bank. I actually have it in wring from our Legal Dept with the FAA.
It's call integrity and a person's own Moral Compass. Unfortunately both of those seem to be less and less common these days.
Intent of the Flight is what matters. If, at the time of the flight, you were honestly flying as hobbyist and flying 100% within Hobby Reg etc that's all that matters. The FAA doesn't care what you do with the product later on. But if you take off as a hobbyist and then think. "Oh I'll zip over here and take some pics that I can send to Disney/Fox/Any Company to sell" then you are mixing regs and outside of the Hobby protection.
The FAA has even stated (many times in webinars etc) that a Hobbyist can later sell an image/video created during a HOBBY flight. It's possible you or someone else can see a VALUE in something you snapped during a hobby flight and you're welcome to sell it. If it becomes a trend/pattern you might then get a phone call or visit from someone from the FAA.
Here's another example:
You're flying over your home town and you see something "Interesting" while you're flying. Let's say you snap some pics and even snag some video of it. Later you realize, "This is a significant event". You're more than welcome to share/sell your footage because at the time of the flight you were operating strictly as a hobbyist and flying 100% within the hobby regs.
One key point to note... Part 107/Civil Operation is the DEFAULT for every sUAS flight. Every signle sUAS operator in the US is "technically" Part 107 unless they are flying under a Public Use COA, Military COA, or operating within the PROTECTION of Hobby/Recreational bubble. If any portion of your flight punctures the protective bubble of Hobby/Recreation then you are not protected and held responsible for all Part 107 regulations (regardless if you know what they are or if you have Part 107 or not).
That's probably way more than you wanted to know but it's fact and you can take it to the bank. I actually have it in wring from our Legal Dept with the FAA.
It's call integrity and a person's own Moral Compass. Unfortunately both of those seem to be less and less common these days.
PhantomFandom
Active Member
Nothing prevents you from doing that, and intent is something that is hard to prove since we can't read someone's mind. However, I think a case can be made for intent depending on that pilot's history and pattern of behavior. If a pilot flies a lot and some time later ends up selling a few pictures then one can say it is reasonable that the original intent was not to sell those pictures.
If however that same pilot is routinely selling dozens or hundreds of pictures that he says he had no intent to sell then I think we see a pattern and can infer that he is only trying to get around the regulations.
If a (non Part 107) real estate agent takes pictures of homes and posts them in their MLS listings then the intent is clear even if the pilot says he did not intend to use the pictures for that purpose.
We need to look at the whole picture and try to make reasonable informed decisions.
My whole issue goes back to why these pilots spend time trying to get around the regulations rather than just getting their Part 107 license. It's not that difficult! I guess part of it is that it's really not enforced and the FAA does not seem to have any incentive to do so.
kloogee
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2019
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 10
- Age
- 54
Here are the specifics you are looking for:
Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft
This action provides notice of the statutory exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. It also describes the agency's incremental implementation approach for the exception and how individuals can operate recreational unmanned aircraft (commonly referred to as drones)...
www.federalregister.gov
See Section I of the document, it states:
"Operators of small unmanned aircraft (also referred to as drones) for recreational purposes must follow the rules in 14 CFR part 107 for FAA certification and operating authority unless they follow the conditions of the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft, discussed in this notice. The FAA refers to individuals operating under that statutory exception as 'recreational flyers.' "
Then in Section II, it goes on to list the 8 statutory conditions that have to be met in order to fly under the recreation exemption.
Item number 1 in that section states:
"1. The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.
Your unmanned aircraft must be flown for only a recreational purpose throughout the duration of the operation. You may not combine recreational and commercial purposes in a single operation. If you are using the unmanned aircraft for a commercial or business purpose, the operation must be conducted under 14 CFR part 107 or other applicable FAA regulations."
Note that the statutes don't talk about images in any way. The FAA is not in the business of regulating images. They are in the business of regulating flights. So if you are flying strictly for fun (i.e. recreational purposes), you can fly under the recreational exception. For any other reason, you need to fly under the conditions of the 107 regulations.
Here are the specifics you are looking for:
Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft
This action provides notice of the statutory exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. It also describes the agency's incremental implementation approach for the exception and how individuals can operate recreational unmanned aircraft (commonly referred to as drones)...
See Section I of the document, it states:
Then in Section II, it goes on to list the 8 statutory conditions that have to be met in order to fly under the recreation exemption.
Item number 1 in that section states:
"1. The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.Your unmanned aircraft must be flown for only a recreational purpose throughout the duration of the operation. You may not combine recreational and commercial purposes in a single operation. If you are using the unmanned aircraft for a commercial or business purpose, the operation must be conducted under 14 CFR part 107 or other applicable FAA regulations."
Note that the statutes don't talk about images in any way. The FAA is not in the business of regulating images. They are in the business of regulating flights. So if you are flying strictly for fun (i.e. recreational purposes), you can fly under the recreational exception. For any other reason, you need to fly under the conditions of the 107 regulations.
