Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FAA Says Ad-Bearing YouTube Drone Videos Constitute "Commercial Use"

Posted by timothy on from the biggest-portion-is-the-lion's-share dept.

schwit1 writes If you fly a drone and post footage on YouTube, you could end up with a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration. Earlier this week, the agency sent a legal notice to Jayson Hanes, a Tampa-based drone hobbyist who has been posting drone-shot videos online for roughly the last year. The FAA said that, because there are ads on YouTube, Hanes's flights constituted a commercial use of the technology subject to stricter regulations and enforcement action from the agency. It said that if he did not stop flying 'commercially,' he could be subject to fines or sanctions.

5 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Makes sense by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

    simply posting the video to youtube does not in and of itself, generate income.

    Allowing youtube to monetize the video, and their subsequent royalty payment, DOES generate income.

    The legal grey territory, would be with Youtube making money from videos (used to bring in users, who then view youtube only ads) of people's drone use. Youtube would then be generating income from private drine use, making it commercial, but not to the drone operators.

    The proper remedy here, is to make youtube and other video sites not be able to collect income from uploaded videos of drone flight.

    Not to penalize the drone operators, who simply want to share videos of drone flight with other enthusiasts, without a profit motive.

  2. Re:I can't find the commercial speech section by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, let's say the guy puts "drone building and piloting" down on his resume under the hobby section.

    Now he gets a job. He is funding the website with his own money. He's now getting paid due to his abilities and qualities listed on his resume.

    Commercial Use?

    I'm sorry, putting pictures up on facebook who makes money from the ads on the pages doesn't make my wedding a "commercial use" of a camera, even if I pay a camera man to take them.

    When a definition is so broad as to mean almost anything then it is meaningless.

  3. Re:FAA needs its wings clipped. by bhlowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a private, non-commercial pilot, you're allowed to share expenses with your passenger(s). He should argue that they go pound sand.

  4. There can be ads without monetizing. What then? by Tugrik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've got a drone video (shot at BurningMan before the anti-drone restrictions) that has over 700,000 views. Being it's from BurningMan I did not monetize it. However, I did patch in music I liked and "acknowledged third party content" once YouTube's systems identified it. The copyright owner on the music caused ads to appear. I don't see a cent of it, and the 'monetize' checkbox is turned off on that video.

    Still, I gotta wonder if now I'm going to get an FAA letter too, as they'll see a high-viewer-count "drone video" with ads on it.

    (edit: the link to the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... )

  5. FlightAware by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If a private pilot makes a flight under Instrument Flight Rules, a track of his flight appears on FlightAware.

    FlightAware displays ads.

    Discuss.