zathis.sasktel Posted at 2015-1-30 11:14
It would depend on the laws in your area.  I know that you can make up to a certain amount of mone ...

The same with videos as long as you charge for editing, and do the video for free it is considered a hobby.

Gerry1124 Posted at 2015-1-30 11:17
The same with videos as long as you charge for editing, and do the video for free it is considered ...

Again, this is not true in the US. Please call the FAA and ask questions before you get yourself into trouble. They can certainly point you to the correct information.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-1-30 11:19
Again, this is not true in the US. Please call the FAA and ask questions before you get yourself i ...

I thought you were through?
I don't have to call anyone,  The owner talked in person to the FAA rep and the DA and they admitted they don't have a case because the bill he sent to the bank had " for editing of video"  They now know how the owner is operating the business and that he gets paid to EDIT the VIDEO, and he is considered a hobbyist and the letters "cease and desist" have stopped from the FAA.  It's a DONE DEAL.

Gerry1124 Posted at 2015-1-30 11:31
I thought you were through?
I don't have to call anyone,  The owner talked in person to the FAA re ...

Gerry1124, I thought you went to bed already. You even wished me a good night...

I'm not suggesting you call the FAA. YOU already think you know it all

There are a slew of articles and documents that the FAA posted online that show you cannot fly drones for any type of commercial purposes without an exemption. You've shown us nothing that says otherwise. And, the FAA is a much more reliable source than you. Especially since they are the ones that will be taking people to court as they please.

I'm simply trying to give people correct information. I don't necessarily agree with the FAA's viewpoint and/or decisions.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-1-30 11:38
Gerry1124, I thought you went to bed already. You even wished me a good night...

I'm not suggesti ...

I do know what the FAA said when them and the DA dropped the investigation.  That's ALL I need to know.  It came from the horses mouth, and as far as all your articles on the internet , I'm a French model!  

Please call the FAA and ask questions before you get yourself into trouble

You suggested I call the FAA.

Gerry1124, I did not suggest YOU should call the FAA. I simply replied to your comment and was suggesting anyone who wanted to shoot commercial photos should call the FAA if an explanation of what and what isn't commercial use is needed. My apologies -- I will be more specific next time so you're able to follow along too.

French model or not, you have no idea what you're talking about. I have talked to the FAA a few times on the phone myself about this topic. You are simply telling us things you saw on google. Like I said, let's not spread incorrect information.

Have a good night, sir.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-1-30 11:49
Gerry1124, I did not suggest YOU should call the FAA. I simply replied to your comment and was sugge ...

I was the owners camera man, him and I were both involved in the FAA fiasco, they could not charge us with anything after they saw the bill and what we charged for.  We talked first person with the FAA. we do not need to call anyone.  We got it straight from the horses mouth.  

Gerry1124, I thought we were done here?

I referenced an actual FAA document that says it's not legal. That's all we need to see. It's a done deal, sir.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-1-30 11:58
Gerry1124, I thought we were done here?

I referenced an actual FAA document that says it's not lega ...

Show me the document where it says we cannot "charge for editing" the video.

Gerry1124, there is no FAA document that includes that exact quote. The FAA does say you may only fly for recreational purposes though. If you are planning to use photos to make money, then that is no longer recreational use.

It's pretty clear. I'm not sure why you are having trouble grasping the concept of commercial use.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-1-30 12:06
Gerry1124, there is no FAA document that includes that exact quote. The FAA does say you may only fl ...

So you don't have one,  I thought so.  If you plan to make photos money, then that is no longer recreational use.  So you cannot publish a book with photos, the news media can no longer use photos to publish on the news because that makes money for the station.  
Flying for free is considered recreational.  The FAA does not consider editing video is commercial.   No quote, no proof.
Goodbye!

"The FAA does not consider editing video is commercial."

That's something you and I both agree on.

The problem isn't the editing the photos part. It's that the flight is for a commercial purpose. Like the farmer example in my linked document -- the farmer is not making money by flying over his crops, but he is going to later sell his crops. Same idea here. Someone cannot later use the photos to make money.

Sir, you're a little out of your league on this one. You should stick to topics you know more about.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-1-30 12:22
"The FAA does not consider editing video is commercial."

That's something you and I both agree on.

I've been in court and won, have you?  Been there and done that.
The news media is making money from every video and photo of a drone, where is the FAA on that?  We flew for recreation, not money, We edited for money.

You would make a poor lawyer in court.

Finished now, no need to respond any more, you lost your case.

Gerry1124 Posted at 2015-1-30 12:24
I've been in court and won, have you?  Been there and done that.

Court documents are public documents. Please post a link to your case so we can take a look.

Gerry1124 Posted at 2015-1-30 09:54
Tell that to the DA that tried to charge the owner with a crime for looking over the swamp.  They  ...

