There is a very good chance that I’ll be moving back to L.A. to become a partner in a video studio. My partner is confident that we’ll make enough money that I can start flying again.
It is a certainty that I will take my friend/partner up in a helicopter for a ride, using my Private Pilot Certificate. It is also a certainty that he will want to bring a video camera with him.
Now, I can give anyone a free ride. As long as I don’t accept any compensation, it’s all good. And it’s perfectly reasonable that someone would want to bring along a video camera. The sticky part is the video camera, when the passenger’s business is videography. Suppose my partner decides to use the footage he took on our joyride in a video? When the footage was taken, it was just a ‘home movie’. But when it is edited into a product and sold, then it becomes ‘stock footage’. Furthermore, as a partner in the company, I would be gaining a small percentage of my income from the video that contained that footage.
It seems unreasonable that I should be allowed to permit other passengers from bringing a camera along, and yet be in violation if my friend/partner did the same. It wouldn’t be as if we were going up specifically to do aerial photography for the business. But where is the line? Where does a ‘home movie’ cross into a ‘commercial product’?
Also: I understand that a PPL holder may be compensated while flying if the flying is incidental to the compensation. That is, he’s not being paid to fly; but just happens to be flying when he’s getting paid. Can someone clarify that?
Finally: (Assume I’ve earned my Commercial Certificate.) When does ‘aerial photography’ become ‘motion picture photography’, and require the documentation associated with that?
You forgot the further complication that as a private pilot you are permitted to fly as part of a business which you own. A lawyer can fly himself to another city for business purposes. Farmers can fly as part of managing livestock or surveying their land. If you own part of the photography operation that, too, can be a significant factor.
Johnny, on this you may need to contact both an aviation lawyer and the local FSDO.
Consider, too, that you might be able to justify training for you to obtain a commercial license as a business expense of some sort. Depending on your flight history, getting that commercial license may not be all that difficult. I think aerial photography might also be one of those commercial acitivities that don’t require an instrument rating for compensation, but, again, consult a lawyer knowledgable in the appropriate specialty. Then again, if you already have an instrument rating that detail is a non-issue.
AOPA should be able to help you locate an aviation lawyer.
I don’t know how well I can clarify that… But I’ll give an example of that, which I’ve heard of being used.
Minnow catching. PPL/Float rating holders work as ‘freelancers’. The company allows them access to their aircraft, and pays for their fuel, maintenence, etc (although I have heard of them making the pilot ‘rent’ the aircraft as well). The pilot themselves get NO money from the flying. Their job is to fly in to the well-stocked lakes (which are only accessible by aircraft), and capure as many minnows as they can. They put them in the plane and fly back. When they get home, they’re paid per minnow, and the flying is considered only the transportation to and from the lake. The flying itself isn’t considered “work”, just the minnow catching.
That’s my understanding anyway, not to mention that Canada and the US’ rules can be different. I’d definitely follow Broomstick’s advice, and talk to a lawyer.