What, exactly, is meant by the term "commercial use" of a UAV?  Does it mean that the PIC/Operator was compensated for the photos/videos taken? Or does it mean that the photos/videos taken were used for commercial purposes?

For instance...which, if any, of these scenarios constitute a "commercial use" sufficient to cause Section 333 to become relevant?

1) Private homeowner owns a drone; takes shots of his own house; provides these photos to his realtor who uses them in the real estate ads/flyers.
2) Real Estate Agent owns a drone; personally uses drone to take photos of properties; places these photos in real estate ads and flyers. Charges no additional fee over and above standard commission.
3) Real Estate Agent's husband owns a drone; personally uses drone to take photos of properties; supplies these photos to Spouse/Real Estate Agent who then uses photos in real estate ads and flyers. Agent charges no additional fee over and above standard commission.
4) Drone owner is asked by a friend to shoot photos of an event; no compensation is given to drone owner/operator; event organizers later use shots in advertisements.

Any insights appreciated here.

This is not a cut-and-dry area, and the topic is being hotly debated across the country daily.


Even the FAA has run rings around their own logic recently, claiming the "intent" of a photographer makes a difference as to whether it's a commercial use or not. In other words, if you, as a hobbyist, capture something newsworthy while you were flying recreationally, you could sell it to a news outlet and receive compensation. However, if you go to the newsworthy event expressly for the purpose of taking and selling images and/or video, you cannot be paid. Make sense? Absolutely not.

This begs the question what happens if someone like me stumbles upon a newsworthy event while flying for fun? Can I sell what I obtain? Nope, because it can be (and has been) argued that because of my affiliation with a national news wire, I am ALWAYS shooting commercially (or editorially, which in this case, is the same thing, since I also get paid for editorial images), even when I'm not. Goofy? You bet.

All examples are technically commercial use since the photos/videos are used to make money (even if indirectly being used). The FAA would probably let #1 and #4 slide since it's a one-time thing. If you are doing these things and have any doubts, your best bet would be to contact the FAA.

---

www.PhantomHelp.com
Find the latest must-haves, fixes, mods, how-tos, guides, and accessories for your Phantom.
Phantoms in stock and ready to ship worldwide! (see availability)

I know of someone using their quads for pics/videos. what they said they do is charge the customer for the sd card so thats one loop hole.

Akaemit02, unfortunately, there are no loopholes. If there were, then nobody would need an exemption.

---

www.PhantomHelp.com
Find the latest must-haves, fixes, mods, how-tos, guides, and accessories for your Phantom.
Phantoms in stock and ready to ship worldwide! (see availability)

Phantom Help Posted at 2015-7-14 04:33
All examples are technically commercial use since the photos/videos are used to make money (even if  ...

Re:  "All examples are technically commercial use since the photos/videos are used to make money (even if indirectly being used)."

Is there an actual case or case law that you are going by or that you can cite that specifically says that?  Because if something is written that broadly it is meaningless.  An interpretation that broad would mean that any video posted to a DJI Forum becomes "commercial" in that, while the photographer was not compensated, DJI's forum is an ancillary operation to its overall business. Facebook uses the content provided by uncompensated members to sell ads on the margins of Facebook pages.  Wouldn't that, too, be considered "commercial" use under such a broad definition?

dgheck Posted at 2015-7-15 05:39
Re:  "All examples are technically commercial use since the photos/videos are used to make money ( ...

There is no actual case or case law. The FAA has not sued anyone yet. If you have deep pockets though, then feel free to try your loopholes. I'm not sure why you'd want to tempt fate though.

---

www.PhantomHelp.com
Find the latest must-haves, fixes, mods, how-tos, guides, and accessories for your Phantom.
Phantoms in stock and ready to ship worldwide! (see availability)

Phantom Help Posted at 2015-7-15 23:07
There is no actual case or case law. The FAA has not sued anyone yet. If you have deep pockets tho ...

Actually, the FAA has sued someone - and won, kinda'.  Google "Raphael Pirker".

spiderbot.sb Posted at 2015-7-16 02:50
Actually, the FAA has sued someone - and won, kinda'.  Google "Raphael Pirker".

Like I said, the FAA has not sued anyone for the commercial use without an exemption

Why debate though? It's a well known fact that you need an exemption. You either fly legally or illegally. It's up to you.

---

www.PhantomHelp.com
Find the latest must-haves, fixes, mods, how-tos, guides, and accessories for your Phantom.
Phantoms in stock and ready to ship worldwide! (see availability)

spiderbot.sb Posted at 2015-7-16 02:50
Actually, the FAA has sued someone - and won, kinda'.  Google "Raphael Pirker".

They actually fined him for flying his drone over people and putting them at risk. Not for flying commercially.  Problem is the FAA doesn't have a regulation or law governing done use for commercial purposes only a policy.

It would seem to me that "commercial use" means (or should mean) that the owner/operator/pilot in command received compensation* for the flight.  Otherwise, a professional photographer would not be able to place a video or a still that he neither sold nor received compensation for on his business website or his Facebook page without it being considered a "commercial" use.

It just does not seem logical that "commercial use" is determined by where the photograph ends up being published rather than a flow of money towards the pilot/owner of the craft.

My wife is a Realtor.  What I am thinking about doing is, with the property owner's permission, shooting video and stills of real estate and then placing them on, say, SmugMug or YouTube (or somewhere) and declaring it in "public domain" where anyone can download it and use it. She (my Realtor wife) can then go to the public site and download the material and use it in her marketing.

