FAA says monetized videos shot from drones are subject to commercial regulations
motherboard.vice.com
motherboard.vice.com
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."
Is the flight of the drone illegal then? Ridiculous logic.
We can use them to kill innocent children who happen to be at a party where some scumbag is hanging out, but don't film your birthday party and upload it to youtube! Don't try to sell your house with a video featuring using a drone to show the roof is in good condition! Oh no! This is the end!
After sort of passively watching it while doing other things, one of the episodes in the marathon was a "behind the scenes" sort of thing, where they showed that drone cinematography is used, basically, in like 80% of the filming done for that show.
They send the cameramen out in two-person teams, one to fly the drone, and the other to operate the camera, with an Oculus-looking visor on so that they can simply see the camera as through a viewfinder.
The "intent to generate income" is not only there, it's at some point in the past.
Not the guy in the article, though.
And thanks for noting an interesting episode to watch.
They would need to abide by Transport Canada's UAV regulations, and would most likely require a SFOC, which is possible to get if you're operating <400ft commercially. The FAA does not yet have a similar permitting process for commercial drone use.
EDIT: SFOC/Transport Canada regulations: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/general-reca...
I think people understand the rule just fine, and they are angry because they don't agree with the rule at all.
What the other four are thinking is beyond my ken.
I'm not sure I agree with that. As someone who has flown RC Helicopters for a long long time, one of the reasons I haven't gotten more into drones is a) they are "to easy" to fly and get boring [1] (if you don't believe me try flying a 60 size Gas RC Chopper with no gyros) and b) I can't make any money right now because of the "no commercial" rule.
While I don't think people are flying drones to make practically nothing on youtube.com (I think they want to make cool videos obviously) the fact is if you are going to have a rule that says "no commercial" and it hasn't been further defined then you have to stick to that.
Separately, there is a similar quasi rule with regards to using a domain name for commercial purposes (re: Trademark and UDRP filings) and often a domain name owner will lose a case if they don't have a good attorney and if the opposing party is able to take the ads and say "they are making money from my trademark". The amount of the money they are making doesn't really enter that much into the picture.
[1] I bought an AR Drone which I "flew" exactly one time. It's similar to the difference, if you are a skier, between the bunny slope and a black diamond (and I don't mean an East Coast USA black diamond..)
That said if you've never flown a gas rc you should give it a try (if you can afford it since they are typically more expensive than an electric especially when you crash and have to fix them..)
They have made the distinction before. If you build your own aircraft it can be certified as experimental. You can do anything you like with it that you might do with a Cessna, except commercial operations. I believe you can take a friend for a ride and split the fuel costs, but you may not profit. Why the type of plane matters is not clear to me. Likewise, flying a drone is legal, taking video is legal, why should profit from it be illegal? I don't know.
The potential for monetary reward for drone flights fundamentally changes the risks a pilot is prepared to take. If the conditions are marginal or if there's more people around than I feel comfortable with, I pack my gear up and go home. If there was a significant amount of money at stake in "getting the shot", I'd be _very_ tempted to push the limits further than I do as a hobbyist. If there was a large amount of money involved, and the risks of getting caught were low enough, it'd be very tempting to break the law to get the money. I choose to stay right out of that game for those reasons - but you only need to look at the paparazzi industry to know that when the money is right, people are happy to do impolite, dangerous, immoral, and illegal things to "get the shot". Even as a hobbyist multicopter builder/flier I'd rather not see "my hobby" being used that way - at least not without some accountability and consequences for people who choose to behave like that.
Suppose I go to a local RC meetup with a camcorder, film some people flying around, then upload it to youtube and monetize it?
What if the RC plane I am filming is owned by me, and flown by one of my friends?
What if the RC plane is a drone owned by me, and is flying itself while I film it?
What if the RC plane is owned and flown by me, while I film it?
What if all of these tapes are 20 years old, and I am only now digging them out of my attic to digitize and monetize them?
It seems to me there may be a decent amount of gray-areas around this whole concept.
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.
I see a few RC instructor business on google that has a commercial pilot as the instructor, I wonder if that is required.
See: http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/03/18/ama-respo...
If you are interested, you should submit one.
