Total gray area, videoing my daughter's wedding to get video for our family to enjoyment is totally totally recreational and for my enjoyment, regardless what the FAA says
Zero gray area. The fact that it pleases you doesn’t mean it’s 100% recreational. Wedding photography is a commercial activity for a reason. Stop being cheap, hire a professional to get good, SAFE, drone video.
@@RetreadPhoto Photography is a hobby. There is no difference between taking photos with a DSLR vs a drone at a loved one's wedding. The FAA isn't going to win that one in court. Where they will get you is flying over people. Stop with the alarmist garbage.
@@RetreadPhoto Nah, If I take pictures with my digital camera at my daughter's wedding and share with her, that is not a commercial operation and sharing pictures with friends & family taken via drone is no different. Its recreational. Whether someone is being 'cheap' by not hiring a professional is just personal commentary unrelated to the law/faa rule.
When in doubt, ask the FAA (FAA UAS Support Center), so I did. Short answer is flying at a wedding and sharing the video with friends and family is NOT necessarily non recreational and therefore does not necessarily require a part 107. Sure, if it goes beyond simply videoing a friend or family member's wedding and privately sharing the video with them, then yes, it could make the flight non. recreational, but that is true of any flight, not just weddings. Also note the the sentence "Simply posting media to social media or sharing it with others does not negate your recreational purpose.". There are many who would suggest that anytime you share or post something, that necessarily requires you to have a 107, and that is not the case according to this FAA response. I will post the question and the response in a separate comment.
@@RebelByNature post the letter. I’m not buying it. This is contrary to every single piece of information the FAA puts out. Terrible advice, and likely just self-serving.
@@RetreadPhoto Believe what you want. Make all the assumptions about my motivations you want. Not even sure what you mean by 'post' the letter (email actually). You can ask them yourself if you wish. I have never seen a single piece of information the FAA puts out that supports your view and tortured definition of recreational. You haven't cited any either. In the end I am not trying to convince you of anything. Just countering some guy (you) on the internet's misinformation for the benefit of others.
Im surprised so many people get part A confised. It says directly participating in the operation, a spotter on your team for example. This doesn't mean you can just fly over a crowd of people because they don't care if they are part of a photo or video.
Great video Ken. Was wondering about loaning one of my registered, sub 250gm. drones to a friend? He has shown an interest in learning so I loaned him a drone. Is he responsible for his flight time or, could it come back on me? I'm really enjoying the "Can I Fly My Drone" series. Thank you
I emailed the FAA UAS Support Center on this topic, below is the question and their response. Question to FAA: If a friend or family member requests you to take some drone video of their wedding, that you are also attending as a guest, and will privately share with them, does that necessarily require a part 107, is this necessarily a non recreational flight? For someone who enjoys filming things, this would seem to be recreational. Depending on what is subsequently done with the video, there are clearly things that could make this outside the recreational exception (selling the video, sharing on a website to benefit the venue or some other organized group or business), however if you are simply privately sharing the video with individuals, if it turns out to be any good at all, is that necessarily non recreational? This topic came up on a TH-cam channel and the position taken was that flying at a wedding absolutely, always, requires a part 107 license. There was a lot of disagreement on the topic. It’s not clear to me that there is anything specific about weddings in the regulations. It would seem that any reason given to make it necessarily non recreational would apply to just about any situation where you privately share a video with anyone. Yes, there are rules to be followed (e.g. not flying over people, LOS, etc) that have to be followed in any situation, but what if anything is unique about a wedding or privately sharing a video with others that would make a flight non recreational? FAA response: It is basically an issue of intent. It is an erroneous assumption that if you are not being directly paid for drone operations then you do not need a Part 107 remote pilot certificate. Financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not the determinant for the type of operation you are conducting. It's not what you take a photo/video of, rather, it's if your intent is to use that media for any other purpose than recreation. Simply posting media to social media or sharing it with others does not negate your recreational purpose. However, if your intent is to post to social media or share with others to generate revenue, advertise your business/organization, etc., that would be considered Part 107. It is important to reiterate that revenue is not the trigger. Direct financial compensation It is but one way to show that the operation is not purely recreational. However, you do not have to receive revenue for a flight to be non-recreational. You could generate good will or other non-monetary value. Getting eyes on your footage if it is your “product” (like a videographer for weddings) would be deemed a non-recreational operation. Even if the footage is not the product, advertising is also a non-recreational op. Does posting/sharing the video serve a business purpose, including (but not limited to) generating revenue, good will, and/or advertising? If yes, then you are governed by Part 107. If no, then you may operate under the exception for recreation providing you comply with all of its provisions. Steve
@@RetreadPhoto 100% wrong. FAA said clearly it's not what you shoot or video that is relevant to recreational determination, so a wedding specifically is irrelevant. If you are doing it for recreational purposes (i.e. not paid, not goods in kind, not done for promotional purposes for yourself, the venue or any organization) then it is clearly recreational. Videoing the wedding for yourself and sharing with friends and family is purely recreational. It's no different than videoing anything else with a drone and sharing with friends and family. Just because you believe is otherwise does not make it so. Even the FAA said so.
