Quote from another article:
"Chris Servicky, a licensed helicopter pilot who helps run the company, says they never got the FAA’s letter and says that he talked to the FAA about trying to get certified and they said no.
'They don’t want you to make money off of it, so we sell the editing of the video,' he said."[1]
Saying monetized drone videos are legal is akin to saying meth is legal. Technically it is if you have a prescription, but it's near impossible to get a prescription, rendering that point moot when it comes to legality.
[1] http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/these-are-the-companies-the...
I've seen plenty of SV real estate guys using drones for aerial shots for their listings, and since the revenue per deal is large in a residential real estate sale, unless the fine is substantial it'll just get rolled up into "cost of doing business".
[1] http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-issue-...
Taking photos of real estate and then selling those photos to a real estate agent would still be illegal, thouigh.
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId...
Not with severe ADHD.
They have made the distinction before. If you build your own aircraft it can be certified as experimental. You can do anything you like with it that you might do with a Cessna, except commercial operations. I believe you can take a friend for a ride and split the fuel costs, but you may not profit. Why the type of plane matters is not clear to me. Likewise, flying a drone is legal, taking video is legal, why should profit from it be illegal? I don't know.
The potential for monetary reward for drone flights fundamentally changes the risks a pilot is prepared to take. If the conditions are marginal or if there's more people around than I feel comfortable with, I pack my gear up and go home. If there was a significant amount of money at stake in "getting the shot", I'd be _very_ tempted to push the limits further than I do as a hobbyist. If there was a large amount of money involved, and the risks of getting caught were low enough, it'd be very tempting to break the law to get the money. I choose to stay right out of that game for those reasons - but you only need to look at the paparazzi industry to know that when the money is right, people are happy to do impolite, dangerous, immoral, and illegal things to "get the shot". Even as a hobbyist multicopter builder/flier I'd rather not see "my hobby" being used that way - at least not without some accountability and consequences for people who choose to behave like that.
I'm not sure I agree with that. As someone who has flown RC Helicopters for a long long time, one of the reasons I haven't gotten more into drones is a) they are "to easy" to fly and get boring [1] (if you don't believe me try flying a 60 size Gas RC Chopper with no gyros) and b) I can't make any money right now because of the "no commercial" rule.
While I don't think people are flying drones to make practically nothing on youtube.com (I think they want to make cool videos obviously) the fact is if you are going to have a rule that says "no commercial" and it hasn't been further defined then you have to stick to that.
Separately, there is a similar quasi rule with regards to using a domain name for commercial purposes (re: Trademark and UDRP filings) and often a domain name owner will lose a case if they don't have a good attorney and if the opposing party is able to take the ads and say "they are making money from my trademark". The amount of the money they are making doesn't really enter that much into the picture.
[1] I bought an AR Drone which I "flew" exactly one time. It's similar to the difference, if you are a skier, between the bunny slope and a black diamond (and I don't mean an East Coast USA black diamond..)
That said if you've never flown a gas rc you should give it a try (if you can afford it since they are typically more expensive than an electric especially when you crash and have to fix them..)
What the other four are thinking is beyond my ken.
What I'm curious about, though, is if the video is considered an artwork, can the FAA reasonably use their authority to classify the flight as commercial in nature?
As in, if the purpose of the recording was not simply for profit, but profit comes by way of the artistic contribution (e.g. editing, adding a soundtrack, creating a montage for entertainment) then it's not really a "commercial flight" but simply a personal use resulting in a commerically viable product. There are some hairs to be split in this distinction I think. I mean, taking a video out the window of a personal / private aircraft is suddenly under the FAA's purvue by implication? I don't think they would be wise to go that route, but if they are, that'd be good to know in a hurry. There are a LOT of YouTube videos that suddenly run afoul of an overly broad interpretation, I'd wager.
I'm not claiming to have the last word on this, but rather using my inherent stubbornness, creative background, and understanding of intellectual property / fair use / artistic case law as factors in the discussion. Hmm. Seems like a fun debate, and one that could be productive!
I mean if someone does consider their video a purely artistic endeavor, then they just shouldn't monetize it. If it's a case like here where the money would have been nominal, then it shouldn't matter. And if they have an issue with not monetizing it then they're looking to make money off of it, and so it would certainly be commercial use.
