Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Why is a commercial license needed to sell art?

Oh, it's tongue in cheek, all in fun. His very good video post contained in its title ... "don't tell that drone police guy". He had commented to my post about drone police so I'm pretty sure that's me. Like I said, I think its funny and he and I get along fine.
 
The information you have given is incorrect. Currently in the USA you may not sell any footage taken while hobby flying. You must hold a 333 or 107 exemption to do as you described. Taking a pic from an airplane is a personal thing, not commercial and not "unmanned flight" so why would you need government approval? Selling an edited video would also require you to have a 333 or 107. Saying you are only charging for the editing "trick" is old and they are well aware of it. There is no "work arounds" if you sell footage or photos. Do it the right way or don't do it at all. The new Part 107 is affordable and educates you on the needed air safety rules.

  1. What is the definition of recreational or hobby use of a UAS?
    Recreational or hobby UAS use is flying for enjoyment and not for work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire. In the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, the FAA relied on the ordinary, dictionary definition of these terms. UAS use for hobby is a "pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation." UAS use for recreation is "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or division."


    SOURCE: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions/Help



The IRS disagrees. So the FAA now defines tax law? Millions of people have "hobby farms".

Tax Tips for People Who Earn Income From a Hobby









KoPhsDX.png


If I have $2000 invested in my equipment and charge $1999 for pictures, it's still a hobby as I've made no profit. People with 107/333 want to stifle competition, just as unions want to prevent "scabs" from being hired.

This is apart from DE's argument that art cannot be regulated, and no, the FAA has not figured out anything otherwise we'd be seeing people fined left and right already. Lots of threats and reports of FAA employees posting on YT videos to scare people into submission. It is understandable why people get scared, but I'd bet when the first fine is levied, FAA sued, and an organized effort is made to support that person, the FAA would get gobsmacked even if it had to go the SCOTUS. There's a reason government always go for low hanging fruit.
 
Last edited:
The IRS disagrees. So the FAA now defines tax law? Millions of people have "hobby farms".

Tax Tips for People Who Earn Income From a Hobby









KoPhsDX.png


If I have $2000 invested in my equipment and charge $1999 for pictures, it's still a hobby as I've made no profit. People with 107/333 want to stifle competition, just as unions want to prevent "scabs" from being hired.

This is apart from DE's argument that art cannot be regulated, and no, the FAA has not figured out anything otherwise we'd be seeing people fined left and right already. Lots of threats and reports of FAA employees posting on YT videos to scare people into submission. It is understandable why people get scared, but I'd bet when the first fine is levied, FAA sued, and an organized effort is made to support that person, the FAA would get gobsmacked even if it had to go the SCOTUS. There's a reason government always go for low hanging fruit.
People with and getting 333/107"s are not trying to "stifle" competition! They are doing it according to Law and Regulations! it's the hobbyists and people who want everything for nothing and own no responsibilities, who want in for free and not own up to following the rules! Until the IRS or Law Makers institute Laws, It is what it is!:(
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ddraiggoch
The bottom line is....can you convince the faa they are wrong if they come after you.

Bill W.
 
