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!”
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?
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.
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 government doesn't want you to make money, especially if you do so in a new and innovative way. THAT, my friend, is the problem.
That is not really what is going on. This is a simple case of regulatory capture. The FAA is staffed by pilots, whose friends are pilots, and they regulate pilots. All of these pilots see commercial use of drones as a threat to their livelihood. So rather than doing what is in the best interest of the American people, the FAA is pushing the agenda of the people and organizations they are supposed to be regulating. Regulations on drone use should be based on weight, altitude, location, method of control, payload, etc., not some stupid commercial/hobbyist distinction.
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?
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
The government doesn't want you to make money, especially if you do so in a new and innovative way. THAT, my friend, is the problem.
That is not really what is going on. This is a simple case of regulatory capture.
It's not really that simple, and the grandparent's position is not without merit.
You'll note that *amateurs* are not allowed to operate drones commercially, and *commoners* are not allowed to start a business operating drones (for remote crop/herd inspection, search and rescue, real estate videos), but big players such as Amazon and FedEx will be granted commercial licenses to do so.
It's the same with any business in the US: the big, entrenched businesses are given all the exceptions, all the subsidies, and all the tax breaks in the name of "jobs", while making it impossible for new companies to form and hire grow. As a concrete example, it is impossible to start a company (however small) to compete against GE because GE pays no taxes.
It's a stupid policy that's indirectly driving the economy of the country into the ground. Big, entrenched companies don't hire more people when given money, *small* businesses hire people when they grow to become big ones. Propping up a big, weak company at the expense of stifling smaller companies is the source of much stagnation in this country.
We have an opportunity to make great progress in an emerging technology, and by holding the US back all the advances will be made in other economic climates.
Look for the US to become a third-world nation in the next decade or so.
simply posting the video to youtube does not in and of itself, generate income.
Yes, but he is a registered ad affiliate of Youtube. In other words, he has given his name, his mailing address, and his social security number in the hope of one day, having enough subscribers and viewers to receive an actual check through the mail.
From his own attorney:
Hanes told me that his videos are technically "monetized" on YouTube but that he has never received a payment from Google and the revenue he's technically earned from Google’s ads is less than a dollar.
Granted, the number of video views hasn't met the minimum threshold to be cut an actual check yet, but his intent is there. And the fact that he hasn't cancelled his affiliate status with Youtube yet, which would solve the entire problem in one swoop without needing to delete his existing channel, just means that he's hoping to generate enough page views through an artificially created controversy.
The problem is you're missing the whole point of the fine article, and of what the FAA is doing. Picture two people standing next to each other, each one at the controls of a 4-pound DJI Phantom with a GoPro hanging off of it. They're both using exactly the same equipment, practicing exactly the same safety protocols, and each flying 35 feet off the ground over the roof of a house, pointing their cameras at the gutters, looking for debris that might make it worth the risk of putting up a ladder for cleaning. You're watching this, and you have no way of knowing which of two operators is doing it for fun, and which is doing it for $20.
Which of the two people do you think should be fined $10,000?
Can you tell by what they're doing, how they're operating, what the video looks like, or anything else? No. You have to look for the outline of that $20 bill in the one operator's pocket. The FAA considers the guy flying for fun to be operating completely within their guidelines. The indistinguishable guy standing right next to him doing exactly the same thing now owes the FAA a $10,000 fine. The FAA says they will not be asking the one guy to pass any sort of test in order to spool up that quadcopter and fly over those gutters. They guy standing next to him will need to invest many hours and hundreds of dollars in order to make exactly the same flight with exactly the same equipment under exactly the same circumstances. Because there's enough cash to buy a pizza in his pocket.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
As a private, non-commercial pilot, you're allowed to share expenses with your passenger(s). He should argue that they go pound sand.
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.'"
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?... )
If a private pilot makes a flight under Instrument Flight Rules, a track of his flight appears on FlightAware.
FlightAware displays ads.
Discuss.