Or let's say you upload the video to YouTube. This is your only video, you don't monetize it. But by YouTube hosting it, people go to YouTube where they will now see other videos on the side bar. They click one and it is monetized. Because of your video, YouTube made some money (even if it is a fraction of a penny).
What if you used the video in a portfolio to get a job. Maybe it was the pièce de résistance that won you the job. You used it to secure financial gain... should that count as commercial use?
2) Why does it matter if an unrelated third party can monetize other videos using your unmonetized video? You cannot control whether YouTube shows monetized videos in its suggested watching sidebar. You, the pilot, did not monetize your video, and that is what matters for purposes of the regulation.
3) Context matters. It could be treated as a commercial use, but it depends on the greater context of the video. If it was just a portfolio item to get a job as an employee, it likely would not rise to the level of commercial use. But if it was used as a portfolio item to get a job as a contractor/service provider providing drone footage, then it would most likely be treated as a commercial use.
The reason YouTube exists and that you can upload videos is so said third party can make money. If they weren't monetizing videos, including yours, the service wouldn't exist. In effect, you are using your video as a form fo payment for having the service. Is a single video that much in the grand scheme of things? No; probably a fraction of a penny. But it is still part of the transaction you are paying to use their service.
>3
Why would this context matter when monetizing it the context of how much money is made doesn't matter. Even if operating at a loss, making only pennies for every dollar spent, it still counts as monetizing?
It's kind of like saying a person can go buy a lump of clay, but if they turn it into a vase, then they can't sell it.
Thus, the flight itself isn't being monetized. My point is that the FAA thinks it has authority to regulate artistic endeavors in this case, because they choose to define the flight's nature retroactively, when in essence, the flight itself is not the commodity, nor is the product of the flight the actual commercial product...I mean, tying a camera to a balloon and then making a video of that runs afoul of the FAA with this/your logic?
That is precisely how all regulations work that make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial activity.
Heck, what if flying a drone on my own time helps me relax, which makes me more productive at my normal desk job?
In my opinion, if you fly the drone with the intend to use the resulting footage in any commercial product (e.g. a _monetized_ youtube video), then that flight was commercial in nature. And because we can't measure intent, we have to assume that every flight that results in a commercial product was started with the intend of producing that product.
Maybe in some cases you can make a point that the flight was primarily for enjoyment and the video was just a byproduct. That might be a viable argument for a paraglider without established audience, but it's harder to defend for a drone with a camera strapped to it.
It seems to me this is a bit of a mixed bag here, and in which case there's a clear pattern, footage shot, non-commercial use first... meaning intent can be shown.
Suppose I go to a local RC meetup with a camcorder, film some people flying around, then upload it to youtube and monetize it?
What if the RC plane I am filming is owned by me, and flown by one of my friends?
What if the RC plane is a drone owned by me, and is flying itself while I film it?
What if the RC plane is owned and flown by me, while I film it?
What if all of these tapes are 20 years old, and I am only now digging them out of my attic to digitize and monetize them?
It seems to me there may be a decent amount of gray-areas around this whole concept.
To me, this suggests:
(1) the statute looks to the purpose of the flight when the flight occurred--later developments don't matter
(2) actions of third-parties not involved in the operation of the drone also don't matter
Remember, the FAA has the authority to regulate drone flight for commercial purposes. They don't have the authority to regulate Youtube, other people's filming, etc.
I see a few RC instructor business on google that has a commercial pilot as the instructor, I wonder if that is required.
See: http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/03/18/ama-respo...
If you are interested, you should submit one.
That there could be legal challenges for these companies is rage-inducing. It is completely ludicrous. It's a waste of everyone's time and money (both taxpayers paying for the bureaucracy, and the companies defending the legal challenges), and does absolutely nothing for safety.
I am directly impacted by this due to my work to educate folks about proper, safe drone usage given media mischaracterization and fearmongering (like that recent Audi ad) about drones. All of my videos are artistic in nature and work to educate the public on the positive, market-generating usages of drones, such as aerial filmmaking, land survey, search and rescue, and other uses. Your comment smacks of lacking all of the context around FAA enforcement against drone fliers in recent years, and rushing to defend an agency that has burned all positive relationships it ever had with the hobbyist industry, both drones and otherwise.