No the bottom line is how big is his wallet and how long before you go broke trying to fight the government :)
Many have tried not many have won.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyTexas
Charging or not charging money for the work does not matter, nor does it matter who took the photos. If the photos are used to enhance a business, it is no longer recreational. I'm a Realtor and I will use my AC to take aerial videos. However, I am not "charging" anything extra but I am enhancing my business. Also, if the homeowner had a hobby drone and gave me pictures he took of his own home and I posted them on my public listing page, those photos are being used to enhance my business and that makes it commercial even though it is after the fact of taking the photos. I got this direct from the FAA representatives, person to person. Now, to be clear, this was all under the 333 Exemption rules. Those rules were much harder to work under and, frankly, were out of the reach of most people. That tended to make people "ignore FAA" and just push their luck. The new Part 107 makes it very possible for anyone who wants to to get licensed. Personally, I think it will INCREASE the FAA being more strict as now there's no good excuse. And, like I said before, many people will now be starting businesses with their drones. Those people WILL police their respective communities. I've been dubbed "that drone police guy" by Brian and that's OK but I'm only telling you what I've learned after a year and a half of trying to get legal. I have received my license and am now legal and it was a lot of work and expense. So, if other Realtors in my MLS start posting aerial photography to compete with me, I should just let it go? Also, we haven't even begun to talk about insurance yet. Although not legally required today it is highly recommended. It would very unwise to do professional work, especially on a fee basis, and not have liability insurance. I'm checking it out now and WILL have it. I will make a couple predictions for the next couple years. First, insurance will be mandatory in a commercial drone business. Second, if you fly a drone at all, you will have a license. Take this quote from dronelife dot com: " ... the FAA now says that recreational fliers must belong to a community based flight organization like the AMA, and fly within its framework, or take the Part 107 test." It does not make sense that I have to know that if clouds are at 400 feet, I cannot fly that day as a licensed pilot, but a hobbyist can because he doesn't know you can't fly 500 feet vertically or 2000 feet horizontally to clouds? It's coming.
I downloaded the Verifly app which allows you to buy drone insurance for roughly $10/hr by the location indicated on the phone. I'm not sure of the specifics of the coverage yet other than it looks like $1M of liability ins for property damage or injury. As far as your own equipment, I think you're still on your own with Verifly. I still need to find out who is underwriting this.
 
People with and getting 333/107"s are not trying to "stifle" competition! They are doing it according to Law and Regulations! it's the hobbyists and people who want everything for nothing and own no responsibilities, who want in for free and not own up to following the rules! Until the IRS or Law Makers institute Laws, It is what it is!:(


Why is a commercial license needed to sell art?
If, to compete with me, they run over to Best Buy, buy a drone, and post the pics of their listings, I WILL turn them in, I just will.


The example given was because it is a hobby, one can't charge for anything, which of course is completely untrue. I simply quoted the IRS to set the record straight. I can have a hobby and make money at it as shown directly from the IRS website.

If John Taylor wins his lawsuit, everything the FAA has been doing without consent of Congress or is unconstitutional will be null.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rayray
Glider, I have no problem with you, or anyone making money from your hobby of flying a sUAS and selling art/pics etc. But If you are doing aerial mapping, weddings, tower inspections, pics and videos ,on and on to make a full blown profit and substantial pay, it is no longer a "Hobby" but a means to make money ! And then you are trying to tweak the laws and regulations to fit your needs!
My grandma can crochet slippers for a hobby and sell some for a few bucks, but if ole' granny wants to make 10 pairs a day at $20 bucks a pair constantly. Ole' granny ain't doing it to keep from getting arthritis no more, she looking to make bucks to buy gold plated dentures! Ain't no hobby no more! She needs to get a business permit or license and follow the rules! :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ddraiggoch
The IRS disagrees. So the FAA now defines tax law? Millions of people have "hobby farms".

Tax Tips for People Who Earn Income From a Hobby









KoPhsDX.png


If I have $2000 invested in my equipment and charge $1999 for pictures, it's still a hobby as I've made no profit. People with 107/333 want to stifle competition, just as unions want to prevent "scabs" from being hired.

This is apart from DE's argument that art cannot be regulated, and no, the FAA has not figured out anything otherwise we'd be seeing people fined left and right already. Lots of threats and reports of FAA employees posting on YT videos to scare people into submission. It is understandable why people get scared, but I'd bet when the first fine is levied, FAA sued, and an organized effort is made to support that person, the FAA would get gobsmacked even if it had to go the SCOTUS. There's a reason government always go for low hanging fruit.
One has nothing to do with the other so your argument is mute. Also, if you have a business to take photos, you have a business. A hobby taking photos is a hobby. Don't confuse IRS jargon with what we commonly associate the meaning of words... take for example "injured spouse". Many would think ones spouse may have been physically injured where the IRS see's that as one spouse having debt that is separate from the other spouse. But I digress, if you want to be sure, call your local FAA field office and ask them.
 
