
FAA says monetized videos shot from drones are subject to commercial regulations - ccvannorman
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-says-you-cant-post-drone-videos-on-youtube?utm_source=mbfb
======
slg
The headline and most of this article seem to avoid the real point of the FAA
complaint. The problem wasn't flying the drone. The problem wasn't posting the
drone video to YouTube. The problem was turning on monetization for the drone
videos. If you try to make money a drone flight, you are using the drone
commercially. 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.

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."

~~~
jjcm
The problem is that the FAA doesn't issue licenses for private use of
commercial drones right now, effectively making monetized videos against the
law.

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...](http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/these-are-the-companies-the-faa-has-
harassed-for-using-drones)

~~~
hkmurakami
I wonder how large the fines are.

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".

~~~
blottsie
There aren't many instances of actual fines, but this is the most prominent
one: The FAA tried to fine drone pilot Raphael Pirker $10,000 [1] for being
paid by the University of Virginia Medical Center to film a promo video with a
drone. Pirker challenged the fine and won. The FAA changed its rules after
that decision and Pirker eventually settled for $1,100.

[1] [http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-
issue-...](http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-issue-
sections/11559/me-irl-raphael-pirker-interview/)

------
Zikes
If the revenue generated from an act isn't enough to even qualify a passing
mention on your tax return, I don't see how it could be considered commercial.

It's like if someone saw me pick up a quarter on the sidewalk and cited me for
operating a business without a permit and being improperly zoned.

~~~
Someone1234
> If the revenue generated from an act isn't enough to even qualify a passing
> mention on your tax return, I don't see how it could be considered
> commercial.

Is there such an amount? As far as I know all income is taxable, there is no
"minimum amount per source."

If you're talking more "real world" (e.g. pick up a quarter so fail to
declare) then why would the FAA care at all about that? You cannot cite some
fictional minimum income per source and then expect the FAA to adhere to it.

~~~
ghaff
I believe you are correct. Note that this is different from the minimum income
you need to make to file a tax return. Now, if there's no paperwork, it
doesn't matter in practice. However, I receive Amazon forms for some minimal
royalty and other revenue and if I don't include those on my tax returns
there's a good chance it would trigger something. I've had Interest 1099s(?)
for literally pennies for small dollars in some account that paid minimal
interest.

~~~
Naga
In Canada, you are required to report all income, whether from employment,
business or from property, but in practice for small amounts it is sometimes
left out. For example, interest on deposits in bank accounts is taxable, but
the bank won't send you a form unless you made over $50 in interest that year,
so you don't have to claim that dollar you made.

------
Animats
Oh, quit whining. The FAA will have a "drone pilot license" test out soon.
That will cover important things like how to find out if you're in an
airport's controlled airspace. The sky is a busy place and has traffic rules.
The FAA's proposed drone rules are quite sensible.

Meanwhile, the FAA is trying hard to prevent an accident where a drone gets
sucked into a commercial aircraft's jet intake. There have been drone near-
misses at Heathrow, JFK, LAX, and some smaller airports.[1]

The FAA has a long-standing approach of regulating commercial aircraft
operations much more strictly than personal or hobbyist ones. "Commercial" is
strictly defined to prevent someone with a private pilot's ticket and no IFR
rating from running an air taxi service. The FAA has even lighter regulation
for light sport aircraft and ultralights. The commercial/non commercial
distinction is not new.

This reminds me of the whining from the hang glider crowd which had a popular
gliding spot near LAX. The FAA and Dockweiler State Beach came up with rules,
such as a top altitude of 65' AGL, to keep hang gliders from being smacked
into the ground by the wake from a heavy coming into LAX.

[1] [http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/10/near-miss-at-
lax-m...](http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/10/near-miss-at-lax-may-
spark-tighter-regulations-on-drone-use/)

~~~
fixedd
The FAA never has anything out "soon". They're currently in violation of a
direct order from Congress because they're so slow.

------
cmurf
If you make a profit derived from aviation activity in the U.S. you have to
have a commercial pilot certificate. It's been this way for decades. The FAA
has proposed a reduced burden certification for drones that merely involves
passing a test.

A certified private pilot can't even break even when sharing expenses. It's
operating cost divided by number of occupants, and since the pilot is an
occupant he must pay a fair share or it's a violation of his certification.

A certified commercial pilot can't even arrange the aircraft, or it's
considered a charter operation, which operates under different regulations
(FAR 135). So the commercial pilot has to be hired separately from the
aircraft to engage in a general aviation for profit flight. Again, it's been
this way for decades.