The FAA has repeatedly missed deadlines to get its shit together, and is on track to miss another that was set by Congress for the end of this year. In the meantime, they've devoted their resources to pursuing drone fliers in court (and losing, quite dramatically, on taxpayer dollars) and sending toothless cease and desist notices like this. Nobody with an ounce of common sense can possibly conclude what you have, that a YouTube ad suddenly makes the flight commercial. If a private pilot records the view out of his cockpit window and then puts ads on the video on YouTube, he's not suddenly a (potentially unlicensed) commercial operator.
It follows that this action is just another excuse for the FAA to harass drone pilots and people attempting to build a multi-million dollar industry in the United States. Nothing about this is sane, and the FAA is repeatedly demonstrating that it's happy to service those with money and who can make noise in government -- the sudden (and rapid) creation of the certification exemption program for law enforcement after DHS started flying Predators over the border, for example -- while pinching the rest of us in court. You shouldn't make any attempt to defend the FAA; most people (me included) who really want to make something of UAS are already looking to other nations and have begun operating under more progressive regulatory schemes.
Irrelevant; what matters is if the person flying the plane makes money, not if unrelated third-parties do.
For an indepth analysis of the current proposal see http://www.kramerlevin.com/Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-Alert-F...
As a pilot who wants top live, i'd prefer people without training to stay out of the sky. Flying an extension of you (your drone) is even worse because you have even less interest in the safety since in a mid-air collision between planes, you die too. If your drone hits my plane - you do not die. Want to fly? Get a license. Want to fly a drone? Still get a license!
What you ask (FAA to leave the issue alone) is akin to letting 2 year olds drive 18-wheelers on the roads you drive your kids to school on? Feeling comfy with that?
To people who claim drones aren’t dangerous: YOU might have almost been killed by one last time you flew commercial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/near-c...
Likewise, I'll take the opposite extreme position that if you want to fly airplanes over populated locations, stay more than a couple thousand feet away as well, you're noisy and small aircraft and their pilots don't have quite the safety record that large ones do. How many people have quadcopter operators killed compared to small aircraft pilots? Seems like the answer should be that pilots of small aircraft, the planes vulnerable to small impacts and the pilots actually killing people should be kept away from the populace. What's the utility of allowing small aircraft to fly over my house anyways?
There's definitely room for both activities in the air.
Zero, meanwhile even Harrison Ford, an extremely qualified pilot, found a golf course when his engine gave out. Shit happens, and we need to plan accordingly instead of trying to prevent the shit in the first place. Oddly enough, I don't see worldwide media focusing on the private aviation hobby and how dangerous it is to everyone even though he landed on a fucking golf course. But no, one drone lands on the White House lawn and it's a national emergency with firmware updates pushed by DJI in response to ban Washington, D.C.
My work, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, is to educate folks about the positive uses for drone technology and the industry that's about to happen. The possibilities of extending our senses into the air around us are endless. I've had people come up to me while operating in public and threaten me and my equipment. People are shooting at drones with some frequency in the more backwater parts of the United States. I'm waiting for one of those bullets to land a few miles away and kill a child, because I predict the backlash will be against the fliers, not the shooters.
I often feel like I'm pushing, hopelessly against the avalanche of media fearmongering, because this technology has real, potent uses that should appeal to this community of startup tinkerers and hobbyists. We could be investing in automatic technology to build upon TCAS and integrate commercial UAS into that system, but we're not: we're trying to prevent the industry from ever happening.
Imagine the Wright Brothers trying to tinker in today's regulatory climate. Remember how all of us fought against classifying our hobby as "drones," even though it's technically correct, because most peoples' exposure to the word "drone" is centered around Hellfire-carrying platforms? Yeah, this is why.
Even if they do, they're mostly cardboard, whereas model airplanes have things like small engine blocks. I bet a 737 engine could ingest a model rocket without anyone noticing.
Even though the FAA has engine manufacturers like GE test the hell out of engines, it's tough to predict what will happen in the real world. Birds are a huge threat to aviation, both engine ingestion and windscreen collisions, and birds are mostly organic. (It goes without saying to stand the hell away from an operating jet engine even at idle, too, because humans do get ingested with fatal results.) I can't imagine an operating engine ingesting a drone or anything else with non-organic components would go well, and this is why I always advocate very strongly for safe drone operation.
