Flying your Drone for Money

In the USA, you need a 107 if you fly to further a business. Compensation is not the litmus test.

If you took photos while flying for the only intention of fun and later sold photos made with a recreational flight, you can without having flown under 107.

It gets murky with social media since some have monetized accounts and some don't. Some, including some at FAA seem to think the mere intent and following through of posting flight media onto social media disqualifies recreational exemption. It doesn't.

I didn't watch it, because I'm not in Canada. As a Student Pilot (Part 61) in the USA, I was required to learn what may be done with a Private Pilot certificate and what requires a Commercial certificate. Part 107 rules don't strike me as that different.

In a nutshell: UAV operations in furtherance of a business--your own or someone else's, and whether or not you're getting paid--require Part 107 certification. Period. The fine for uncertificated commercial operation is 1,100 USD; for knowingly hiring an uncertificated pilot for commercial work, the fine is 11,000 USD. Both fines are levied per occurrence.

A couple of things about the FAA. One, they operate on the principle of "educate first, sanction last." Their goal is to correct and prevent unsafe operations, so they don't want pilots, manned or unmanned, afraid to be open and honest. There's been some kvetching about a YouTuber being hit with a hefty fine, but the guy had a whopping 123 violations for unsafe operations (not Part 107 violations). After several "educate first" attempts, FAA finally lost patience and did the "sanction last" part: how many times should someone need to be told to read and follow the darn regulations?

Second, FAA don't consider occasional social media postings, even if monetized, to be Part 107 operations. They'd almost certainly tell someone who's deriving substantial income, not in ongoing royalties but from newly-created content, that he needs a Part 107 certificate if he wishes to continue. Again, it's "educate first, sanction last."

Gimbal2019 said:

So does that mean You Tubers with or without a certificate can post their videos without being concerned about someone thinking they are making money.

Click to expand...

Posting your videos on Youtube has never been a problem.
In the US, the FAA does not consider that commercial use despite what a previous poster suggested.

Gimbal2019 said:

I did not understand that!! I was under the impression if a drone pilot received anything in trade for Drone work then the Drone pilot required an Advanced RPAS certificate.
Also if you fly a sub 250 gram Drone - you can fly for money without a certificate. - legally.
I do not know about pilots in the USA but for me in Canada that is good news.

Click to expand...

In the USA, if you’re flying a “sub 250 gram” drone for profit it a.) Must be registered as a Part 107 drone and b.) must be operated by a 107 certificate holder!

Meta4 said:

Posting your videos on Youtube has never been a problem.
In the US, the FAA does not consider that commercial use despite what the previous poster suggested.

Click to expand...

Not exactly what I suggested.

FAA don't concern themselves with YT videos and, in fact, their current guidance is that social media is not to be used as the basis for an investigation: it can, however, be used as evidence in an investigation. "In furtherance of a business" could come from an IRS audit, and IRS distinguish between "business" and "hobby." My comment was hypothetical, but is based in the realities of administrative law.

Bottom line, few social media pilots are flying in furtherance of a business or are making enough from their drone footage for IRS to impute business income to them: those who are, know who they are and (apart from the inevitable scofflaws) are operating within Part 107 regulations. They're also using the tax code to write off equipment and expenses (unless they're stupid).

Also note: FAA aren't a law enforcement agency: their sanctions are civil, not criminal. IRS are a law enforcement agency. FBI, obviously are law enforcement (drone pilot in Los Angeles recently convicted on Federal charges of reckless operation after willfully launching into a police helicopter's area of operation and accidentally crashing into said helicopter).

Paladin45 said:

Not exactly what I suggested.

Click to expand...

Your post was fine ... it wasn't visible when I posted referring to a different one that was spreading misinformation.

Gimbal2019 said:

I just watched another one of the GREAT videos by Don's Drones On. I think all drone pilots need to watch his very informative videos.
This video titled "What you need to Drone for Money" really made me think.
If I understand the video correctly we (Canadians) can can use our Basic RPAS certificate and legally get paid for any work (if you want to call it that) that we do with our drones.
I did not understand that!! I was under the impression if a drone pilot received anything in trade for Drone work then the Drone pilot required an Advanced RPAS certificate.
Also if you fly a sub 250 gram Drone - you can fly for money without a certificate. - legally.
I do not know about pilots in the USA but for me in Canada that is good news.
So does that mean You Tubers with or without a certificate can post their videos without being concerned about someone thinking they are making money.
Please check out Don's Drone Video and let me know what your take on it is.