That there could be legal challenges for these companies is rage-inducing. It is completely ludicrous. It's a waste of everyone's time and money (both taxpayers paying for the bureaucracy, and the companies defending the legal challenges), and does absolutely nothing for safety.
As a pilot who wants top live, i'd prefer people without training to stay out of the sky. Flying an extension of you (your drone) is even worse because you have even less interest in the safety since in a mid-air collision between planes, you die too. If your drone hits my plane - you do not die. Want to fly? Get a license. Want to fly a drone? Still get a license!
What you ask (FAA to leave the issue alone) is akin to letting 2 year olds drive 18-wheelers on the roads you drive your kids to school on? Feeling comfy with that?
To people who claim drones aren’t dangerous: YOU might have almost been killed by one last time you flew commercial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/near-c...
Then I suggest you stay out of the sky, because we're not going to make it 100.000000% safe for you, ever. You don't own the universe above 0 AGL. Other people need to use it, too.
Nobody flying a drone below several hundred feet is, or should be, a hazard to you, as long as they're not doing so near an airport. Existing regulations are just fine in that regard without making up a bunch of horseshit about "monetization."
What you ask (FAA to leave the issue alone) is akin to letting 2 year olds drive 18-wheelers on the roads you drive your kids to school on? Feeling comfy with that?
The arrogance it must take to post something like that is simply breathtaking. You probably throw beer cans at bicyclists when you pass them on the road, too.
Likewise, I'll take the opposite extreme position that if you want to fly airplanes over populated locations, stay more than a couple thousand feet away as well, you're noisy and small aircraft and their pilots don't have quite the safety record that large ones do. How many people have quadcopter operators killed compared to small aircraft pilots? Seems like the answer should be that pilots of small aircraft, the planes vulnerable to small impacts and the pilots actually killing people should be kept away from the populace. What's the utility of allowing small aircraft to fly over my house anyways?
There's definitely room for both activities in the air.
Zero, meanwhile even Harrison Ford, an extremely qualified pilot, found a golf course when his engine gave out. Shit happens, and we need to plan accordingly instead of trying to prevent the shit in the first place. Oddly enough, I don't see worldwide media focusing on the private aviation hobby and how dangerous it is to everyone even though he landed on a fucking golf course. But no, one drone lands on the White House lawn and it's a national emergency with firmware updates pushed by DJI in response to ban Washington, D.C.
My work, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, is to educate folks about the positive uses for drone technology and the industry that's about to happen. The possibilities of extending our senses into the air around us are endless. I've had people come up to me while operating in public and threaten me and my equipment. People are shooting at drones with some frequency in the more backwater parts of the United States. I'm waiting for one of those bullets to land a few miles away and kill a child, because I predict the backlash will be against the fliers, not the shooters.
I often feel like I'm pushing, hopelessly against the avalanche of media fearmongering, because this technology has real, potent uses that should appeal to this community of startup tinkerers and hobbyists. We could be investing in automatic technology to build upon TCAS and integrate commercial UAS into that system, but we're not: we're trying to prevent the industry from ever happening.
Imagine the Wright Brothers trying to tinker in today's regulatory climate. Remember how all of us fought against classifying our hobby as "drones," even though it's technically correct, because most peoples' exposure to the word "drone" is centered around Hellfire-carrying platforms? Yeah, this is why.
Even if they do, they're mostly cardboard, whereas model airplanes have things like small engine blocks. I bet a 737 engine could ingest a model rocket without anyone noticing.
Even though the FAA has engine manufacturers like GE test the hell out of engines, it's tough to predict what will happen in the real world. Birds are a huge threat to aviation, both engine ingestion and windscreen collisions, and birds are mostly organic. (It goes without saying to stand the hell away from an operating jet engine even at idle, too, because humans do get ingested with fatal results.) I can't imagine an operating engine ingesting a drone or anything else with non-organic components would go well, and this is why I always advocate very strongly for safe drone operation.