The information you have given is incorrect. Currently in the USA you may not sell any footage taken while hobby flying. You must hold a 333 or 107 exemption to do as you described. Taking a pic from an airplane is a personal thing, not commercial and not "unmanned flight" so why would you need government approval? Selling an edited video would also require you to have a 333 or 107. Saying you are only charging for the editing "trick" is old and they are well aware of it. There is no "work arounds" if you sell footage or photos. Do it the right way or don't do it at all. The new Part 107 is affordable and educates you on the needed air safety rules.

  1. What is the definition of recreational or hobby use of a UAS?
    Recreational or hobby UAS use is flying for enjoyment and not for work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire. In the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, the FAA relied on the ordinary, dictionary definition of these terms. UAS use for hobby is a "pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation." UAS use for recreation is "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or division."


    SOURCE: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Freqtuently Asked Questions/Help
I'm going to go with this is an interpretation by the FAA and if elevated to the supreme court I have no doubt the supreme court would rule in favor that the FAAs "interpretation" is a violation the first amendment. The test would be simple: Does a person need a CDL to sell pictures or video ( a series of photographs) from a Motor Vehicle and isn't an aircraft a vehicle? Is creating art recreational? If I sell my art how does this make it less recreational. Does the FAA have the right to deny me from creating or selling art? I understand the need for licenses for certain activities in commercial applications such as needing a CDL for airbrakes or loads over 25,000 pounds but a person in the US only needs to have a CDL IF they are using a vehicle with airbrakes and the load is over 25,000 pounds. I would also question whether or not the video being used in the media or news requiring a license as a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

The "test" to their interpretation would clearly show that their interpretation is a clear violation of the first amendment.

Registering Humans is another.
The FAA can only register pilots and aircraft but there is nothing that states they have the right to register a Citizen that is NOT a pilot.
Also requiring "Citizen" engaged in recreational flying of their RC toys to MARK their RC aircraft with a number violates the 336 as the 336 clearly states such.

Case law.
In the Trappy case they did not charge him with not having a license for his flying but reckless flying. The verdict was that he was to pay a $1000 fine but not admit to guilt.

The case about registering Citizens is still on going.

Examples:
Youtube reviewers are NOT being required to have a commercial license to review products or show their videos of the crafts flying. DJI, Yuneec and many more have shown videos of their crafts flying and the examples of the video quality but did not have a license to do so.

Doesn't Youtube themselves make money from people going to the site to view MR videos?

According to the FAA making money off of videos that are given to be rebroadcasted is also a violation of the FAAs "interpretation"
It's Time to Halt The FAA's Arbitrary and Expanding Domestic "Drone" Ban
"Finally, in the most recent and most disturbing case, an FAA spokeswoman implied that even publishing drone video footage obtained by someone else is illegal. After a fire in Dayton, Ohio, local hobbyists offered to donate to the Dayton Business Journal video footage of the fire taken with their model aircraft. When the news outlet asked the FAA about the legality of using the footage, an FAA spokeswoman advised the news outlet to “err on the side of caution” and not publish because, the spokeswoman said, “It’s still prohibited in the U.S. to use drones for commercial operations, and if it had to go through the court we would get our lawyers involved.”"

The FACT is that the DOT, NTSB and FAA are making this stuff up as they go. They are a regulatory body and nothing more. They have set up their fines to be "civilian" to deny a person their due process in a court of LAW because they know in a court of LAW they would lose and have in the case of Trappy. This too could be argued as a violation constitutional rights.
They are a regulatory body that is NOT allowed to pass laws. Laws in this country are passed by the "peoples" house and signed into law by the Executive branch. The third EQUAL branch of government is the Judicial branch and they have the right to rule whether a law or statute of law violates the constitution.