Hello everyone. I would like to share what John from the FAA drone zone told me. He said that your intention determines what type of flight (rec vs 107) you have. Obviously, if you're getting paid, it's 107. He also told me that if your intent is to take photos and videos FOR ANY REASON-EVEN FOR YOUR OWN PRIVATE USE, your flight will be 107. If you post photos or videos to a social media where a large audience will see them, you're a 107. He told me, "If you fly ANY drone with a camera attached to it, that shows the FAA your intent is to take photos and videos and you would be flying commercially". It doesn't matter if you give the photos or video to someone for free, it's a commercial flight. What makes me upset is that these "rules" for flying a drone are all open to individual interpretation. And the person at the FAA doing the interpretation has the authority to make or break you. It's not right. There needs to be exact wording that leaves no room for interpretation. It's like flying over people. The FAA study guide for the 107 exam clearly defines flying over people as "hovering or flying DIRECTLY over a human being". But the FAA rep I spoke with interpreted the definition as "flying over any open area where people are located or COULD BE LOCATED". It could be one person or 10 people. That defines "flying over people". Open air events fall under this category. So, theoretically, I can fly my drone within' 5 feet of a building at 350' AGL, but if a person on the ground happens to be walking on the sidewalk and walks under my drone, I'm in violation?? A drone that is flying randomly at 50-400'' AGL over a water park or field with random folks going about their day on the ground is way different than if a drone is hovering at 4 ft over a person's head at 90 degrees, which is obviously a safety hazard. In addition, the drone zone website specifically states for hobbyists "to follow the safety guidelines of a community based organization" AKA the AMA. In the AMA safety regs, it clearly states, "don't fly WITHIN 25 FEET of people, vehicles, or structures". My understanding of that guideline is for HOBBYISTS to stay at least 25' away in all directions, INCLUDING VERTICALLY, of people, places, and things, thus THEORETICALLY AND UNOFFICIALLY creating a minimum altitude rule of 25' AGL.
To fix this, I think the wording of the rules should change to read "Operators of small unmanned aircraft (also referred to as drones) for COMMERCIAL purposes must follow the rules as stated in Chapter 14, CFR, part 107 for FAA certification and operating authority EXCEPT or UNLESS they are flying under the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft, part 101, they should follow Chapter 14, CFR, part 101. Take out the reference to the "community based organizations". The FAA doesn't consider a drone a model aircraft, anyways. So why refer to their guidelines?? The definition of commercial should be clearly stated as "flying for compensation from any business or company, flying for hire, flying in furtherance of a business regardless if the business is non profit or for profit, and flying to entertain an audience of people i.e. "subscribers" or "followers" on social media, other than the pilot (referencing posting videos and photos to youtube, etc.) The limitations for hobbyists need to be clearly stated so inexperienced people such as myself can understand them. Commercial folks can learn their rules and hobbyists learn their rules. I am all for flying safely. But lets also use common sense. Rec. users shouldn't have to worry about flying in controlled vs uncontrolled air space. It's stupid that I have to get FAA authorization to fly my drone in my back yard because my house sits in class E2 air space. If a drone can't legally go above 400' AGL anyways, that limits them to class G air, unless they're at an airport. And some airports are class G anyways. If an airplane is flying at 50' AGL, they're probably crashing or landing on the runway. Limit hobbyists to class G air only and no airports. However, since LAANC is available to hobbyists now, hobbyists think they have a hall pass to fly unsafely. To combat this, I think that remote ID and geo fencing are good tools for enforcement and should be a requirement on ALL DRONES and not bypassable or unlockable until you can input a part 107 license number and/or ATC authorization code into your drone and controller to prove you are licensed.
Last edited:
PhantomFandom
Active Member
I am not in the FAA and did not make the regulations BUT I do believe this statement is totally FALSE. With that reasoning, basically anyone who flies a DJI drone needs to be Part 107 licensed. If you take pictures/video and the intent was to use those only for your enjoyment then it is a recreational/hobbyist flight.
Here it gets a bit more into a gray area, but again if the pictures are posted to a site that is not used for furtherance of a business endeavor then the case could be made that it is still recreational. If you post them to your own YouTube channel in an effort to pick up subscribers or increase advertising revenue then YES that is a commercial endeavor. The same could be said if you post to a social media to pick up followers. You have an intent there to gain an advantage with your photos.
Again obviously open to interpretation but this seems incorrect. You cannot fly over people. That means if any part of your drone is over any part of a person, you are in violation. This is for safety reasons so that if your drone fails and falls to the ground, it will not hot someone.
If you add in the words "could be located" then we won't be able to fly anywhere near civilization and that is just not right. If I am flying my drone in the middle of the Bonneville salt flats without a person around for literally miles, I am flying very safely. However conceptually people COULD BE LOCATED there since it is open to the public. I see the intent of those words but it makes no sense, and the words are NOT in the regulations. An inspector can't just make stuff up and enforce rules that are not actually regulations.