Your contorted interpretation of Good Will makes the most sense when you consider you are in the business of selling training. Of course you want to make it seem like just about anything you do with the video of your drone requires you to have a part 107. The Good Will examples you point out are all about helping public organizations such as a school football team, etc. That is far different from friends and family. I suppose next you are going to tell me that if I simply show drone videos to friends & family that a part 107 is required. The friends & family is such an obvious example that if what you say was true the FAA would have made that example explicit if it meant that.
@@RebelByNature nope, showing videos or pics to others doesn’t impact the intent or nature of the flying at all. But if you go to the wedding with the intent of taking videos to share with the bride and groom, or family and friends, it is NOT recreational. Jesus man, read the regs. It says if you shoot your own roof or gutters, or for a neighbor, it is not recreational. Their intent is easy to see and understand for someone that isn’t blind and obstinate or argumentative.
@@RetreadPhoto Your definition of obstinate seems to be anyone that disagrees with you, which includes the FAA. If you video the wedding of a daughter or friend for your own purposes, your own enjoyment, there is nothing in the regs to prevent your sharing the video with them. I have read the regs, and followed up directly with the FAA and you are just flat out wrong, oh, and argumentative as well. If what you say was true you effectively could not share your video, of anything, with anyone. Your premise seems to be that if you video at a wedding specifically, your only intent could be to give it to others, that it can't also be for your own enjoyment. From that you extrapolate that one can never video at a wedding without a part 107 because your intent is necessarily not for your own enjoyment and recreation. If you can't see the flaw in your logic that is your problem.
Are you "furthering commerce"? This includes having your youtube channel APPLY for monetization. Your question is structured as "I own X, is that a problem?" Which doesn't make sense. What you're likely asking is if you're asking about using your drone for ag uses - which is furthering commerce, so yes you'd need a 107. (I got mine recently) If you're flying purely for fun in the US, then you'd need a TRUST certificate. I got mine from Pilot Institute. Depending on what you're doing with those crops, you might need further licenses! Yes it gets complicated, but that's business!
Commerce has nothing to do with it. It’s either “100% recreational” or it’s Part 107. Taking free pics for your neighbor or church is not furthering commerce, but is Part 107, because it is not purely recreational. This is a VERY COMMON MISCONCEPTION, which shouln’t be perpetuated.
@@RetreadPhoto I can take all the pics I want and share them with friends, family & neighbors. That does not require 107. Why do you think it does? Church, sure, because that can be helping a public organization even in the absence of money exchanges.
Not in your life, Disneyland and World both have big no-fly zones over them, which are technically are temporary but in reality they are permanent. This long before drones were even in the picture.
@@RetreadPhoto Is there anything you would not say requires a 107? Seriously, what is your angle? If I were cynical I might think you are a 107 pilot and want everyone to think 107 pilots need to be hired for just about any use of the camera on the drone.
@@RebelByNature yes, flying for fun. Recreationally. 100%. It’s not MY rule, it’s the FAA’s. Go bother them instead of polluting the Internet with mindless tripe. Go fly in the local park. Fly around and marvel at the wonder of winged aircraft and aerodynamics. Let your kids try to catch it. Take pictures of the skyline. Practice precision flying. For fun. Shooting pictures at a wedding is not “for fun” or “for recreational purposes.” How could it be? Prove that it is. Waiting.
@@RetreadPhoto See my top level comments, I asked the FAA and posted their response and they disagree with you. There is nothing inherently non recreational about videoing a friend or family's wedding and sharing the results with them. If you won't take the FAA's word for it, then you can't be helped and apparently can't admit that you misunderstood the regs in terms of what is and what is not recreational, by them, not you.