~~~
scott_karana
The law, as it's drafted, is daft. Holding companies, anyone?

Drone pilot generates footage, donates it for free to his shell company. Shell
company monetizes video. Shell company has never operated an aircraft. Profit.

The law only makes sense for commercial activity _directly related to flying_
, as far as I'm concerned.

~~~
gamblor956
One of the mistakes armchair lawyers make is assuming that the mere text of
the rules is all that matters. In many cases, and especially when dealing with
_regulations_ issued by agencies, the _intent_ of the regulation also matters.
_(Note: statute /law = issued by Congress; regulation = issued by government
agency.)_ Agency regulations are not held to the strict interpretive
requirements as are statutes, since agency regulations by their very nature
include a measure of interpretation. (For more information on this topic,
lookup _Chevron_ deference. _)

The clear intent of the regulations are to prevent unregistered commercial use
of drone footage. Thus, in this case it doesn't matter if the drone pilot
doesn't commercialize the footage if he gives it to his _own shell company* to
commercialize. That would be illegal under the plain intent of the
regulations. (It could be different if he gave it completely for free to an
unrelated company and they commercialized it without his permission or
knowledge.)

The right to fly a drone is a permissive license, so the burden to prove non-
commercial use can be placed on the pilot. The pilot's intent not to
commercialize the footage at the time of shooting can matter...but only if he
can show that he did not intend to commercialize the footage at the time he
recorded it. Thus, for example, a guy randomly shooting footage happens to
capture a newsworthy event and later sells that footage to a news network will
most likely be treated as not operating the drone commercially. However, if
the guy flies his drone for the purpose of capturing a newsworthy event and
later sells the footage, he will likely be treated as operating the drone
commercially unless he can demonstrate a non-commercial intent.

------
ChuckMcM
This is awesome, I really hope this guy lawyers up and takes this as high as
needed until the FAA is told to go pound sand.

Given that Youtube will use any excuse in the world to slap commercials on
your video without your approval[1], and even it you do put ads on your video
the "money" demonstrates that pan handling is a much more lucrative use of
your time.

My argument would be this a) oversteps the FAA charter because it is
incidental revenue, and b) this level of regulation per injurious to the drone
companies and their customers who might wish to share their perfectly legal
hobby with their friends over a free video sharing service.

[1] - "Oh wait, that bird tweet sounds suspiciously like this note in this
copyrighted song, take it down, or let us put ads on it."

~~~
commandar
My question would be is there a similar restriction on PPL holders monetizing
videos recorded during their flights?

~~~
ChuckMcM
I am not a lawyer but I would guess that it would be ok, the _flight_ is being
operated by a commercial airline and the FAA has already signed off on that.
That said, one wonders if the _airline_ would sue you for damages since you
"stole" that view that they gave you as part of the fee you paid to fly, but
did not re-license[1] you the right to share that view with others without
their written consent. If this goes through I would not be surprised at all to
hear and airline using that tactic to boost their revenue per passenger
number.

[1] There is a venue where this is already the norm, sports arenas. They
explicitly forbid you from recording the event and re-showing it to anyone as
part of the ticket "contract". Airlines just need to step up their game and
add that to their terms and conditions.

~~~
commandar
Sorry if I was unclear. I meant holders of _non-commercial_ private pilot's
licenses. You see a lot of things like people posting videos recorded during
their private flights online. e.g.,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbOQZAymOU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbOQZAymOU)

I'd think this interpretation of commercial use would logically apply that as
well (and be equally ridiculous).

------
ratsbane
The FAA has created a lot of FUD by not drawing clear lines on what they _don
't_ control.

I'm a private pilot with rotorcraft rating as well as frequently a passenger
and there's nothing I'd rather not have happen than a DJI Phantom through the
windshield, and I don't think the FAA's actions are helping. By attempting to
ban actions that are clearly not unsafe they're promoting disrespect for the
law and crippling development of the drone industry in the U.S.