In my view, people are giving you very bad information and guidance. Read the regulations and abide by them. Even if an overzealous FAA agent tries to enforce more strict rules, they would not hold up in court. Use common sense too. Whenever flying, always think about the possible consequences and danger if the drone were to fail and come plummeting down.
""If you fly ANY drone with a camera attached to it, that shows the FAA your intent is to take photos and videos and you would be flying commercially". That has to be the most ignorant statement ever made by an FAA employee....and I began dealing with the FAA since 1969.
I’m not making this up. I flew recreationally for an outdoor event and some 107 guy complained on me because I flew over people, but my drone never was directly over a person. He told me “open air events” fall under the over people rule. But there’s nothing in writing about “open air events”. Just stadiums full of people and pro sports venues. There needs to be more consistent educating from the FAA.
Welcome to the forum Matt.
I can understand how it gets confusing at times but I can tell you without a doubt that some of the things you've posted are incorrect. It might be a difference in understanding etc but some of it is outright wrong.I am an FAA liaison (Charlotte NC region) and can speak with a good amount of certainty on this topic. While anyone with the FAA can make mistakes and say something that doesn't make sense so always keep that in mind.
While a Drone/sUAS could be any number of different aircraft (R/C plane, R/C Heli, MultiRotor, Model Aircraft etc) you have to understand that a Model Aircraft IS a Drone/sUAS. Drone/aUAS is all encompassing.
One thing I do agree with you.. Recreational Operators shouldn't need to worry with getting LAANC etc for flying in Controlled Airspace. They should be excluded from it until such time they are required to learn how to read and understand the FAA Sectional Charts. I have zero sympathy for not being able to fly for Kicks & Grins in Controlled Airspace.
Sincerely,
Allen
I can understand how it gets confusing at times but I can tell you without a doubt that some of the things you've posted are incorrect. It might be a difference in understanding etc but some of it is outright wrong.I am an FAA liaison (Charlotte NC region) and can speak with a good amount of certainty on this topic. While anyone with the FAA can make mistakes and say something that doesn't make sense so always keep that in mind.
- A) Yes intent is ALWAYS what determines which set of rules you fly under. This has always been the case so that part is accurate. Anything that is NOT 100% for your own personal enjoyment requires Part 107. You have 2 options in the US (excluding Govt and Public Use):
- 1) Part 107- by default we are all Part 107 (also known as Civil Operators).
- 2) If your flight falls completely within the Hobby/Recreational guidelines you have "protection" from Part 107 and you're operating under a protective bubble. If any part of your flight falls outside of this protective bubble the entire flight is by default Part 107 even if you don't have your Part 107 certificate. It's like being in a submarine under water. If any portion of the submarine exterior fails everything inside is now WET regardless of what your intentions were.
- B) Any drone with a camera attached has nothing to do with Commercial vs Hobby. Something is askew in that translation. There is ZERO logic in that statement.
- C) Merely posting a video on YT for others to enjoy does NOT constitute Non-Hobby. Some people put every waking moment of their lives on YT and it's pure hobby. This has been clarified by the FAA on several occasions.
- D) On the flip side if you have a business YT channel and you're posting to it that would be hard to say it's a hobby venture.
- E) The wording in some instances can be improved but it's not as complicated as you feel like it is. It just takes some time and being deeply involved to understand. Once you get a feel for it, it gets a lot easier.. usually.
- F) Flying over people is over people regardless if it's 1 or 1,000,000. If someone walks under your aircraft while you're flying you failed to prevent it. It's your responsiblity to either prevent someone from walking under your aircraft or not do the flight. Open Event or not you can't fly over people... To make matters worse for your interpretation... you could be flying and NOT actually over a person and still be in violation... Yep read that again. You could be flying around (not over people) keeping a fairly safe distance from people and have some type of mental or mechanical failure. If the trajectory of the aircraft takes it into a person or people you are again at fault. You are responsible for the aircraft and anything that happens to it from the moment it leaves terra firma until it touches back down again.
While a Drone/sUAS could be any number of different aircraft (R/C plane, R/C Heli, MultiRotor, Model Aircraft etc) you have to understand that a Model Aircraft IS a Drone/sUAS. Drone/aUAS is all encompassing.
One thing I do agree with you.. Recreational Operators shouldn't need to worry with getting LAANC etc for flying in Controlled Airspace. They should be excluded from it until such time they are required to learn how to read and understand the FAA Sectional Charts. I have zero sympathy for not being able to fly for Kicks & Grins in Controlled Airspace.
Sincerely,
Allen
Last edited:
O
Oh I believe you, some FAA dudes are way over their head on UAS issues. There are people on this forum who are much better informed than your typical FAA.