As long as you have a Part 107 certificate, don’t fly it dangerously or recklessly, out of your visual sight, directly over a person (or people), directly over a moving vehicle of any type, in controlled airspace without authorization, in parks or city areas that are no-fly or permit-required zones, or at night without an anti-collision strobe visible from 3 miles away. A wedding is not recreational.
videoing a wedding is no different under the law than videoing a family reunion or vacation time at the beach etc. Yes you can't fly directly over people in virtually any circumstance. That does not mean you can not get great video without flying directly over people, which is the same constraint you have in any other circumstance.
@@RebelByNature it is different, as regular videography and photography isn’t done in national airspace and heavily regulated by the FAA. Shooting a wedding is clearly NOT 100% recreational.
@@RetreadPhoto distinction without a difference given nothing in the FAA regs restricts recreational videoing of a wedding, regardless of whether you subsequently share the video with friends or family. Virtually every drone video I have ever taken has been shared with friends and/or family. There is no point to it otherwise.
@@RetreadPhoto BS. The reason it's not about safety is because it's not about the flying, it's about what you do with the video after the fact. Nobody is saying that you could not fly recreationally at a wedding (not directly over people of course) if you are not taking pics or video. The exact same flight operation with the camera rolling is also fine recreationally if you don't share the video with anyone. The exact same flight and you share the video with your daughter after the fact and suddenly you have a different set of safety concerns? In all three cases you have the same exact flight, so the claim of safety is without merit.
That’s totally non-sensical. They are entirely different sets of rules. It’s like saying if you play any professional sport, you should be able to play on any other.
Total gray area, videoing my daughter's wedding to get video for our family to enjoyment is totally totally recreational and for my enjoyment, regardless what the FAA says
Zero gray area. The fact that it pleases you doesn’t mean it’s 100% recreational. Wedding photography is a commercial activity for a reason. Stop being cheap, hire a professional to get good, SAFE, drone video.
@@RetreadPhoto Photography is a hobby. There is no difference between taking photos with a DSLR vs a drone at a loved one's wedding. The FAA isn't going to win that one in court. Where they will get you is flying over people. Stop with the alarmist garbage.
@@RetreadPhoto Nah, If I take pictures with my digital camera at my daughter's wedding and share with her, that is not a commercial operation and sharing pictures with friends & family taken via drone is no different. Its recreational. Whether someone is being 'cheap' by not hiring a professional is just personal commentary unrelated to the law/faa rule.
Hope you have the same attitude if they come at you with a fine
@@aedanacheson6148 fine for what?
When in doubt, ask the FAA (FAA UAS Support Center), so I did. Short answer is flying at a wedding and sharing the video with friends and family is NOT necessarily non recreational and therefore does not necessarily require a part 107. Sure, if it goes beyond simply videoing a friend or family member's wedding and privately sharing the video with them, then yes, it could make the flight non. recreational, but that is true of any flight, not just weddings. Also note the the sentence "Simply posting media to social media or sharing it with others does not negate your recreational purpose.". There are many who would suggest that anytime you share or post something, that necessarily requires you to have a 107, and that is not the case according to this FAA response. I will post the question and the response in a separate comment.
@@RebelByNature post the letter. I’m not buying it. This is contrary to every single piece of information the FAA puts out. Terrible advice, and likely just self-serving.
@@RetreadPhoto Believe what you want. Make all the assumptions about my motivations you want. Not even sure what you mean by 'post' the letter (email actually). You can ask them yourself if you wish. I have never seen a single piece of information the FAA puts out that supports your view and tortured definition of recreational. You haven't cited any either. In the end I am not trying to convince you of anything. Just countering some guy (you) on the internet's misinformation for the benefit of others.
Im surprised so many people get part A confised. It says directly participating in the operation, a spotter on your team for example.
This doesn't mean you can just fly over a crowd of people because they don't care if they are part of a photo or video.
A lot of it gets confusing because of the language used in categorized drone rules, which have a different intent.
Well said!!!
Thank you!!
Great video Ken. Was wondering about loaning one of my registered, sub 250gm. drones to a friend? He has shown an interest in learning so I loaned him a drone. Is he responsible for his flight time or, could it come back on me?
I'm really enjoying the "Can I Fly My Drone" series.
Thank you
I emailed the FAA UAS Support Center on this topic, below is the question and their response.
Question to FAA:
If a friend or family member requests you to take some drone video of their wedding, that you are also attending as a guest, and will privately share with them, does that necessarily require a part 107, is this necessarily a non recreational flight?