Can we actually get a job flying a Drone using a Basic Certificate in Canada?
What about all you Pilots in the USA can you get paid to take photos and sell them without 107 Certification.

Click to expand...

This is a screenshot of the Transport Canada website

Meta4 said:

Posting your videos on Youtube has never been a problem.
In the US, the FAA does not consider that commercial use despite what a previous poster suggested.

Click to expand...

What if the YouTube channel is monitized?

CactusJackSlade said:

What if the YouTube channel is monitized?

Click to expand...

That's what I was getting at before being blasted.

I agree it is unlikely FAA would go after you solely for posting media on a monetized social media where the flight was intended to generate the media for posting, but I believe they could, especially if there was a complaint about a potential violation of not being 107 certified.

CactusJackSlade said:

What if the YouTube channel is monitized?

Click to expand...

Almost all monetised Youtube accounts are picking up just pennies.
The FA has never made any comment on this.

DanMan32 said:

That's what I was getting at before being blasted.

Click to expand...

What you were getting at was based on one particular youtube video that showed one FAA officer who had no idea what he was talking about and spreading misinformation.
And a presenter who also had no idea of the actual situation.
The whole video was a long way from true and did not present the FAA's stated policy on the matter.

From a legal standpoint, if you generate revenue from your YouTube channel you would be require to abide by the regulations for commercial flight. In the same way that you’re required to claim it for income tax purposes. Whether the FAA would pursue action is an entirely different matter. Whether you’re willing to take the risk is a question only you can answer.

Meta4 said:

What you were getting at was based on one particular youtube video that showed one FAA officer who had no idea what he was talking about and spreading misinformation.
And a presenter who also had no idea of the actual situation.
The whole video was a long way from true and did not present the FAA's stated policy on the matter.

Click to expand...

I agree both were wrong, but we have heard about similar accounts with other agents.

BigAl07 said:

I think you're missing the INTENT of the flight. A video/photo made during a purely Recreational flight (so long as the entire flight fell within Recreational ~44809 criteria) could later be shown to have VALUE and sold/monetized legally. It's the flight and the INTENT of that flight that is the factors that need to be realized and not what you do with the DATA you acquired. The FAA is concerned about the FLIGHT and it's INTENT.

It's key to note that if the entire flight, lift-off to landing, is not 100% within the specific set of conditions for ~44809 the entire flight is, by default, under Part 107 regardless of the status of the operator.

Click to expand...

Thanks for replying, Al. I always look forward to your input

I understand and agree with your post in it’s entirety . The question was “What if the YouTube channel is monetized?” So I answered with the assumption that the intent was to capture footage for the purpose of providing content on a monetized YouTube channel. Which, correct me if I’m wrong, would fall under part 107.

Side note, what is visible in your post and what I see quoted in my reply are worded differently. What causes that to happen?

DanMan32 said:

That's what I was getting at before being blasted.

I agree it is unlikely FAA would go after you solely for posting media on a monetized social media where the flight was intended to generate the media for posting, but I believe they could, especially if there was a complaint about a potential violation of not being 107 certified.

Click to expand...

Exactly, lots of misinformation abounds... but if you are making money off of it, best to have your 107

BigAl07 said:

I think you're missing the INTENT of the flight. A video/photo made during a purely Recreational flight (so long as the entire flight fell within Recreational ~44809 criteria) could later be shown to have VALUE and sold/monetized legally. It's the flight and the INTENT of that flight that is the factors that need to be realized and not what you do with the DATA you acquired. The FAA is concerned about the FLIGHT and it's INTENT.

It's key to note that if the entire flight, lift-off to landing, is not 100% within the specific set of conditions for ~44809 the entire flight is, by default, under Part 107 regardless of the status of the operator.

Click to expand...

I think this will change, what would prevent anyone from going out every day and flying "recreationally" ... but then sell the imaging later.

CactusJackSlade said:

I think this will change, what would prevent anyone from going out every day and flying "recreationally" ... but then sell the imaging later.

Click to expand...

Nothing of course. However, it is the INTENT of the original video which is judged by FAA an whether it was as a “service” to others.