Slashdot Mirror
FAA Says Ad-Bearing YouTube Drone Videos Constitute "Commercial Use"
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.
Can someone point out to me which part of the 1st Amendment it is in?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
don't go away mad. just go away.
He's making money from flying his drone, so what's the problem?
Yep, Google is 'profiting' from the footage. Let them pay whatever fines pop up, or block the clips. That would be interesting.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Apparently the FAA isn't browisng with the right browser plugins.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It does not appear that this drone operator was making money himself. The FAA doesn't want a cut of the profit (even 100% of $0 is zero), so this is perhaps more complicated than it may seem.
That said, even if they were to demand a cut of Google's profits from the YouTube ads, the collection process would cost the FAA more than the take-home.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
The commercial use regulations are OBVIOUSLY meant to keep people from flying passengers or freight when they don't know what they're doing. Uploading a video to youtube from a drone does not endanger the public in any way so long as it's not being used to stalk somebody or invade their privacy. Obviously, footage from public spaces taken too high to make out individuals does neither of those things.
So, here's the point of the subject line: If we're going to apply laws and regulations to the utmost literal interpretation without any kind of reason or sensibility, then why don't we fire the FAA and replace them with robots? The only benefit to having actual humans perform these duties is that they can apply some measure of human common sense, whereas software would mechanically interpret everything exactly as programmed with no regard for the details.
If Haynes has monetized his channel, then any filming he does for it is commercial filming. YouTube videos are a full-time job for some people.
If he owned a plane, took a camera on it, filmed stuff from it, and got money when people watched the film, that would be commercial flying. This is no different.
The regulations affecting commercial flights are meant to keep people safe from disasters; not to stop people from posting footage. What about all the skydivers who do the same thing? What about passengers on commercial flights? They don't have a license; the airline or pilot does. This is just governance without a shred of common sense. That or someone at the FAA felt like being a dick and didn't expect articles about it.
The FAA's job is to regulate flying objects. it has no business fiddling with advertising. Time to cut its budget until it stays within its statutory boundaries.
The drone operator / video poster WAS actually earning money from the ads, even though it was a tiny amount. Generally speaking, in terms of business rules and regulations, there are a lot of exceptions made for people who make under a specific monetary threshold. I'd like to see the FAA formalize this, so that anyone who makes less than, for example, $1000 a year isn't considered "commercial use". If it later becomes a problem, then address those specific problems at that time.
If the drone were flying a banner, I think that would constitute an advertisement, and it would likely be subject to regulation as well.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
In both cases, the activity is licensed. The pilot is responsible for the behavior of passengers (hence the laws against interfering with flight crews and their strict enforcement), as are drop pilots:
-FAA
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The FCC says this is "commercial" because the drone's videos were posted to YouTube and because YouTube has advertisements, even though the drone operator gets zero profit from those ads.
The FAA is still playing the bully, I really doubt they could prove commercial use if the person posting the video is not making any money, ads or no ads. But the FAA is banking on no one wanting to pay thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to find out.
The regulations affecting commercial flights are meant to keep people safe from disasters
How does banning the use of drones in disaster recovery help keep people safe from disasters? The FAA is running a racket to protect pilots of manned aircraft from competition. This has nothing to do with safety.
Can we just call it what it is? It's a "toy helicopter", not a "drone". That helps get the conversation on the right track.
Do you have ESP?
there are a lot of exceptions made for people who make under a specific monetary threshold. I'd like to see the FAA formalize this, so that anyone who makes less than, for example, $1000 a year isn't considered "commercial use"
woah. common sense, now we all know it will never happen though
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
without a license? (pronounced "lee sons" - see "The Pink Panther - Peter Sellers" "Do you have a lee sons for your moon kay?" "Show me the lee sons!"
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You know what? Prove that the video was shot within the confines of US airspace. Recognizable dandmarks are present, you say? Well, then prove that it's not a computer rendering and is, in fact, a drone-shot video.
Overbearing motherfuckers.
sig: sauer
Um, this craft is NOT a drone, not by a long chalk. A drone is an autonomous vehicle, capable of taking off, flying a pre-programmed route and landing. This is always under human copntrol at all times so it's just a radio controlled aircraft.
Sigh.
-- Fuck Beta
Can we just call it what it is? It's a "toy helicopter", not a "drone". That helps get the conversation on the right track.
