The commercial use aspect also came into play- if you were hired to use the drone to do something (like take pictures), or were a company using a drone as part of a product/service, it would arguably fall under a different set of rules. Which is another reason clarification was needed.
What about changing the rules around commercial use of drone photography / videography?
I don't understand why it's fine to use drones to take photos and videos for personal use, and why it's perfectly fine to use the smartphone in your hand for commercially-usable photos and videos, but combine the two and you suddenly have to get an FAA license?
That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away.
Yeah, when you put it that way, it makes more sense.
I still hope they’ll make the rules more permissive at some point, especially as drones are integrating more and more flight automation and collision avoidance technology. Maybe certify certain drones with specific features and restrictions as being suitable for commercial usage without a license? Accidents can still happen, but... accidents can also happen with any kind of commercial activity, even without drones involved at all.
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.
In the US, commercial drone operation requires an FAA license. By "requires" I mean legally requires. Hobby and Recreational use falls under Section 336. Commercial uses fall under Part 107.
Section 107 compliance doesn't add much to the cost of operation and so anyone who really wants drone footage and already has people on location (for example a construction company), can just buy a drone, get an employee licensed and shoot their own footage. The risks are less because insurance is simplified, the schedule more flexible, and nobody has to waste time soliciting bids, negotiating terms, and processing invoices.
Why is this unusual? Someone used a drone to take pictures of a military installation, which seems to be forbidden.
The law may be old, but they already include a lot of possible flying things which seems to include drones nowadays:
> Whoever uses or permits the use of an aircraft or any contrivance used, or designed for navigation or flight in the air, for the purpose of making a photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of vital military or naval installations or equipment,
The legal question is whether "the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use."
To me, this suggests:
(1) the statute looks to the purpose of the flight when the flight occurred--later developments don't matter
(2) actions of third-parties not involved in the operation of the drone also don't matter
Remember, the FAA has the authority to regulate drone flight for commercial purposes. They don't have the authority to regulate Youtube, other people's filming, etc.
Ah OK, I didn't realize he was providing this as a commercial service -- thanks for the context.
From the article it seemed like he was just a random drone enthusiast.
If he's actually advertising services for hire that turn out to break the law in practice, that at least makes much more sense of why they'd target him specifically.
Whether the law itself makes sense or not is a separate discussion, but now the sting operation doesn't seem like a totally random thing. Thanks!
This reads more like the recent Net Neutrality decision than anything else.
It's less "Drones are free to operate commercially" and more "If the FAA wants to regulate (commercial) drones separately for any other model aircraft, they need to create explicit regulations that apply to them"
What seems explicitly ruled against, is selectively interpreting existing regs as applying to an imprecise (and shifting) definition of "drone" and trying to use a "Policy Statement" as de facto law (by claiming a request for voluntary compliance, but then suing for non-compliance), without following the appropriate procedure or meeting all of the requirements of new regulation.
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?
drones represent a potential hazard to other aircraft as well as people on the ground, which, like it or not, gives the FAA an interest in regulating their use. I agree it seems arbitrary at first glance, but I think it's better to look at it the other way around: the FAA is essentially cutting hobbyists a break from what they would normally require of a drone operator.
Current law doesn't allow commercial drones - meaning nothing that makes a profit or supports a business. Hobby photography is the only application that makes sense right now.
I'll just note that laws and regulations can get struck down for vagueness. If there's no hard rule about what kind of drones are regulated how, then it becomes more burdensome- or even impossible- to know whether you're complying with the law.
I mimic the top comment here. I used to be an aerial photographer in the Northeast about 7ish years ago when drones were still relatively new. You still had to build you own back then, you couldn't just BUY them.
The regulations were super confusing. I even had cop sending me an email in case I ever needed anything, but I'm pretty sure at the time I wasn't really supposed to be flying because I didn't have a license. Regardless, regulations were ridiculously confusing so it's nice to see some clarity after all these years.
reply