A friend of mine is a realtor and asked if I could make an aerial movie of a house she is selling, my drone is registered but I don't have a pilot license. She will not pay me for the service as we are friends and I am not going to charge her. would that be against FAA rules?

Good question. Your not making any money, but she will if the listing sells??

That is correct. I am not making any money but she will have the potential to.

Maurice Marques Posted at 2016-12-29 11:43
That is correct. I am not making any money but she will have the potential to.

I think the answer might be you can't. Because of this I read on the FAA site "Flying for commercial use
(e.g. providing aerial surveying or photography services)
Flying incidental to a business (e.g. doing roof inspections or real estate photography)"
It's still "incidental to a business" making money or not. Like if your were a roofer doing an estimate, but did't get the bid. Does that mean you didn't need the Part 107 cert.

WilliamM Posted at 2016-12-29 11:50
I think the answer might be you can't. Because of this I read on the FAA site "Flying for commercial use
(e.g. providing aerial surveying or photography services)
Flying incidental to a business (e.g. doing roof inspections or real estate photography)"

WilliamM:

I've been considering these types of scenarios, and I think:

I say "gray area" at best. Business definition is money exchanged for services rendered. UAV pilot/owner garners no material profit. What's done with his footage doesn't benefit him.

Quad video of a faulty business roof, used by business's owner for repair estimate. Might require 107. Likely depending on whether the business owner was pilot. Maybe.

But certainly 107 required if roof contractor was pilot. Enhanced services spell higher profit. Gratis non.

Quad video of homeowner's home's roof, shot by home's owner/pilot, later supplied to contractor for repair estimate wouldn't require 107. Even if contractor requested video. Unless (maybe) contractor discounted his roof repair charges to roof owner, specifically because of the supplied footage.

When pilot isn't paid for flight services rendered, it's marginally open for contention. Gray area. In OP's case, no money was exchanged. And no apparent kickbacks.

I welcome more opinions (and examples) on this topic.

Help me see the errors of my weighs.

Keep Smiling,

Augustus

No that's technically illegal if any money even if not going to the pilot is made off the Drone flight it's considered commercial

There was a case I believe in Florida where a guy posted his drone video on YouTube Total recreational purposes but because you to put an ad on there someone made money and he got sued I don't remember the outcome though you have to Google it

In other words flying for hobby purposes is outside the area of a profession. Like I heard if we all Fly for Fun and make videos of vacation it's okay for hobby use but if you're a professional photographer and use it as a portfolio the same footage can be considered commercial so again bottom line is no one can be making money off the footage

Augustus Brian Posted at 2016-12-29 12:51
WilliamM:

I've been considering these types of scenarios, and I think:

"And no apparent kickbacks." Depends on the sales lady.

Steve-76 Posted at 2016-12-29 13:15
There was a case I believe in Florida where a guy posted his drone video on YouTube Total recreational purposes but because you to put an ad on there someone made money and he got sued I don't remember the outcome though you have to Google it

The FAA & Youtube story is often quoted but is not true.
The story comes from March 2015 when one FAA official overstepped his authority.
The FAA clarified the situation soon after.
Read all about it here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greg ... ideos/#14923699405b

If the Footage will be used for anything other then personal enjoyment the answer is that (legally) you will need you're 107.
Even if the homeowner shot the material and gave it to the roof contractor... Technically it still requires the homeowner to have a part 107 due to the fact the footage will be used in a business exchange.Saving the roof contractor the trouble of climbing a ladder to  access the damage is considered beneficial to his business .
The airspace over his roof and any aircraft in it... is still controlled by the FAA.

There is NO grey area here... You're drone is considered an aircraft according to the law.. and Congress has ruled that the FAA has authority of all airspace concerning the use of said aircraft.

Unless its a hobby aircraft....And even then they still control the airspace.

Rather or not the FAA is going to prosecute some Average Homeowner for videoing his roof.... that another story.  This is not really the crowd they are concerned with...

However if this involves Commercial real-estate sales I would not touch it.... to many jealous 107 holders will be happy to turn you in for encroaching on their Market. It is just not worth the headache. Once you enter real estate sales... you do enter the realm of illegal drone operations. And those are exactly the folks that are on the FAA's Radar.

Just my 2 cents

I Just wanted to say I am also a part 107 certificate holder....I am a Construction Surveyor and most my operations are in remote Alaska,  ground topography and inspections in commercial, industrial plants or more of my thing. I really have no intrest what so ever in real-estate. The liabilities vs profit margin in an urban setting like .....that is just something I want nothing to do with.
The guys I do know however... that take those real estate gigs , get complaints filed on them all the time. Not because they are operating outside the law but  rather because allot of the uneducated public think you can see them in the shower through some infrared sensor or think you are looking through their windows.
In the suburbs more often then not you will be reported..... so keep that in mind before you do the work.

You guys are really awesome, thank you very much for the inputs. They all make a lot of sense.
Thanks for the tips as well.
I am planning on taking the test for part 107 by next week or in a few weeks, I have studied, passed the FAA free course and I believe I could do it, let me try.

No it's not against the rules. The act of getting paid makes it "flying commercially". However, be careful if you are flying in a residential area as that could get you in a bind if anyone complains.