What they need to say: no UAVs above 400' AGL or within a mile of airports, or
whenever aircraft are operating in the vicinity (without mitigating controls).
The commercial/non-commercial distinction is irrelevant.

~~~
commandar
>What they need to say: no UAVs above 400' AGL or within a mile of airports

Actually not far off from the model aircraft provisions of the FAA
Modernization Act, except that the requirement is getting in contact with ATC
if you're flying within a 5 mile radius of an airport.

Agreed that the commercial/non-commercial distinction is totally arbitrary.

------
ericnimia
I am an attorney and the law is actually more nuanced. If you are flying under
83 feet on private property you can monetize the video and it is not against
the law. U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 258 (1946)->[https://nimia.com/drone-
footage-require-property-release/](https://nimia.com/drone-footage-require-
property-release/)

~~~
lutorm
That page you linked to says you can monetize the video _if you get FAA
certification before the flight_. That doesn't seem to be any different from
what the story here is.

------
Htsthbjig
First, the FAA should care about safety, not money.

But it seems all they care about is that you could actually compete with maned
planes' pilots.

I fly my drones against the law every single day because the law is completely
outdated in my country(Spain) because basically they copy the stupid US model.

In theory I have to put a deposit of 3000 euros for flying a less than 1 kg
drone,and register my activity, and what not for a 5 meters above ground
recordings. The same as I would have to if I flied a more than 600Kgs
helicopter. Non sense.

Companies are using drones anyway, they just don't tell anybody. Proof that I
am using a drone and not a crane.

~~~
gnopgnip
The FAA does care about safety. A commercial incentive for any flight changes
how people act.

------
hughes
Is the FAA's problem here that the drone was involved in a monetized video, or
that it was carrying the camera that recorded the monetized video?

I wonder if this would apply equally to other drone-related video production
techniques:

\- A video of a drone, recorded from the ground

\- A prop is carried by a drone but the drone never appears in the frame

\- The audio is recorded by a drone, but not video

\- A camera is dropped from a drone but doesn't begin recording until after
release

\- The drone's engines are powered off during recording

~~~
lutorm
If you are making money off of flying, then the FAA considers it a commercial
activity, which by the letter of the regulations requires a commercial
certificate.

It matters not one bit to the FAA whether the video is taken by a drone, a
balloon, a human pilot, a monkey, or whatever.

~~~
bholzer
Remember the video where the GoPro falls off a skydiver's helmet and lands in
a pig pen? Is the falling considered flying, in this case?

~~~
lutorm
Interesting question, I don't know whether skydiving is regulated by the FAA.
You don't need a certificate at all to do that.

~~~
lutorm
Thinking some more about this, I also believe that shooting a Gopro into the
air with a trebuchet does not constitute flying, because the regs define
aircraft something along the lines of "a device designed to travel through the
air".

If you put fins on it, though, one could argue that you have now designed it
to travel through the air, and hence you now become subject to the FARs.

------
Pyrodogg
Can't read the article right now, so going off of title and other comments...

This does not fly (heh) with my current understanding of "commercial use" in
regards to photography, which I wouldn't consider much different than video.

I can enter a US National Park without any specific permit and take a photo of
a natural feature. I can sell prints of this photo for a profit. This is not a
"commercial use" of the photo.

I can't enter said park without permit and with the intention to shoot
promotional photos of my new super nature product. These photos would be used
to sell said product. This is a commercial use.

The distinction is profiting from the work itself or using the work to
generate profit on something else.

------
vanzard
The FAA was established in the late 1950s, spurred by the then-largest largest
air collision in 1956 over the Grand Canyon causing 100+ deaths. The original
intent of the FAA was to increase safety in obvious ways: monitor the air
space, define flight rules, etc.

But today they are spending time and resources deciding what to do with drone
videos being monetized or not?? Clearly they have deviated from their original
intent...

------
Canada
That's nonsense. What if I took a copy of footage shot by the drone operator
and used it in a commercial for my business? Are they going to shut him down
for something he had no control over at all?

~~~
swang
Shouldn't you get in trouble for taking footage shot by someone else without
permission?