Here's an intentional intake blade failure to ascertain whether the engine can contain the failure without threatening the aircraft; this is useful to see what happens if something is ingested that causes a catastrophic blade failure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAhjSviYVr8
Routine 400+ foot launches are more the purview of dedicated rocket launch events, which typically do go through extensive FAA clearance and such, and which have certification processes in place for those flying all but the lowest-powered rockets. Airspace is usually sanitized, and for good reason: these sorts of rockets tend to be much bigger than your ordinary backyard-launched Estes rockets, and very well could do significant damage to an airplane should a collision occur.
Tip: if you want to fly in a baseball field, and get your model back (not drift out of the park), stick with engines like "B6-4" or "C6-3" and models sized for those engines. If you fly a C6-5 or a D12-7, you had better have a good size farm to land in and a few friends to help spot :-)
http://www.hobbylinc.com/rockets/group/enginefacts.htm
Flying G size engines and up? Go to a special event in Nevada. Those can go a few thousand feet up. (or lift some heavy/dangerous frameworks)
What do you think about falconry?
I'm no pilot, but several of my coworkers are. Based on various conversations with them about flying (altitude clearances, ATC, etc.), I'd reckon you're severely over-reacting by calling for an outright ban on unlicensed RC aircraft flight. Altitude and airspace restrictions are reasonable; outright bans are not.
For an indepth analysis of the current proposal see http://www.kramerlevin.com/Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-Alert-F...
What I'm curious about, though, is if the video is considered an artwork, can the FAA reasonably use their authority to classify the flight as commercial in nature?
As in, if the purpose of the recording was not simply for profit, but profit comes by way of the artistic contribution (e.g. editing, adding a soundtrack, creating a montage for entertainment) then it's not really a "commercial flight" but simply a personal use resulting in a commerically viable product. There are some hairs to be split in this distinction I think. I mean, taking a video out the window of a personal / private aircraft is suddenly under the FAA's purvue by implication? I don't think they would be wise to go that route, but if they are, that'd be good to know in a hurry. There are a LOT of YouTube videos that suddenly run afoul of an overly broad interpretation, I'd wager.
I'm not claiming to have the last word on this, but rather using my inherent stubbornness, creative background, and understanding of intellectual property / fair use / artistic case law as factors in the discussion. Hmm. Seems like a fun debate, and one that could be productive!
I mean if someone does consider their video a purely artistic endeavor, then they just shouldn't monetize it. If it's a case like here where the money would have been nominal, then it shouldn't matter. And if they have an issue with not monetizing it then they're looking to make money off of it, and so it would certainly be commercial use.
It's kind of like saying a person can go buy a lump of clay, but if they turn it into a vase, then they can't sell it.
Thus, the flight itself isn't being monetized. My point is that the FAA thinks it has authority to regulate artistic endeavors in this case, because they choose to define the flight's nature retroactively, when in essence, the flight itself is not the commodity, nor is the product of the flight the actual commercial product...I mean, tying a camera to a balloon and then making a video of that runs afoul of the FAA with this/your logic?
That is precisely how all regulations work that make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial activity.
Or let's say you upload the video to YouTube. This is your only video, you don't monetize it. But by YouTube hosting it, people go to YouTube where they will now see other videos on the side bar. They click one and it is monetized. Because of your video, YouTube made some money (even if it is a fraction of a penny).
What if you used the video in a portfolio to get a job. Maybe it was the pièce de résistance that won you the job. You used it to secure financial gain... should that count as commercial use?
2) Why does it matter if an unrelated third party can monetize other videos using your unmonetized video? You cannot control whether YouTube shows monetized videos in its suggested watching sidebar. You, the pilot, did not monetize your video, and that is what matters for purposes of the regulation.
3) Context matters. It could be treated as a commercial use, but it depends on the greater context of the video. If it was just a portfolio item to get a job as an employee, it likely would not rise to the level of commercial use. But if it was used as a portfolio item to get a job as a contractor/service provider providing drone footage, then it would most likely be treated as a commercial use.
The reason YouTube exists and that you can upload videos is so said third party can make money. If they weren't monetizing videos, including yours, the service wouldn't exist. In effect, you are using your video as a form fo payment for having the service. Is a single video that much in the grand scheme of things? No; probably a fraction of a penny. But it is still part of the transaction you are paying to use their service.
>3
Why would this context matter when monetizing it the context of how much money is made doesn't matter. Even if operating at a loss, making only pennies for every dollar spent, it still counts as monetizing?
