I have a sUAS license. Does this mean I can do for profit flying?

[PatR]

At the moment I do not. It will take a considerable amount of time to dig through FAA documents to find it again.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I want to use that and have it ready for reference. Do you have a link to this FAA statement?

I believe Pat is correct as I have seen this somewhere in the 107 ruling. I remember when Orlando tried to institute it's own UAV rules (later removed) for the greater Orlando area, many of the individual rules began with the phrase "to take off and/or fly or to cause someone to take off and or fly . . . . ." Basically meaning; the person thats asks for, or directs, another person to commit flight in an illegal manner is essentially in command, much like a PIC.

I will dig into the books this evening and see what I can find.

 

[Fred Garvin]

Thanks guys, please do if you can. I’d REALLY REALLY like to have a definitive source to this statement! It’s something I want in my marketing materials.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Fred, I am looking now and here is an article I found but am still trying to find where in the regulations this is spelled out - stay tuned.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Okay found it - in a round about way. It is in "General Definitions" 14 CFR 1.1

I found a discussion on a sister site where this conversation was coming up and some wrote to the FAA about this very subject and got a response (Shown Below)

 

[Mrgs1]

The above is not true as the FAA made it clear that anyone that “contracts” with or encourages a non 107 operator to record images for commercial use can be held liable for up to 10 times the fine imposed on the actual operator.

I would be difficult to prove encouragment, and any verbal contract, well here, one persons word against anothers, unless there was some evidence, like a written contract, email or some recorded means. But I accept most law abiding operators would want something in black and white before undertaking a job. Hobbyist probably not so much.

 

[Fred Garvin]

Brilliant.....thank you very much! This will be very valuable in my marketing materials.

 

[PatR]

Fred,

With regard to that definition, bear in mind that a violation is not defined as a flight. A violation is generated by each image or video used for commercial purposes that was obtained illegally. So someone that obtained and used 10 images or videos from a single flight could be made liable for 10 violations.

As a rule, the FAA can be cast iron bast**ds when they become angry. This becomes clearly evident if and when one of their rulings goes to appeal with an NTSB law judge.

 

[Fred Garvin]

That was my assumption....each image is a violation. It’s the same with Copyright....each use is an infringement, even if it’s the same image used multiple times.

 

[BigAl07]

Fred,

With regard to that definition, bear in mind that a violation is not defined as a flight. A violation is generated by each image or video used for commercial purposes that was obtained illegally. So someone that obtained and used 10 images or videos from a single flight could be made liable for 10 violations.

As a rule, the FAA can be cast iron bast**ds when they become angry. This becomes clearly evident if and when one of their rulings goes to appeal with an NTSB law judge.

I respectfully beg to disagree with you sir.

With regard to UAS it’s per flight not per image. This is consistent with several fines levied recently against UAS operators.

Now you can bust more than one FAR per flight but multiple images in a single flight do not result in multiple violations.

 

[PatR]

Al,

That big aerial imagery outfit that was brought up on charges for $millions by the FAA a couple years ago was subjected to a fine structure that charged per image/video, and per flight. Perhaps the FAA changed their ways since then?

Either way, a 10x multiplier should be cause for consideration when encouraging a recreational flyer to shoot commercial imagery.

 

[BigAl07]

Al,

That big aerial imagery outfit that was brought up on charges for $millions by the FAA a couple years ago was subjected to a fine structure that charged per image/video, and per flight. Perhaps the FAA changed their ways since then?

Good morning Pat. Are you talking about 2015 (flights were from 2012 - 2014) with SkyPan out of Chicago? Initially it was $1.9M but was settled down to $200K with them being required to do public promotions about Drone Safety etc for 3 consecutive years sort of like being on Probation. IF they violated any FARs for the next year it was a mandated $150K per violation.

They were charged for ~65 flights in violation of the existing FARs (at the time of the flight well before Part 107). Some flights had multiple violations but none were tied to images etc. They all revolved around the flights... how they flew (no radio, no registration etc) or where the flew (Class BRAVO airspace etc).

At one time there was an online breakdown of the actual specific violations etc but I can't find that this morning.

If you're thinking of another one send me some details and I'll dig in and research it on the FAA side of things. As far as I know that's the "Big One" most people remember and it was a per flight not per image violation.

Either way, a 10x multiplier should be cause for consideration when encouraging a recreational flyer to shoot commercial imagery.

I completely agree. There's no excuse for that type of behavior what so ever.

 

[thoneter]

If you were familiar with full scale regulations you would know a private pilot is not required to have a commercial rating to take photos from a full scale airplane.