No it doesn't. That just sidetracks the conversation completely and leads into another unrelated thread in which someone points out that "drone" is a colloquial superset of UAVs that includes "toy helicopter," the aircraft in this article, and whatever more limited definition you have in your head. It's pointless, non-contributory pedantry.
What if you take photos of you flying a drone and a magazine buys the right to use your photos in their magazine, does that constitute commercial use?
If someone makes a painting of you flying a drone and then you sell the painting, does that constitute commercial use?
Both examples above would constitute commercial use of technology according to the FAA's definition of it since you get a monetary gain from flying your drone.
Which leads me to ask this: Isn't there model flying competitions where you can win prizes which is worth a lot of money, does that constitute commercial use of technology too???
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
So saying "The FAA says that YouTube drone videos constitute Commercial Use" is perhaps a bit misleading, and here is why:
1. The FAA is composed o a number of groups. There is the headquarters in Washington, various directorates which are responsible for regulating different types of aircraft (Like the Transport Airplane Directorate in Seattle), a bunch of Aircraft Certification Offices (ACOs) that deal with the approval of new and changed aircraft designs and parts, Manufacturing Inspection District Offices (MIDOs) that deal with approving the actual manufacture of the parts the ACO approved, and finally the area relevant to this discussion, the Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs, often pronounced Fizdos) who make sure pilots and aircraft mechanics are following the rules. (I left out the Air Traffic Controllers and a bunch of other groups here. They are also important, but not at all relevant to this story.)
2. So there are a lot of FSDO offices. There are five in Florida alone. Individual FSDO offices have a TON of variation. Getting a field approval from one FSDO may be no problem, while another will just laugh at you and say no way. Every office takes it's own unique view of the regulations and is highly resistant to any pressure from above to change. It got so bad that a few years ago Headquarters launched a "Consistency & Standardization Initiative" with the express goal of reducing this type of variation (this does not just apply to FSDOs).
3. In my experience the Florida FSDOs were some of the hardest to work with. I suspect part of the reason may be overwork. There are a LOT of pilots and planes in Florida and that generates a lot of paperwork, which may stress out the inspectors. I don't KNOW that. Just my guess.
So this story is just about a letter from one overworked FAA civil servant who took an over-expansive view of the FAAs model aircraft policy. It's not a new policy statement from the FAA. IANAL, but I would guess that so long as the pilot is not profiting personally from his videos, this would never rise to the level of an enforcement action. I am curious if after getting this letter the RC operator or his lawyer called the inspector's boss? In my experience most folks at the FAA are smart and reasonable people.
Bottom line? Nothing to see here. Move along.
Not all skydiving is done from a plane. There are plenty of folks who jump off of perfectly good bridges and cliffs and film the result.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Any unmanned aircraft is a drone - even the Cox 049 powered plane on a string.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
what if the drone were flying a banner (and not recording a video)?
If they were paid to tow the banner, it is commercial. If they were doing it out of the kindness of their heart then that is not commercial. That includes no discounts, kickbacks or free items from the place that is being advertised.
What if the banner said "Vote for Joe Candidate" and nothing else?
Exactly the same as above.
The FAA has been pretty tough historically on non-commercial rated pilots performing commercial duties in the past as well. The people who think they are just out to get drone operators are idiots. The FAA has always been about enforcing that pilots are trained and certificated to the level of operation that they perform. Private Pilots regularly get in trouble for performing commercial operations. They just aren't certificated for commercial operations. All they have to do is have enough time built up, take a written and practical exam and demonstrate proficiency. It is not like the FAA says nobody can ever fly commercially period. Just get the certification.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Too many of these agencies are out of control. Congress needs to go through them one at a time and cut them back to what is useful.
The "drones" which are just remote controlled helicopters in most cases, are no threat to aircraft unless they're flying very high or near airports.
The FAA only exists to make air travel safe.
If a "drone" isn't doing anything that could endanger commercial or military airplanes... then the FAA has no business saying anything about it one way or the other.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Oh I remember those. They were fun. I wonder if the FAA would go after you for tailing a banner add behind them?
OK so make sure there are no identifying marks on your drone and wear a mask and you just filmed someone else's drone and put it on your site. Oops there i go making sense again.
That is all
Nothing posted to
And basejumping is quite often isn't legal, especially in places where it might endanger people below. What's your point?
When drones are outlawed, only outlaws will have drones.
The govt is afraid of drones in the public hands - it's out of their control.
Then there was the guy who would take drone footage of real-estate for free, then charge a whopping fee for editing.