Heck, what if flying a drone on my own time helps me relax, which makes me more productive at my normal desk job?
In my opinion, if you fly the drone with the intend to use the resulting footage in any commercial product (e.g. a _monetized_ youtube video), then that flight was commercial in nature. And because we can't measure intent, we have to assume that every flight that results in a commercial product was started with the intend of producing that product.
Maybe in some cases you can make a point that the flight was primarily for enjoyment and the video was just a byproduct. That might be a viable argument for a paraglider without established audience, but it's harder to defend for a drone with a camera strapped to it.
It seems to me this is a bit of a mixed bag here, and in which case there's a clear pattern, footage shot, non-commercial use first... meaning intent can be shown.
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://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId...
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".
[1] http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-issue-...
Taking photos of real estate and then selling those photos to a real estate agent would still be illegal, thouigh.
Not with severe ADHD.
I am directly impacted by this due to my work to educate folks about proper, safe drone usage given media mischaracterization and fearmongering (like that recent Audi ad) about drones. All of my videos are artistic in nature and work to educate the public on the positive, market-generating usages of drones, such as aerial filmmaking, land survey, search and rescue, and other uses. Your comment smacks of lacking all of the context around FAA enforcement against drone fliers in recent years, and rushing to defend an agency that has burned all positive relationships it ever had with the hobbyist industry, both drones and otherwise.
The FAA has repeatedly missed deadlines to get its shit together, and is on track to miss another that was set by Congress for the end of this year. In the meantime, they've devoted their resources to pursuing drone fliers in court (and losing, quite dramatically, on taxpayer dollars) and sending toothless cease and desist notices like this. Nobody with an ounce of common sense can possibly conclude what you have, that a YouTube ad suddenly makes the flight commercial. If a private pilot records the view out of his cockpit window and then puts ads on the video on YouTube, he's not suddenly a (potentially unlicensed) commercial operator.
It follows that this action is just another excuse for the FAA to harass drone pilots and people attempting to build a multi-million dollar industry in the United States. Nothing about this is sane, and the FAA is repeatedly demonstrating that it's happy to service those with money and who can make noise in government -- the sudden (and rapid) creation of the certification exemption program for law enforcement after DHS started flying Predators over the border, for example -- while pinching the rest of us in court. You shouldn't make any attempt to defend the FAA; most people (me included) who really want to make something of UAS are already looking to other nations and have begun operating under more progressive regulatory schemes.
Irrelevant; what matters is if the person flying the plane makes money, not if unrelated third-parties do.
(1) posses flight footage; but
(2) you can't sell it.
That put these FAA rules into the regulation of media.
That sounds like something that will be litigated, IMHO.
I doubt a court will let that stand without some threshold of materiality. A flight that costs $5 or whater and makes $0.05 is not implicitly a commercial enterprise. Using basic IRS rules, that is a "hobby" activity not a business activity, by definition. That's at least one objective standard that could be brought to bear.
But who knows, maybe I'm missing something.
Monetizing the video later may be evidence of intent to use the drone commercially at the time the drone was flown, but its fairly weak evidence, since its quite possible for the intent to be formed after the drone was flown. The purpose of an act can't change retroactively, but the proceeds of an act carried out with one purpose may well have a different purpose than that of the act when it was carried out.
Now, obviously, in the case where the party flying the drone has an ongoing operation of monetizing videos that exists prior to the time the drone is flown, flies the drone, and quickly turns around and monetizes the video from the drone, the combination of factors is pretty strong evidence that the drone was used commercially rather than the video being commercialized after the drone was flown.
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.
that wouldn't be that bad considering the alternative charge of say "money laundering" (if, say, you puff off some grains of sand from the quarter), "illegal deposit acceptance" or other money transfer/handling crimes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3171665
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplic...
> In Coralville, Iowa police shut down 4-year-old Abigail Krstinger’s lemonade stand after it had been up for half an hour. Dustin Krustinger told reporters that his daughter was selling lemonade at 25 cents a cup during the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Race Across Iowa (or RAGBRAI), and couldn’t have made more than five dollars, adding “If the line is drawn to the point where a four-year-old eight blocks away can’t sell a couple glasses of lemonade for 25 cents, than I think the line has been drawn at the wrong spot.”
