No.
Even if you receive no compensation/consideration the product obtained from the flight will be used to obtain compensation/consideration by another. If the flight generates anything that is used at any time by any entity, either by intent or accident, to promote business the flight becomes a commercial act.
In this case, as your son is requesting/encouraging an unlicensed recreational operator to conduct commercial operations for his commercial interests he would be subject to penalties up to 10x greater than what you could receive. Your familial relationship would be meaningless in an enforcement action. It’s possible it could make things worse as a law judge might consider family members were conspiring to circumvent the law.
In the case example above... no question, commercial.
The transition qualifier from Hobbyist to Commercial; My understanding it’s not an 100% absolute, there are a few exceptions, based on “knowledgeable intent”. If someone provides a video without intention, knowledge or compensation to another party as a open sharing of video and that party later provides or uses video, that isn’t considered commercial going back to the author of media.
Expample: Person1 has son1, on a vacation Son1 films a few family vacation memories via his drone. This is well within Hobbyist category at this point.
When home, the videos are shown to friends, family or school class or fellow students. This is well within Hobbyist category. During the sharing, several of these are physically shared by passing video files. This is well within Hobbyist cstagory, no intent or act to use or share material commercially.
One of these physical shares recipients (direct or indirect) at a later date elects to use a piece of the “Son1 video” in their own video, as open stock media. This is within open stock license, no request or release is required to be obtained to use as open stock.
How this video is used going forward is of no knowledge by original author of media. No liability and no compensation in any fashion is gained by original author; not viewed as commercial media toward original author.
There is a verbiage within section that addresses knowledgeable intent, if shown no intent or prior agreement to provide, etc. Sharing aerial media does not equate automatically as commercial.
Along this subject, this was recently challenged in court within last few years and found no commercial act, guilt of original author, or ability to later collect compensation (I’d have to search for case, I stumbled across it doing other case research).
In this case, a Tourist lodging at a Hotel, showed a hotel employee whom shared an interest in photography, an aerial video produced by family member as mutual interest of aerial video. The employee asked for a copy, which was openly shared & provided. The tourist departs for home.
During the following year being a serious amature photographer the Hotel employee uses a piece within his own video (as open stock) for a school presentation and later in a student contest; awards are ribbons. The contest material was later used within his portfolio & resume for employment. Much later identified & questioned by original author, whom actually brought legal case for lack of compensation or recognition.
As mentioned above, case found no association of material within video product for original author for owned property, rights to property, or any association. Thus, not commercial consideration by FAA.