FCC FTW! FAA WTF?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's low hanging fruit to get a new source of (penalty/fine) revenue, going after Youtube uploaders. Meanwhile, people like my friend operate a nice $$$ weekend business doing drone-based aerial photography (he tells me it's not all surveying; maybe it's voyeurism, who knows, but one thing's for sure -- the FAA has not and will never hear of him).
The FAAâ(TM)s goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws,â the agency said. âoeThe FAAâ(TM)s guidance calls for inspectors to notify someone with a letter and then follow up. The guidance does not include language about advertising. The FAA will look into the matter.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yeah...
as someone who actually flies RC Helicopters... they're not toys. They can be dangerous. I fly things large enough that if an untrained person flew, they could quite literally kill someone with it.
Multi-rotors might not have the same amount of force as a larger sized rc helicopter but they can still inflict some serious damage if someone doesn't really know what they're doing with it. Nowadays all the multi-rotors are being sold with gps systems and 'rescue' modes to make it easier for someone to fly with. It's the type of person who will plunk down 1000-2000$+ on one of these things assuming they are toys and flying them over a crowd of kids to take some video... and suddenly the GPS dies and he loses control of it because he has no idea how to control it.
I can only hope that is the kind of situation the FAA is trying to avoid with the 'commercial' use of drones. They don't give a shit if you make a million dollars with it... they just want to make sure you take the proper precautions so that you don't crash into somebody and inflict some permanent harm.
If you want a toy, go buy an airhog. Those are toys.
Read it here.
w00t
are also big enough to go through the processes to properly train their people to ensure they're not causing disasters. Larger drones used for commercial purposes are, well, larger. If one of those toys you buy at Wal-Mart falls out of the sky I'm not so worried. Worst you do is dent my car. If a big commercial drone falls you don't dent it, you wreak it.
You see, regulation is _hard_. It's hard because everytime you write a regulation there's a thousand yahoos lookin' for a loop hole. It's like the monkeys and Shakespeare, get enough of 'em and and sooner or later they'll pull it off. So you get crap like "No drones for commercial use" because it's the only reliable way to regulate them, and regulating them is good for the mentioned wreaked car reasons.
As for GE, for Pete's sake's people stop electing far right ass hats. Then we can go back to a 90% top tier tax rate. Yeah, you balk now, but if we try taking 90% by the time they're done with the loopholes we might get 5%...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The passengers aren't _doing_ anything. You don't need a license to sit in a chair for 8 hours. Skydivers don't jump out of planes in the middle of a city. When they do (for stunts and such) they generally have to get a permit. The FAA isn't being a dick, they're regulating a flying object that if it fell from the sky might kill somebody. This isn't rocket science, heck we regulate those for the same damn reasons. Do you not know what Terminal Velocity is? Haven't you heard the bit about the penny dropped from the Empire State Building. You know, regulators aren't all just jerks with sticks up their butt lookin' to ruin your fun. There's a reason you're not suppose to dive in shallow water. Lord, the stuff that gets modded up on /. these days...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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?... )
There are too many comparisons between a person flying a single drone for recreational use and another person flying a single drone for commercial use. That is not the problem. The real problem is the difference between a few people flying a few drones for a couple of hours a week and a number of companies flying hundreds of drones for many more hours each day of the week. The expected number of accidents for commercial drones is much higher than for recreational drones. The skies can handle a few unregulated drones. Add a few hundred commercial drones to the same space and there will be collisions, crashes and injuries. Had the FAA allowed free use of commercial drones they would be the first agency blamed when someone got hurt.
Think of the commercial interests who might want to use drones;
1. Deliveries; food, medications, small package, etc.
2. News agencies
3. Paparazzi
4. Remote tourism
There are many other commercial uses of drones. The difference between recreational and commercial drone use is numbers. Just look at the issue with paparazzi. Do you really want 30 or 40 drones flown by inexperienced people hovering close to crowds hoping to get a good photograph? Do you really want hundreds of drones delivering packages in urban areas?
The FAA has yet to work out how to license commercial use so they can control congestion and flight rules. They also need rules to be able to identify the owner of drones when something goes wrong. These problems are being looked into but the solutions are not as simple as some people seem to believe. Some of the simple problems have been worked out but all the issues need to be worked out before large numbers of drones can be licensed.