If you were familiar with privacy and copyright laws you would know you can take pictures in a public setting with a hand held camera most of the time, but what you can publish without permissions is limited.

I get PatR that you know the regs better than I do and that's meant as a compliment. What I don't get is the amount of focus on busting the guy that's trying to comply while writing rules, regs, bills, statutes, codified laws etc to get the bad guy to comply. It defies logic.

 

[Mrgs1]

I get PatR that you know the regs better than I do and that's meant as a compliment. What I don't get is the amount of focus on busting the guy that's trying to comply while writing rules, regs, bills, statutes, codified laws etc to get the bad guy to comply. It defies logic.

blpawards.org

This domain may be for sale!

www.blpawards.org

 

[PatR]

Al,
SkyPan was the one. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[thoneter]

blpawards.org

This domain may be for sale!

www.blpawards.org

I get the images getting stolen or used without payment. I saw this with Getty Images. They were out busting everyone that used a website theme but not busting the guys that were using the images to create the theme. Then Getty got busted for stealing images and not paying for them.

It gets to be a complicated issue in my opinion. You'd have to spend hours researching each image in a web theme before using any theme. I just had a theme that I paid for that utilized an app that she was giving away for free. The company shut her theme down and we all have a useless theme that we paid for.

 

[Mrgs1]

I get the images getting stolen or used without payment. I saw this with Getty Images. They were out busting everyone that used a website theme but not busting the guys that were using the images to create the theme. Then Getty got busted for stealing images and not paying for them.

It gets to be a complicated issue in my opinion. You'd have to spend hours researching each image in a web theme before using any theme. I just had a theme that I paid for that utilized an app that she was giving away for free. The company shut her theme down and we all have a useless theme that we paid for.

Vicious cycle!

 

[PatR]

I get PatR that you know the regs better than I do and that's meant as a compliment. What I don't get is the amount of focus on busting the guy that's trying to comply while writing rules, regs, bills, statutes, codified laws etc to get the bad guy to comply. It defies logic.

thoneter,
Perhaps I'm a little obtuse this morning but I'm not comprehending what you were trying to say with the above. Absolutely no disrespect intended, I'm just hoping you will expand on that for more clarification.

As for writing rules and regs to get bad guys to comply, I believe we already have more rules and regs than we can comply with and anything new isn't for compliance but intended more as revenue generators or a means to limit freedoms through "qualifiers". The "bad guys" aren't going to comply regardless of the quantity of laws written or how they are written. Those that are intentionally bad guys don't give a hoot for a law, or laws, as they are going to do whatever they want to do as long as they think they won't get caught. Laws are for people that are already basically honest, with decent ethical standards. Creating more laws only makes it more difficult for honest, ethical people to remain honest and ethical as they are boxed into a smaller and smaller corner.

From what I've read in the remote ID proposal, my opinion is shaping up to think it has a little to do with safety but a whole lot more to do with creating new federal agencies, expanding the police state, and developing new revenue streams for a group of business that, for all intents and purposes, now owns the FAA. Look at the attached picture and think how many new prohibition signs it would take to get people to comply.

 

[Mrgs1]

thoneter,
Perhaps I'm a little obtuse this morning but I'm not comprehending what you were trying to say with the above. Absolutely no disrespect intended, I'm just hoping you will expand on that for more clarification.

As for writing rules and regs to get bad guys to comply, I believe we already have more rules and regs than we can comply with and anything new isn't for compliance but intended more as revenue generators or a means to limit freedoms through "qualifiers". The "bad guys" aren't going to comply regardless of the quantity of laws written or how they are written. Those that are intentionally bad guys don't give a hoot for a law, or laws, as they are going to do whatever they want to do as long as they think they won't get caught. Laws are for people that are already basically honest, with decent ethical standards. Creating more laws only makes it more difficult for honest, ethical people to remain honest and ethical as they are boxed into a smaller and smaller corner.

From what I've read in the remote ID proposal, my opinion is shaping up to think it has a little to do with safety but a whole lot more to do with creating new federal agencies, expanding the police state, and developing new revenue streams for a group of business that, for all intents and purposes, now owns the FAA. Look at the attached picture and think how many new prohibition signs it would take to get people to comply.

View attachment 19564

Wih those notices, it would be easier just to ban the public!

 

[Warlocc]

The above is not true as the FAA made it clear that anyone that “contracts” with or encourages a non 107 operator to record images for commercial use can be held liable for up to 10 times the fine imposed on the actual operator.

"I don't know that guy, he must have pulled the images off of my perfectly legal hobbyist site"