Assuming you mean you bought the shot footage, then the drone operator is
responsible for getting the right clearance to commercially film with a drone
and _you_ would probably be rightfully angry that the footage you bought was
not "licensed" properly.

~~~
Canada
Not necessarily. The footage could have been released to the public domain or
under a license that permits my use. And even if I was using it without proper
license, why should the drone operator carry the burden of going after me if
he doesn't feel like it?

------
brixon
So he just needs to uncheck the "Monetize with Ads" check box on YouTube.

------
michael_miller
IMHO, the commercial vs. private distinction doesn't make sense when applied
to drones. For airplanes, the logic is that paying passengers expect a certain
level of safety which cannot be provided by someone with 40 hours of flight
time. In essence, the FAA is shielding paying customers from the risks of low-
time pilots. For drones, this logic doesn't follow. A private operation
inherently has the same risks as a commercial operation. There's no passengers
to kill - only people on the ground to hurt. The people are there regardless
of whether you're flying for hire or not, and have no say on your flight.

I do think drones pose a significant risk to the NAS (National Airspace
System) unless regulated correctly. To me this doesn't mean that we need to
start fining people who post YouTube videos. I believe a pragmatic approach is
best - people are going to be dumb and use drones for illegal / dangerous
things. The best action the FAA can take to mitigate this is to require
manufacturers to include an ADS-B transponder to broadcast the drone's GPS
position at all times. At least then, pilots can safely avoid reckless drone
pilots.

------
basseq
There seems to be a big gray area with "pure hobbyist" on the left and
"commercial drone operations" (let's say Amazon's hypothetical delivery
service by way of an example) on the right. This particular case would be one
tick from "pure hobbyist".

More concerning to me are those small-scale "commercial" operations that I'm
seeing more and more: wedding photographers using quadcopters, or realtors
taking "eagle-eye" photographs. These are "commercial" operations (even though
by every other definition they would fall into the hobbyist definition[1]), so
according to the FAA, they need one of two things[2]:

1\. A section 33 exemption, of which only 44 have been granted. 2\. A Special
Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) from the FAA.

Maybe the Small UAS Rule will change this for the better, but right now, this
seems ridiculous.

[1]
[https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/](https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/)
[2]
[https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/](https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/)

------
DEinspanjer
FAA spokesperson Les Dorr was quoted in the article as saying that it was
possible the reason the FAA decided to send the warning letter was because
several of his videos involve flying near and overhead of non-participants.

Depending on the UAV, that could present a significant danger to them,
especially if he lost control of it. The FAA letter makes reference to this at
the bottom of page one.

Flying in that manner is against the regulations of the AMA.

I suspect that the reason the FAA letter even mentions the word "commercial"
is because there are basically three ways to fly UAV that the FAA considers
legal:

1\. Government -- I don't know much about this one.

2\. Commercial -- requires the appropriate licenses and permits from the FAA
with strict guidelines on the restrictions for any given flight.

3\. Hobby -- The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 has a few specific
requirements to be eligible to fly as a Hobbyist. The first is that the flight
does not result in any revenue (with a few very small and fuzzy exemptions)
and the second is "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization"

Since he was flying in a way that would not be in accordance to the AMA's
regulations, and he isn't flying as an authorized government agent, the FAA is
likely putting him in the only remaining category, commercial.

All that said, I despise the way the FAA is treating UAV operators. Everything
from their absurd interpretations of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 to their glacial pace at actually making commercial flights a reasonable
possibility.

------
BurningFrog
"A Wall Street Journal report suggests that the FAA is dragging its feet on
drone rules large part due to pressure from commercial pilots whose job could
be at risk from commercial competition"

[https://gigaom.com/2015/01/15/pilot-pressure-explains-
faas-i...](https://gigaom.com/2015/01/15/pilot-pressure-explains-faas-
indecisiveness-on-drones/)

------
will_brown
I am not entirely sure if there is a distinction between Drones and Piloted
aircraft as it relates to the word "commercial." For example, I know while a
pilot with only a private pilot license can not charge passengers for the
flight, they can charge passengers for costs (fuel, maintenance, ect...).
Therefore, if this guy truly made less than a dollar for his drone video,
maybe he could prove that the videos do not even cover the cost of the
flights.

And I just have to say as a fellow lawyer, I do not agree with the following
1st Amendment argument from the article, clearly calling something "art" does
not prohibit government regulation:

>"Selling art is unquestionably one's right, and the government is forbidden
from infringing upon that right."

------
thrownaway2424
This is a sort of repeating event over the last several decades. People with
libertarian leanings find (thing) which they believe sidesteps (regulator
powers of some kind). Slowly, (regulator) asserts itself, up to and including
force of law or even armed response.

I don't know when this pattern will stop happening. You're _never_ going to
move to a floating/flying platform in the middle of the ocean/in space and
cyberjack into a utopian free-for-all.

------
Roboprog
Stupid question: why does the FAA care whether your heli/plane has a camera,
or whether the camera stores the footage vs transmitting it in real time?

Guns and missiles, I understand we might want to regulate a bit :-)

It seems like the weight, location, and height depending on the location would
be the primary safety issue.

------
gerhardi
If one uploaded a video shot with drone to youtube/etc. and google / facebook
/ ... showed advert on the same page as the drone video is shown on, wouldn't
Google / Facebook be monetising with the video and the drone flight would have
become illegal?

------
danellis
The FAA received a complaint and they acted on it according to their current
regulations. I'm sure that at the same time there are people looking at those
regulations and saying, "This doesn't make sense as things are now. We need to
rethink this."

------
bengali3
I like how the article links to a drone video shot in the US, hosted on
youtube.

------
avelis
I would agree in principle but what part of the drone's labor, the hobbyist
labor, or any service the drone provided did the hobbyist charge for?

------
rdlecler1
If a Drone company is showing video of their drone on their site to advertise
themselves is that also prohibited?

------
c4n4rd
What would that entail to independent nature film makers or even companies
like National Geographic?

------
spiritplumber
What if I sell drone accessories and my video is not monetized, but links to
my website?

------
gojomo
The FAA apparently views drone video like sex acts: A-OK unless money is
involved.

------
darkstar999
Who complained to the FAA about this person's videos? What is the incentive?

------
Buge
He made less than a dollar on his videos?

I made $23 on a video with 17k views.

------
pkinsky
It's like they're _trying_ to create an unregulated grey-market drone economy.
Not the best idea from a national security standpoint.

------
mrfusion
How does this jibe with the first amendment?