Here's an intentional intake blade failure to ascertain whether the engine can contain the failure without threatening the aircraft; this is useful to see what happens if something is ingested that causes a catastrophic blade failure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAhjSviYVr8
Routine 400+ foot launches are more the purview of dedicated rocket launch events, which typically do go through extensive FAA clearance and such, and which have certification processes in place for those flying all but the lowest-powered rockets. Airspace is usually sanitized, and for good reason: these sorts of rockets tend to be much bigger than your ordinary backyard-launched Estes rockets, and very well could do significant damage to an airplane should a collision occur.
Tip: if you want to fly in a baseball field, and get your model back (not drift out of the park), stick with engines like "B6-4" or "C6-3" and models sized for those engines. If you fly a C6-5 or a D12-7, you had better have a good size farm to land in and a few friends to help spot :-)
http://www.hobbylinc.com/rockets/group/enginefacts.htm
Flying G size engines and up? Go to a special event in Nevada. Those can go a few thousand feet up. (or lift some heavy/dangerous frameworks)
Then I suggest you stay out of the sky, because we're not going to make it 100.000000% safe for you, ever. You don't own the universe above 0 AGL. Other people need to use it, too.
Nobody flying a drone below several hundred feet is, or should be, a hazard to you, as long as they're not doing so near an airport. Existing regulations are just fine in that regard without making up a bunch of horseshit about "monetization."
What you ask (FAA to leave the issue alone) is akin to letting 2 year olds drive 18-wheelers on the roads you drive your kids to school on? Feeling comfy with that?
The arrogance it must take to post something like that is simply breathtaking. You probably throw beer cans at bicyclists when you pass them on the road, too.
What do you think about falconry?
I'm no pilot, but several of my coworkers are. Based on various conversations with them about flying (altitude clearances, ATC, etc.), I'd reckon you're severely over-reacting by calling for an outright ban on unlicensed RC aircraft flight. Altitude and airspace restrictions are reasonable; outright bans are not.
I think people understand the rule just fine, and they are angry because they don't agree with the rule at all.
Monetizing the video later may be evidence of intent to use the drone commercially at the time the drone was flown, but its fairly weak evidence, since its quite possible for the intent to be formed after the drone was flown. The purpose of an act can't change retroactively, but the proceeds of an act carried out with one purpose may well have a different purpose than that of the act when it was carried out.
Now, obviously, in the case where the party flying the drone has an ongoing operation of monetizing videos that exists prior to the time the drone is flown, flies the drone, and quickly turns around and monetizes the video from the drone, the combination of factors is pretty strong evidence that the drone was used commercially rather than the video being commercialized after the drone was flown.
(1) posses flight footage; but
(2) you can't sell it.
That put these FAA rules into the regulation of media.
That sounds like something that will be litigated, IMHO.
I doubt a court will let that stand without some threshold of materiality. A flight that costs $5 or whater and makes $0.05 is not implicitly a commercial enterprise. Using basic IRS rules, that is a "hobby" activity not a business activity, by definition. That's at least one objective standard that could be brought to bear.
But who knows, maybe I'm missing something.
Is the flight of the drone illegal then? Ridiculous logic.
We can use them to kill innocent children who happen to be at a party where some scumbag is hanging out, but don't film your birthday party and upload it to youtube! Don't try to sell your house with a video featuring using a drone to show the roof is in good condition! Oh no! This is the end!
After sort of passively watching it while doing other things, one of the episodes in the marathon was a "behind the scenes" sort of thing, where they showed that drone cinematography is used, basically, in like 80% of the filming done for that show.
They send the cameramen out in two-person teams, one to fly the drone, and the other to operate the camera, with an Oculus-looking visor on so that they can simply see the camera as through a viewfinder.
The "intent to generate income" is not only there, it's at some point in the past.
They would need to abide by Transport Canada's UAV regulations, and would most likely require a SFOC, which is possible to get if you're operating <400ft commercially. The FAA does not yet have a similar permitting process for commercial drone use.
EDIT: SFOC/Transport Canada regulations: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/general-reca...
Not the guy in the article, though.
And thanks for noting an interesting episode to watch.
EDIT: Even the updated HN headline still doesn't have it right. Neither the video nor the drone flight are illegal. The video just bumps the flight up to a higher tier of regulation from a hobby flight to a commercial flight. A better headline might be "FAA says monetized videos retroactively qualify drone flights as commercial flights."