Gerry I'm not about to tell you that you are outright wrong (or right for that matter) as that is a statement that can not be made as yet because this has not been tested at trial. Such a statement would be somewhat foolish and big headed and I am neither. What I will say is I have a possible explanation of why the DA abandoned the prosecution.

We are all aware that these laws are both untested and somewhat flimsy in standing, merit and legality. It is very possible that the DA either was instructed by higher up the food chain or he himself came to the conclusion that while he believed he was correct there was a chance he may lose. This could be due to either the nature and standing of the new laws or even a feeling the the judge presiding was one who would find against the state in this case. If he fought it and lost there would then be the beginnings of precedence and that is the last thing the powers that be want. It may have been decided that he who live to run away lives to fight another day and it was best to wait until the law was both clarified and strengthened and/or the opportunity arose to test the laws in front of a judge he felt would be more inclined to side with the prosecution. This happens quite often, the prosecution will not fight a case on the basis of a new law unless they are 100% certain they will win and I am guessing that either the DA or his bosses felt that there was some doubt as to the outcome. If they had fought and lost the law may well have gone down in flames then and there.

trailtec.email Posted at 2015-1-30 16:57
Gerry I'm not about to tell you that you are outright wrong (or right for that matter) as that is  ...

Well, the one that was fined $1200 at the college was fined for "reckless endangerment" but was not charged for flying over the college and making money that carried a $10,000 fine.  The FAA doesn't have the teeth at this moment to make their memorandums stick. So they got him for flying over a group of people, endangering them if it would have come down.  When we were taken in, we abided by all the laws, we flew for free, we had a spotter and a camera operator and one other person to fly the Phantom.  There were no other people there but the three of us.  The FAA and the DA knew they didn't have a case when he submitted our bill for editing and not the flying and recording for profit as a commercial business.  Getting paid for editing a video is not against the law.  It was all discussed in the judges chamber and he agreed with our lawyer that we were not flying for hire and sent us on our merry way.  I have discussed this enough,  I was there, I know what was said and decided, no one else was there so it is all speculation on everybody else's part.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-1-30 09:37
Doing anything that involves flying a UAV in the air for profit is not legal without an exemption  ...

This is my point, you do not have to earn money directly from the flight for it to for business purposes. A farmer checking on crops or his fence lines if it's cattle he runs is conducting flights for business purposes.

This is the difference here, they have specified "business purposes" not "conducting commercial flights". If the law had specified the latter all would be rosy because for it to be a commercial flight it needs to generate direct income. A farmer checking crops is flying for business purposes but he is not conducting a commercial flight. Example: if he had a normal aircraft he could claim the cost of his plane and fuel as a business expense because the flight was conducted in the course of earning his income but he does not require a commercial pilot's licence because it was not a commercial flight. Likewise a photographer may use his aircraft to take aerial photos on a private licence as long as he has no paying passengers on board (ie: he is the photographer) and he is self employed.

Droneflyers: I'll address you without quoting since this crappy software won't allow more than one quote per post. This one is interesting, consider this; if I worked for a car magazine (or freelanced) and took delivery of a loan car for the express purpose of writing a review for which I would be paid and doing s is how I earn my living, am I using that car for a commercial purpose? Settling that one kept an eloquence of lawyers (yes, there is a collective noun for lawyers) in caviar and champagne for quite some time.  In Australia the answer was yes which allowed the vehicle maker to claim it as a business expense. I have not had the time to check how it was resolved in the US (inevitably it has been).

I was in the presence of several lawyers today (including one member of a US Bar Association) and put this matter to them over lunch. Their suggestion as to a litmus test was that if a reasonable person could surmise that the the UAV was a tool of trade or played an identifiable role in earning your income whilst in flight then it is being used for business purposes under this act. Once again this is just their opinion so take it as you may.


PS: In case someone thinks otherwise I am not a lawyer but I do have paralegal qualifications and have studied aspects of  law that cover my employment and vocations.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-1-30 10:07
Gerry1124, nobody cares what you believe -- they care about the law. Well, those who don't want to ...

You know, I'm new here and I'm trying very, very hard not to get involved in petty schoolyard infighting but do you really need to try so hard to be an ass? Apparently you are the final word and ultimate authority on everything drone. While I do not know you somehow I doubt that is true and even if it is a little bit of humility goes a long way brother. Try it some time.

Good discussion but perfect example of a question that cannot be answered.

The FAA is not allowed to just willy nilly "approve" or "disapprove" of anything....just like the officer on the beat can't tell you not to loiter if there are not loitering laws. If you ask him if you can sleep on the sidewalk, he will likely tell you not to do it - but in many places (here) it's not backed up by real law. You ARE allowed to sleep on the sidewalk, even if he says you should not. If someone else feels it's against the authorities, that's their business.