It would be humorous except non-government, non-corporate individuals have no way to redress grievances.
You can protest, is what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. What I said was that it isn't true that all parts of every government office are abusive. I implied that issues in Idaho's state government aren't the same as those in Miami's Precinct Alderman's offices, and those are different than those in Washington, D.C.
Where shall I gather the money to run radio ads? You actually believe planting trees is a way to address grievances?
My state and national representative will not care one iota for my opinion if it isn't attached to either A: a large check or B: a large constituency.
I wrote there are numerous examples of government abuse on all levels, how is it then not true that every government office is abusive? Yes, perhaps this particular ranger in this particular state park is clean as a whistle -- in our orchard of rotten apples there are still a few good ones if you pick through the garbage.
Radio: any type of fundraising that you believe would work, or try to get free air time on local broadcasts or regional programs. It helps if you have an interesting topic to talk about.
Trees: If it gets your message across, yes. It would be a good news story.
"My state and national representative will not care one iota for my opinion if it isn't attached to either A: a large check or B: a large constituency."
Have you ever tried? This is the kind of statement made by someone who has nothing but second- and third-hand knowledge of the process, usually garnered through biased news organizations (they all are).
My experience has been that very few citizens are involved in politics as lobbying goes. I'm convinced that if every private citizen got as involved in the actual process as they are in complaining, actual, paid lobbyists would be driven out of business. They only speak for us because we do not speak for ourselves.
I have successfully lobbied my state representative. I wrote to the local paper, I arranged an interview with compelling stories for local television. I made a nuisance out of myself until I got airtime on local radio stations. I made such a stink that my federal representatives even called me to discuss the issue and ask for my thoughts (albeit not too much in depth). I spoke for myself, because the people who were doing it full time didn't have my best interests at heart.
But, I felt passionately about the topic. You're right, it's easier with money, but you can also spend time and energy for nearly as good of a return. Not everyone has these things to spare, and I appreciate that (I was lobbying against cuts to low-income early childhood in my area; the exact kind of people who have neither time, money, nor energy to fight the fight). But, if it's something you truly feel is right, just, and good, you'll figure out how to make it happen.
Finally, to bring it back around to the original argument; it may be that several government entities are abusive. It is probably true that a majority are corrupt. But to say that ---all-- government is abusive or corrupt is just ridiculous. Those type of arguments add nothing to the conversation other than noise.
I guess they probably would have sued her parents on top of closing the stand.
Second, while these organizations theoretically "have no such right", there are plenty of instances where they do directly wield force yet escape justice, abuse the force-wielding functions of government to harm people, or use their concentrated power to buy off parts of the government (principle agent problem). Insisting that these are ultimately government problems because a perfect minimalist government would not succumb is highly wishful thinking. It's falling into the classic political trap of addressing one half the problem while drumming up full-speed-ahead support for the other half.
A company would not be nearly so dangerous if it could not in turn influence the government to destroy you. It is much cheaper to give campaign donations to a US senator and then hand him laws to pass or ask for subsidies or for no-bid government contracts than is it to actually compete in an open market where you have to provide a better service for a better price than everyone else.
I find it amazing that people clamor for the government to protect them and yet day after day we see examples of the government crushing the helpless, confiscating their property, throwing flash bangs at their children, torturing them, or just straight up murdering them, and all without consequence, at most you get a pretty speech than it s back to business as usual handing out billions of tax payer wealth so companies can give some of drippings back to our 'elected' representatives.
And when you bring this up, what do people say? They tell you it's just bad luck, there really are some good people in government, try contacting your your congress critter, try getting into public office. The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over and over again and expect a different result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_the...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-23/bunbury-girls-lemonade...
It includes some great quotes from the council spokesperson.
> An 11-year-old girl's cupcake and lemonade stand has been shut down by Bunbury city council officers over health and safety concerns.
> "The city applauds her efforts in trying to be entrepreneurial, but it is important to seek professional advice in relation to legal requirements."
> "If she can look at manufacturing food in a commercial kitchen, then there is a possibility that she will be able to do it in the future," Ms Upton said.