I would receive no compensation. My Realtor wife would not charge or receive anything over and above the standard and established agent's commission. And anyone that wanted to use the footage could also do so for whatever reason with no compensation coming to me.

What, specifically, is there in the written law that would cause that to be considered a "commercial use" by me or the craft?

And just to rant a little bit.....it is unfathomable that for me to use a UAV to get a video clip of flying two feet over a swimming pool towards a house, or to dolly across a garden (or front door) at 2 or 12 feet and then use it in an ad (or in this case just GIVE it to someone else who would) requires me to get myself or find someone with a "transport, commercial, private, sport, or recreational" license.


* Note: And I don't mean this in the sense that "I'll just get paid in cash and nobody will ever know". I mean, literally, that, I, as the owner/operator would actually receive no compensation.  And there are already laws on the books for concealing earned income and they are not the purview of the FAA.

Phantom Help Posted at 2015-7-16 03:01
Like I said, the FAA has not sued anyone for the commercial use without an exemption

Why debate ...

No, they sued him.  They only kinda' won, though, because they settled.  On the other hand, they got a judge to state for the record some part of their legal assertion.

No one has as yet given us the complete terms for 'legal'.

dgheck Posted at 2015-7-16 21:36
It would seem to me that "commercial use" means (or should mean) that the owner/operator/pilot in co ...

I think the rules include, 'furtherance of a business" in the definition of 'commercial'.

spiderbot.sb Posted at 2015-7-16 23:43
No, they sued him.  They only kinda' won, though, because they settled.  On the other hand, they g ...

Right -- he was sued and he settled. The settlement had nothing to do with commercial use of a drone though.

---

www.PhantomHelp.com
Find the latest must-haves, fixes, mods, how-tos, guides, and accessories for your Phantom.
Phantoms in stock and ready to ship worldwide! (see availability)

Phantom Help Posted at 2015-7-16 03:01
Like I said, the FAA has not sued anyone for the commercial use without an exemption

Why debate ...

Anyone can apply for the 333 exemption and probably get it.  The issue is that even if you get the 333 exemption, you still have to be a licensed pilot to fly the drone commercially. A lot of people are thinking that if they get the 333 that will automatically make them "legal" which is not the case.

I'd apply for one immediately....but I haven't seen one yet where the PIC wasn't required to have a "transport, commercial, private, sport, or recreational" license.

Has anyone else?

dgheck Posted at 2015-7-17 23:48
I'd apply for one immediately....but I haven't seen one yet where the PIC wasn't required to have a  ...

Nobody has been exempted from that US law yet. The FAA is allowed to exempt people if they find it's in the public interest. But, they won't do it.

---

www.PhantomHelp.com
Find the latest must-haves, fixes, mods, how-tos, guides, and accessories for your Phantom.
Phantoms in stock and ready to ship worldwide! (see availability)

According to at least one lawyer, there is no enforcible law against commercial use of drones.  They can take you to court but not for commercial use.  Even local authorities cannot do anything except the usual privacy/ trespass punishments.

The Pirker case proves they are willing and able to hassle you, however.

http://www.provideocoalition.com/drone-law-update-faa

http://dronelawjournal.com/

In any case, fly at your own risk!

spiderbot.sb Posted at 2015-7-18 03:10
According to at least one lawyer, there is no enforcible law against commercial use of drones.  They ...

So, why would the FAA spend so much time creating the exemption process, reviewing/approving petitions for exemption, stalking YouTube for law breakers, etc.? I guess they are just doing it to pass time -- and, nobody should really bother with getting an exemption?

---

www.PhantomHelp.com
Find the latest must-haves, fixes, mods, how-tos, guides, and accessories for your Phantom.
Phantoms in stock and ready to ship worldwide! (see availability)

Phantom Help Posted at 2015-7-18 03:55
So, why would the FAA spend so much time creating the exemption process, reviewing/approving petit ...

I have seen mentioned many times in my research that the FAA is in it for the money and/or the 'big guys' are lobbying to keep the 'little guys' out.  Possible but less likely.

What's more likely is the FAA want to have all systems in place and tested before an actual law is put on the books.  Remember that they sued Pirker and lost originally but in the end got a judge to rule on some important wording.  These things are set up, step by step in the process of creating binding, enforcible law.

(Disclaimer: I've talked a lot about these issues on this forum.  While there is law experience in my family and friend base, I am not a lawyer.  Everything I've written is my opinion and is taken from my personal experience and should not be construed as factual.  FLY AT YOUR OWN RISK!  Thanks.)

spiderbot.sb, there are already systems and laws in place. That's why the exemption process exists. Some of the systems/rules/laws cannot be and/or do not need to be applied to SUAS, so the FAA must exempt people from them so they are able to comply with those systems/rules/laws.

Disclaimers are silly. Everyone here knows you are not attempting to represent us. Relax

---

www.PhantomHelp.com
Find the latest must-haves, fixes, mods, how-tos, guides, and accessories for your Phantom.
Phantoms in stock and ready to ship worldwide! (see availability)

Bottom line this for me...can someone buy a quad, take some aerial footage of a wedding or a residential home for a realtor and do it legally (for profit, lets not beat around the bush) or is the law so mushy it's a roll of the dice right now?  Not sure I see the point of taking courses through AMA or Fly Robotics when it doesn't seem the FAA and or our law makers have settled anywhere concrete on this issue.  Sure, maybe you can get an exemption, but does that mean you can collect profits for aerial footage?  Is it true you still need some type of license even with the exemption?  So it seems pointless to spend money on classes unless of course you are looking to become a more proficient operator which I am an advocate for. Not looking for a debate, I am merely a sponge looking for information.  Thank you.