Bottom line: The Emperor has no clothes...

Just because an agency "interprets" law does not make it law.
An example of this is what was done in this county
The county Attorney John Parker interpreted the "student law" to mean that a person who graduated law school but that has not passed the Bar exam could practice law under loose supervision if that person worked for the county Attorneys office.

He was wrong and the Supreme Court not only ruled he was wrong but he was charged and fined.

Just because somebody "interprets" something does not make it law. I could interpret that taking a car that does not belong to me is ok... I think I would be found wrong depending upon my Argument.<--- key word here..

If you look at many laws and statutes of law that have been passed, you will find many were overturned by courts because of constitution violations and the reason we have courts.

And last BUT certainly not least.
Inconsistencies of law.

It's Time to Halt The FAA's Arbitrary and Expanding Domestic "Drone" Ban

"Second, even if the FAA’s purported ban were enforceable, it is likely unconstitutional when applied to photography and news gathering. First, as currently applied, model aircraft are specifically banned for journalists, even though they are legal for hobbyists. This is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech because it discriminates on the basis of the speaker’s identity. Second, just because First Amendment activity is undertaken for compensation or commercial purposes does not mean it loses its protection. If it did, newspapers would have no more protections than beer companies, which is not the case. Third, telling a news organization that they should not publish content obtained by someone else is a classic prior restraint on speech and is unconstitutional."

The other test:
How does selling video taken from a hobbyists and sold constitute less SAFETY than video isn't sold? The DOT, FAA was formed to increase SAFETY so how is taking video make flying a MR less safe? I understand the need to regulate for safety reasons a passenger or cargo plane and full sized planes because of their size and fuel and I even can go along with regulating larger UAVs for the same reason but to regulate video or photography which is a protected form of free speech is a massive over reach and one they could not be argued in court. Like many regulatory bodies chocked full of bureaucrats the FAA has gone rouge.

Our founding fathers had set up this country based on a set of checks and balances to protect it's citizens from the tyranny of government. There is NO argument that the FAA could fabricate that would give them the right to regulate free speech just like there is NO argument that the FAA can determine what constitutes and qualifies as a Community based Organization.
 
Last edited:
Look at all this difference of interpretation and opinion amongst just us, imagine the whole country. This is exactly why, eventually, everyone will be licensed. It will be a constant fight as to where that gray line is and how wide it is.
 
We all upload our videos to some form of video site like youtube. Now what about the guy who is surfing youtube and comes across a video that he can use to make money and he downloads it from Youtube. Yes there are download software to do this very thing. Now that he has it from the internet he starts selling part of it or the whole thing. Would the owner of the video be responsible? If they go after him he could claim I sold it to him. I don't know. To many ways to look at this.
 
We all upload our videos to some form of video site like youtube. Now what about the guy who is surfing youtube and comes across a video that he can use to make money and he downloads it from Youtube. Yes there are download software to do this very thing. Now that he has it from the internet he starts selling part of it or the whole thing. Would the owner of the video be responsible? If they go after him he could claim I sold it to him. I don't know. To many ways to look at this.
His word against yours. Can he prove he paid you? I dont think so. Granted anything is possible but the proof would be on him or her. One way to prevent this this is to watermark your vids. But this would take away from what you want to achieve.

Bill W.
 
I downloaded the Verifly app which allows you to buy drone insurance for roughly $10/hr by the location indicated on the phone. I'm not sure of the specifics of the coverage yet other than it looks like $1M of liability ins for property damage or injury. As far as your own equipment, I think you're still on your own with Verifly. I still need to find out who is underwriting this.

Hi GWHuntoon
Verifly's policies are backed by Global Aerospace.
 

New Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,593
Members
27,286
Latest member
lahorelaptop