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.
Edit: Or $400.
http://www.freelancetaxation.com/the-minimum-freelancers-nee...
So if you make $20,000 a year and find $1 on the street, you're supposed to declare that dollar.
Another fun fact: if you crash at a friend's house for a few months without paying rent, you're supposed to count the amount you didn't pay in rent as gift income.
I think it's safe to say that everyone that has filled their taxes has does something wrong. Sometimes it's not even clear to the IRS what a person should do.
They had to give me the loan at at least the prime rate (which was fine for me, since at the time there was no way I was getting a loan at that rate).
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ...
Sex is monetizable in some jurisdictions (almost nowhere in the US, but neverless somewhere!) and as a result all sexual acts have monetary value; it doesn't really matter where they are performed. Given that they have value someone must be giving up income by not charging, and someone else is receiving a gift which the other party is so generously waiving.
Do you let your partner see your tax return for fear that they claim you don't value them as much as you should? Or do you overvalue them and get overtaxed? Where's the fine line? Or do you agree amongst the two of you that for the purpose of your tax returns you're both "$5 blowjob on the corner for crack" material to keep each of your taxes to a minimum? Who's to argue?
Do the government have to send people around to rate you both to ensure you're not skipping out on taxes? "Well, she's a 10 who could easily score the $8,000 a night which is the going rate at Madame's High Class Escorts down the street. You've been living together for 6 years now and you've not claimed this as a taxable benefit. So you owe us back taxes on $17.52M - we don't care that you only earned $480,000 in that time. Also, we're really not understanding how she's with you knowing she could have made $17.04M more if she ditched you." and handing your partner their business card...
Even using "market rates" as this thread is suggesting is an incredibly subjective affair. Let's say you rent a room some place, at market rate for the area... what's market rate? It's 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, shared kitchen; but there's mold and clearly the roof leaks, none of the kitchen cupboards shut properly, the hot water doesn't work, the door lock is a wedge of wood in the door jam, you've seen cockroaches. It's rented out by a slumlord, but it's in a ritzy neighborhood. You're in a position where you have to rent this place, it's a dump, you're not sure if you weren't in this situation that anyone else in their right mind would rent it... the rent is $1,500 a month, because of the location.
Your friend down the street takes pity on you and lets you crash in his spare room to save you the indignity of living in this shit hole. Do you get taxed on the place you can afford or the rate your friend could get if he put his spare room up for rent? Given that he doesn't want to rent his room out to a stranger, but he's letting you crash there for free because he's your friend, what is the market rate for that room? The same as the one down the street which is only room for rent on the street? How does "market rate" get applied?
You're fundamentally correct, but it's worth unpacking the logic here. First, the donor pays the gift tax, unless an agreement is in place for the recipient to do so. The controlling case is Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S. 330 (1984), and the basic idea is that, if you have a recognizable property right, foregoing the commercial use of that property in favor of providing it at a discounted rate creates a recognized gift. The gift amount is determined by the fair market rental value of the property. (This gets around the concern of the poster below about how you're supposed to declare income you didn't receive.)
Gift taxes are really just a method of checking large-scale tax evasion schemes where someone gifts assets to family members; to ameliorate the effects, there's a $14K/person/year exclusionary zone (plus other exemptions and methods to reduce liabilities) where you don't have to declare or worry about gifts.
Technically, couch-surfing probably wouldn't trigger the IRS' interest (not sure even they would try to figure out the fair-market value of a couch and a blanket), but giving someone a room (let alone the full use of a rental property) would in fact be a taxable event. However, it's unlikely, even in the Bay Area, that the value of that would rise above the $14K/person gift exclusion. In Dickman, the parents had to give a lot of interest-free loans to trigger the IRS' interest.
In Canada, if you owe the government less than $2 in taxes, they don't want the money.
You could possibly use minimum wage as a threshold for whether something realistically counts as commercial. That might be too high though.
Would it be inappropriate for the FAA to make up a line below which things are blatantly not real income in their eyes?
Who would be responsible for a national guideline anyway?
But I wouldn't imagine huge objection to saying that anything below a tenth of minimum wage per hour of work is a noncommercial hobby.