For someone who enjoys filming things, this would seem to be recreational. Depending on what is subsequently done with the video, there are clearly things that could make this outside the recreational exception (selling the video, sharing on a website to benefit the venue or some other organized group or business), however if you are simply privately sharing the video with individuals, if it turns out to be any good at all, is that necessarily non recreational?
This topic came up on a TH-cam channel and the position taken was that flying at a wedding absolutely, always, requires a part 107 license. There was a lot of disagreement on the topic. It’s not clear to me that there is anything specific about weddings in the regulations. It would seem that any reason given to make it necessarily non recreational would apply to just about any situation where you privately share a video with anyone.
Yes, there are rules to be followed (e.g. not flying over people, LOS, etc) that have to be followed in any situation, but what if anything is unique about a wedding or privately sharing a video with others that would make a flight non recreational?
FAA response:
It is basically an issue of intent.
It is an erroneous assumption that if you are not being directly paid for drone operations then you do not need a Part 107 remote pilot certificate. Financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not the determinant for the type of operation you are conducting.
It's not what you take a photo/video of, rather, it's if your intent is to use that media for any other purpose than recreation. Simply posting media to social media or sharing it with others does not negate your recreational purpose. However, if your intent is to post to social media or share with others to generate revenue, advertise your business/organization, etc., that would be considered Part 107.
It is important to reiterate that revenue is not the trigger. Direct financial compensation It is but one way to show that the operation is not purely recreational. However, you do not have to receive revenue for a flight to be non-recreational. You could generate good will or other non-monetary value. Getting eyes on your footage if it is your “product” (like a videographer for weddings) would be deemed a non-recreational operation. Even if the footage is not the product, advertising is also a non-recreational op.
Does posting/sharing the video serve a business purpose, including (but not limited to) generating revenue, good will, and/or advertising? If yes, then you are governed by Part 107. If no, then you may operate under the exception for recreation providing you comply with all of its provisions.
Steve
@@RebelByNature yep, that proves the case by intent that it’s Part 107: SHOOTING A WEDDING IS NOT PURELY RECREATIONAL,
@@RetreadPhoto 100% wrong. FAA said clearly it's not what you shoot or video that is relevant to recreational determination, so a wedding specifically is irrelevant. If you are doing it for recreational purposes (i.e. not paid, not goods in kind, not done for promotional purposes for yourself, the venue or any organization) then it is clearly recreational. Videoing the wedding for yourself and sharing with friends and family is purely recreational. It's no different than videoing anything else with a drone and sharing with friends and family. Just because you believe is otherwise does not make it so. Even the FAA said so.
Your contorted interpretation of Good Will makes the most sense when you consider you are in the business of selling training. Of course you want to make it seem like just about anything you do with the video of your drone requires you to have a part 107. The Good Will examples you point out are all about helping public organizations such as a school football team, etc. That is far different from friends and family. I suppose next you are going to tell me that if I simply show drone videos to friends & family that a part 107 is required. The friends & family is such an obvious example that if what you say was true the FAA would have made that example explicit if it meant that.
@@RebelByNature nope, showing videos or pics to others doesn’t impact the intent or nature of the flying at all. But if you go to the wedding with the intent of taking videos to share with the bride and groom, or family and friends, it is NOT recreational. Jesus man, read the regs. It says if you shoot your own roof or gutters, or for a neighbor, it is not recreational. Their intent is easy to see and understand for someone that isn’t blind and obstinate or argumentative.
@@RetreadPhoto Your definition of obstinate seems to be anyone that disagrees with you, which includes the FAA. If you video the wedding of a daughter or friend for your own purposes, your own enjoyment, there is nothing in the regs to prevent your sharing the video with them. I have read the regs, and followed up directly with the FAA and you are just flat out wrong, oh, and argumentative as well. If what you say was true you effectively could not share your video, of anything, with anyone. Your premise seems to be that if you video at a wedding specifically, your only intent could be to give it to others, that it can't also be for your own enjoyment. From that you extrapolate that one can never video at a wedding without a part 107 because your intent is necessarily not for your own enjoyment and recreation. If you can't see the flaw in your logic that is your problem.
I have 126 spotters . just to be safe
I have noticed a lot of traditional wedding photographers doing this now. Part of their overall wedding package.
It's a great win for both - the bride and groom receive unique footage of their wedding and the photographer can get paid more.
Do you need a license if you have cattle or crops?
Are you "furthering commerce"? This includes having your youtube channel APPLY for monetization.