Most cities at have at most less than 10 new helicopters. A new agency has to be pretty big to be able to afford a helicopter. Also helicopters have flight crews on board who are highly trained will avoid collisions at all costs. Helicopter pilots have a vested interest in not colliding as they may die. They have worked out protocols on dealing with big news stories and very few collisions occur. I had to go back to 2007 to find the last one. In the last 40 yeas there have been 43 accidents involving news helicopters gathering news. Of that, only three were mid air collisions. Considering the number of news helicopters around the world that is a very good safety record.
Compare that with the number of news agencies, magazines, bloggers, etc that can afford a drone. Take the Academy Awards red carpet event as an example. Do you really think it is safe to have a few hundred drones remotely flown by untrained pilots hovering over the crowd jockeying for position to get the best shot? So what if one drone bumps another one and causes a crash? The pilot who caused the crash is fine even though someone on the ground may be injured. It would even be dificult to prove who caused the accident. Drone pilots have no personal incentive to avoid crashes.
Sorry but helicopters vs drones is not a valid comparison.
I'm getting a drone ad on my slashdot page. Perhaps slashdot is guilty of commercial use of drones.
Yes I agree. Though really it's a toy quadrocopter. It also has the ability for for remote control flight outside of line of site from pilot. Oh and can be programmed to be fully autonomous too.
Now let's flip through the dictionary. Ahhh found it. The word that describes this is a DRONE!
Just because it costs $1000 instead of $100000 doesn't make it any less of a drone. There's no published dictionary where this device wouldn't be considered a drone. None of those definitions take into account the cost of the drone. Many dictionaries also consider far less capable devices drones.
So you're right, let's get the conversation on track and stop forcing your incorrect view of the English language on everyone else.
A word must be invented for the (usually public, but private is not unthinkable) official who, out of the blue, as if he did not have anything better to do, decides to come up with a new interpretation of regulations in order to spoil the fun of some innocent poor bastard.
Also perhaps we need a word for the official who then proceeds to enforce this new interpretation, with tenaciousness never seen before by him, or by anyone else in his entire department, in the handling of actual issues.
This guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inacurate. (from THHGTTG)
Thank god the drone didn't record the movie that the neighbor was watching in his yard and the music the teens were listening to or jailtime would have been mandatory.
So when GM made those huge losses it turned into a nonprofit corporation overnight?
Intent is what matters, not success or failure.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This is a great example of a government agency overstepping their bounds and by threat of death, he must stop.
Dont think its s threat of death? OK, he keeps flying, cops come to HIS house to "talk" to him, he refuses to talk about his playtime with his toy. The cops escalate to physical force to get compliance out of the "evil perp". He defends himself from the unlawful aggression and is shot in the process. This could happen.
Every law has the threat of a cage or death behind it, refuse to comply with the guy taking you to a cage and you will die.
We need to modernize our system, i don't need someone to represent my will, with the available technology, I can represent myself. I find it hard to believe the pinnacle of modern governance was created 200 years ago and nothing better can ever happen.
We had toy helicopters for years before we had drones. There's a huge difference as "drones" fly autonomously or semi-autonomously. If you've ever watched liveleak videos of drone use you'll note the thing flies itself, the operator works on targeting and killing people. The interface is extremely high level. The operator marks an area as the target and the software alters the flight path and camera angle to make that area available for attack.
A toy helicopter, on the other hand, is directly flown by the operator and generally has a rolling camera that simply aims straight ahead or is simply movable by the operator.
You can turn a toy helicopter into a drone with the right software, but they are otherwise *very* different things. Calling it a drone is done simply to invoke images of people flying actual drones over the middle east and therefore make it scary.
Hobbyists have been flying toy helicopters far longer than that without incident. Don't let the FAA shit in this punchbowl any more than they already have.
Do you have ESP?
There's a video on liveleak of someone being *killed* by one of those. I'm very familiar with them. See my other screed above explaining why the FAA is pushing the "drone" language.
Do you have ESP?
If a private pilot makes a flight under Instrument Flight Rules, a track of his flight appears on FlightAware.
FlightAware displays ads.
Discuss.
sky diving is by definition done from an aircraft of some sort, be it plane, helo, balloon, or what have you.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
How to display your nanniness and become the laughing stock of the world... .
There is and will not be a market to chance: theft, maliciousness/intentional grounding, collisions, etc.. for some stupid aerial video. One day the scared people with their pandering politicians will be protecting this technology, jeesh. For now, know keep grounded to reality; if the future is not scary, it is not the future. Note: Privacy invasion is already ignored in larger ways via stationary cameras and social identification practices.
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.