> The fact that the money actually made is less than a dollar doesn't really matter as the intention is there to make money. Not saying I agree with the rule, but it seems to be pretty straightforward with relatively little room for interpretation.

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.