We are in the same position here. It's not allowed. But it's really not NOT allowed. If this were the case, all of those big hobby shows where they fly heli's, planes, etc. for PROFIT (they do make money...and even if non-profits, they are commercial) would be illegal. Outdoor demo's in Vegas (Parrot's done this) would be illegal. If DJI charged for pilot school....that might be illegal because there is no FAA exemption for flying commercially because you are teaching someone else.

In summary, it's as I said. Some people feel comfortable jaywalking and scalping tickets (illegal in many places). Some don't. I count myself as a "rule follower" in most cases. Not all, but most.  I've been offered $$ for taking aerial video.....I turned it down because I don't need the money and aggravation.....I take vids for "art" not for cash. But if I needed the cash, I'd probably jump at the lower profile jobs.

I wouldn't start a biz, though.

In many areas it's probably illegal to shovel snow for money without a business and trade license from the town. Just saying. I don't encourage law breaking, but when something is as muddy as that, I'll shovel snow for cash if my family needs the money!

droneflyers.com Posted at 2015-1-30 20:59
Good discussion but perfect example of a question that cannot be answered.

The FAA is not allowed t ...

this perfectly captures my sentiments.  very well said.  

trailtec.email Posted at 2015-1-30 17:34
You know, I'm new here and I'm trying very, very hard not to get involved in petty schoolyard infi ...

An ass? I'm simply stating facts here. People don't care about my opinions either. They care whether or not it's legal to charge for processing photos (in this example). If you're going to claim something is definitely legal, then you should have facts that can prove it. The FAA is still going to fine me even if I tell them a guy named Gerry on the Internet said it was okay.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-1-31 00:19
An ass? I'm simply stating facts here. People don't care about my opinions either. They care wheth ...

Actually, the FAA is NOT going to fine you....so you won't have to bring up anyone else.

I mean.....the FAA could fine you, the CIA could come detain you and the FBI may break down your door - but all those things are so highly unlikely that we could say they are not going to happen.

If I did take some aerial video for free - and then took some ground pics and video and edited it all and charges just for an editing or consulting fee, it would be impossible for the FAA to even ever know, let alone pick me for a case and fine.

On the other hand, the people who have big web sites and advertise and throw it in their face - well, maybe they have a 1/10th of 1% chances of being contacted and a 1/1000th of 1% chance of being fined.

As I said, I would never start a business...but I already have one! In fact, I am writing off stuff on my taxes for flying drones...that's very commercial. Proof positive. Can't be much more of a factual business than that.

No need for any of us to call names or argue. I think we should inform people to read up all the material and make their own decisions. If someone asked my advice, I'd say don't start a full-on commercial aerial video biz at this point. But if someone wanted to charge others for training them with drones and it was an information and small biz, I'd probably advise them to go ahead....and stay low on the radar.

droneflyers.com, and it's also extremely unlikely that you'll get a ticket if you speed in your car tomorrow. But, that does not make it legal. People who run reputable businesses should not speed around in their vehicles because it makes their businesses look bad. Nobody will care if you choose to speed around in your own personal vehicle though.

The OP is asking if this is legal. The answer is no.

I agree that most people will not get caught if they do this though. But, there are a ton of others laws you can break without getting caught too.

PhantomHelp Posted at 2015-2-1 07:48
droneflyers.com, and it's also extremely unlikely that you'll get a ticket if you speed in your car  ...

Again - you are confusing a LAW (speeding - which I do each and every day of my life and so do 90% of drivers around me) with a claim by an agency which DOES NOT MAKE LAWS.

If you want to talk law, let's quote what the judge said:

"Patrick Geraghty, the administrative law judge for the National Transportation Safety Board who decided on the appeal, said  “there was no enforceable FAA rule” on the type of model aircraft he used."

That's quite clear.

There is a hobby exemption - sure. But one thing has nothing to do with another. The exemption is an exemption and is what the FAA agrees is allowed. The other part is NOT SETTLED OR ADDRESSED AND IN DISPUTE - for you to claim that a FTSB judge is wrong and you are right seems a stretch.

As I mentioned before - I probably fall along the lines of a rule follower. I never cut in line, cheat, steal and my wife gets mad at me for being so passive about these things (I don't ever try to gain advantage for airline seats, etc. etc.).

At the same time - by your measure of speed limits and breaking laws - I break many laws, rules and guidelines on a daily basis.

If you don't - well, then, we have the next Ghandi among us. But this isn't about laws. The conversation is about unsettled matters and we agree that it's best to for US (me, you) to err on the side of caution.

Just for my interest, though - would you say I am breaking the law by making money from my drone flyings - which I take pictures and videos from and make money from publishing them in my book....etc. ?

That's a pretty simple question. Many of us make money by flying and reviewing drones. Are we breaking the law or is it only if we sell a picture? I don't see anything in the FAA guidelines about what you do commercially being of any difference.