Yes. When the income exceeds your expenses it becomes commercial. That's seems like a very clear and bright line to separate the two without worrying about youtube ads.
That makes it not commercial. The IRS has rules about "hobby" which are basically the same: If you don't [eventually] make money after expenses and deductions, it's not a business.
For example there are exemptions written into the law about gain on selling a house, if you don't make too much extra.
Are you trying to ask me about making something commercial retroactively? i.e. you did not buy the jacket with the intent to sell it for more, and now suddenly it's worth more?
Or you can put the earnings inside a business, and then offset it with expenses. The business could pay you salary, or you can keep the money inside the business and realize it as capital gains tax later when you want.
You have many choices on how to organize the money.
Defining commerciality is difficult. It's one of the problems I have with the non-commercial variants of Creative Commons licenses. I have seen people on Flickr strongly object to NC photos being used on a blog with Adsense. And how about a large 501(c)(3) non-profit, perhaps one whose politics you disagree with? Take a broad enough view and very little is non-commercial.
Here's their rules for model aircraft, with a section on what does and doesn't count as hobby use.
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...
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.
" In general, whenever we receive a complaint about an unauthorized UAS operation, we contact the operator and educate them about the regulations so they can comply,"
It seems to me that the above is more orientated towards repeat offenders than for a couple one-time pictures.
i.e. if a private pilot takes a friend along and the friend later sells said pictures to a magazine.
In terms of sharing costs (or accepting compensation) for rides, there is often a straight face test - is it genuinely and sincerely a shared interest in undertaking a flight, with a goal (outside the flight itself) for both the pilot and passenger. If not, then it's considered commercial. The FAA rightly or wrongly tends to view "nudge nudge wink wink" stuff on the conservative side.
* Go joyriding with a friend if they pay you more than their share of the operating expenses (gas, oil, airport fees, etc) of the flight.
* Have a friend ask you "hey, want to fly to <insert location> this weekend?" and then take him there. Doing so could be construed as you providing a transportation service, even if he pays you nothing.
Basically, what you can do is offer friends to come along on a flight you intend to make and will make even if they don't come, while paying no more than their fair share. If making the flight is contingent on them coming, you are providing a transportation service.
The fact that these activities would be perfectly fine if done in a car apparently matters not one whit to the FAA.
This seems needlessly burdensome and most likely net negative for the FAA.
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.
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.
I think he'd be up for that.
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."
[1] http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-laws...
[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.
I'd think this interpretation of commercial use would logically apply that as well (and be equally ridiculous).
I think we may need some case law, so hopefully some millionaire (or lawyer) who likes drone flying can push back against the FAA.
14 CFR 61.113 says "no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft."
Pretty much the only exception that applies widely is the next part, which says "A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire."
This basically means that if you are a pilot that works for a non-aviation related company, you may fly around as part of your job, for example for you and some coworkers to get to a meeting.
If the company or individual makes money directly off the flight, then I'm pretty sure it will never be considered incidental. See my other posts for some things that the FAA does not allow private pilots to do.
As asinine as these regs are, they are long-standing and I don't really see why having the pilot on the ground should make a fundamental difference to whether they're allowed to stand or not.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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/ [2] https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/
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.
https://gigaom.com/2015/01/15/pilot-pressure-explains-faas-i...
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."
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.
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.
I made $23 on a video with 17k views.
"Drones taking monetized videos are commercial flights, according to FAA"
See FAA
Is anyone familiar with the concept of a revolving door? The FAA isn't magically immune to this process and is in fact a good case study of the phenomenon.
But continue to downvote comments not because they aren't true but because they challenge your mistakenly held beliefs.
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?
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?
Unless your newspaper is delivering its newspapers by drones, they would not run into this issue.
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.
This is not appropriate for a Hacker News comment. Please follow the site guidelines:
being an immigrant with no vested interests with any political movement, during the 15 years here i found the conservatives' alleged "anti-government stance" is among the biggest and most blatant propaganda lies. They are trigger happy to expand the government power and reach whenever it helps to squash the "bigger evil" - people's liberties and freedoms (with the white people's gun rights being the only exception). Voter ID laws for example. Birth control. AETA laws. Or just google ALEC ...
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.