Your question is structured as "I own X, is that a problem?" Which doesn't make sense.
What you're likely asking is if you're asking about using your drone for ag uses - which is furthering commerce, so yes you'd need a 107. (I got mine recently)
If you're flying purely for fun in the US, then you'd need a TRUST certificate. I got mine from Pilot Institute.
Depending on what you're doing with those crops, you might need further licenses! Yes it gets complicated, but that's business!
Commerce has nothing to do with it. It’s either “100% recreational” or it’s Part 107. Taking free pics for your neighbor or church is not furthering commerce, but is Part 107, because it is not purely recreational. This is a VERY COMMON MISCONCEPTION, which shouln’t be perpetuated.
@@RetreadPhoto I can take all the pics I want and share them with friends, family & neighbors. That does not require 107. Why do you think it does?
Church, sure, because that can be helping a public organization even in the absence of money exchanges.
@@RebelByNature Not if you use those pics to make money, like posting them on your website where you advertise your business.
@@2Bluzin true, but that is not what I said.
Can I fly my drone on Disney World area? It could be a great video
Thanks for the suggestion!
No. See the permanent TFR.
Not in your life, Disneyland and World both have big no-fly zones over them, which are technically are temporary but in reality they are permanent. This long before drones were even in the picture.
@@jesusfelipenarvaezcastillo5622 flying one down the halls of a hospital ward or museum would be cool too. But no.
What about at a car meet but just for fun?
Doesn’t sound “recreational.”
@@RetreadPhoto Is there anything you would not say requires a 107? Seriously, what is your angle? If I were cynical I might think you are a 107 pilot and want everyone to think 107 pilots need to be hired for just about any use of the camera on the drone.
@@RebelByNature yes, flying for fun. Recreationally. 100%. It’s not MY rule, it’s the FAA’s. Go bother them instead of polluting the Internet with mindless tripe. Go fly in the local park. Fly around and marvel at the wonder of winged aircraft and aerodynamics. Let your kids try to catch it. Take pictures of the skyline. Practice precision flying. For fun. Shooting pictures at a wedding is not “for fun” or “for recreational purposes.” How could it be? Prove that it is. Waiting.
@@RetreadPhoto See my top level comments, I asked the FAA and posted their response and they disagree with you. There is nothing inherently non recreational about videoing a friend or family's wedding and sharing the results with them. If you won't take the FAA's word for it, then you can't be helped and apparently can't admit that you misunderstood the regs in terms of what is and what is not recreational, by them, not you.
As long as you have a Part 107 certificate, don’t fly it dangerously or recklessly, out of your visual sight, directly over a person (or people), directly over a moving vehicle of any type, in controlled airspace without authorization, in parks or city areas that are no-fly or permit-required zones, or at night without an anti-collision strobe visible from 3 miles away. A wedding is not recreational.
videoing a wedding is no different under the law than videoing a family reunion or vacation time at the beach etc. Yes you can't fly directly over people in virtually any circumstance. That does not mean you can not get great video without flying directly over people, which is the same constraint you have in any other circumstance.
@@RebelByNature it is different, as regular videography and photography isn’t done in national airspace and heavily regulated by the FAA. Shooting a wedding is clearly NOT 100% recreational.
@@RetreadPhoto distinction without a difference given nothing in the FAA regs restricts recreational videoing of a wedding, regardless of whether you subsequently share the video with friends or family. Virtually every drone video I have ever taken has been shared with friends and/or family. There is no point to it otherwise.
Stupid thing to do
Taking all the fun out of flying and forcing people to get their 107. Mo money mo money.
Money has nothing to do with it. It’s about safety.
@@RetreadPhoto BS. The reason it's not about safety is because it's not about the flying, it's about what you do with the video after the fact. Nobody is saying that you could not fly recreationally at a wedding (not directly over people of course) if you are not taking pics or video. The exact same flight operation with the camera rolling is also fine recreationally if you don't share the video with anyone. The exact same flight and you share the video with your daughter after the fact and suddenly you have a different set of safety concerns? In all three cases you have the same exact flight, so the claim of safety is without merit.
@@RebelByNature BS. How does the FAA make money? ItMs a few dollars for a multi-year registration, and PSI gets the test money.
I feel if you have a private pilots license u should be exempt from 107.
I feel Cinnabons should have more frosting and be cheaper.
That’s totally non-sensical. They are entirely different sets of rules. It’s like saying if you play any professional sport, you should be able to play on any other.