~~~
icebraining
They aren't actually banning the videos, despite eye catching headlines.
They're saying that the videos, if monetized, make the drone flying a
commercial activity, which is banned.

~~~
jpmattia
> _They 're saying that the videos, if monetized, make the drone flying a
> commercial activity, which is banned._

Strange, I didn't know there was any non-commercial component to the first
amendment. How did newpapers and newcasts, which are also commercial
activities, escape such issues?

~~~
Naga
It isn't banning posting videos of flying drones, it means that if you make
money off posting a video of flying a drone, it means you are operating a
drone commercially, which is not allowed. It has nothing to do with speech, it
is about unlawfully flying.

~~~
smokeyj
> It has nothing to do with speech, it is about unlawfully flying

The act of flying a plane becomes retroactively illegal because _money_ was
made from a video? Can we be adults and admit this has nothing to do with
lawfulness and everything to do with money?

~~~
lutorm
Of course it has to do with money, we are talking about whether or not it is a
commercial activity, which is exactly what determines whether or not the
flight is in violation of the FARs. I'm not sure what your point is.

------
wahsd
Based on the existing comments, I realize this won't be popular, but this is a
matter of violating FAA regulations for commercial operation of drones.

No one is stopping you from posting drone footage for private purposes, but if
you are doing it for commercial purposes and reasons (whether you are directly
paid or not, smart-ass) does not matter.

There is a reason this regulation is in place, because you as a private person
flying around a quad-copter (see, you're not even calling it by its right
name) for hobby and entertainment is a bit of a different thing than doing so
for some commercial purpose and flying it every day, all day.

Quit being little brats that are pouting because you can't have what you want
when you want it.

~~~
ghaff
I don't think you're being quite fair here. The objections I read are
primarily in the vein of this (appearing to be based on the facts as
presented) a trivial example of commercial use akin to a blog that has a few
Adsense ads. While the commercial use line is difficult to draw, drawing it
here makes essentially any public activity commercial whether it involves
posting a video on the Web or showing it at anything other than a strictly
hobbyist unsponsored event.

------
Tunecrew
Don't think this is gonna "fly" ... _ducks out_

~~~
herbig
"ducks"... solid.

------
pluckytree
Our tax dollars at work with over-paid over-pensioned government workers
trawling YouTube all day long, providing no benefit to anyone other than
boosting testosterone levels at the FAA.

~~~
jayvanguard
Conservative axe-grinding.

~~~
tomjen3
So now every kind of of government waste is automatically ignored as
conservative axe-grinding?

~~~
nfoz
The axe-grinding here is, e.g. "over-pensioned" and "providing no benefit to
anyone". This is awkward language, I'm not sure it contributes.

If the poster had said, "The FAA is wasteful and does not need to exist"
that's perhaps an interesting topic that could be discussed. "They're over-
paid over-pensioned trawling YouTube all day" doesn't really lend itself to a
useful discussion IMO.

Maybe it's subtle but attitude matters.

------
nfoz
Interesting that this is a complaint against the user posting the video,
rather than against YouTube.

~~~
obelos
FAA doesn't have any jurisdiction over YouTube.

