So it looks like ‘the FAA’ (one regional office) did determine that posting a drone video on YouTube constitutes ‘commercial activity’ because there are ads on YouTube.
Yes, the FAA has to make sure the skies are safe. But I think regulating ‘model airplanes’ is overstepping their boundaries. Class E airspace, the least-regulated of controlled airspace, excludes ‘the airspace below 1,500 feet above the surface of the earth unless specifically so designated.’ Class E airspace begins at 700 feet AGL in some places. Unless Class E is designated to the surface, the FAA should leave regulation model aircraft operations to local authorities.
The FAA is going to have their hands full with this one. Silly, he can fly and film, he just can’t post. I suppose a pilot of a typical RC plane can’t post video shot from his model either? Wonder where model rockets fit into this? Of course, we know the FAA never knee jerks anything.
It appears from the article that he has explicitly enrolled in the YouTube monetization program. So it’s not just a matter of YouTube showing ads on the videos, it’s that he is explicitly making money off of the ads.
Not much yet, apparently he claims he isn’t anywhere near the threshold for Google to bother to cut him a check–but there are lots of people out there making a living off of ad revenues from YouTube views.
Strangely, I have to mostly agree with you on this. The FAA is clearly overstepping their bounds. I think they haven’t got a shot in hell if this went to court.
Now, if this were to be regulated by a local authority, that could be a little different, and definitely a more complex issue. Hell, the guy could end up dead from a no-knock raid by the local SWAT team, depending on local law enforcement. If I were him, and I were making money off this, I’d make good friends with the local police, elected officials, and maybe even neighbors. Shit can go crazy wrong when SWAT teams get involved, and there doesn’t even have to be any actual law violated.
What if a neighbor accused him of taking drone video of some toddler playing naked in a backyard? Even if the drone took no such video, in some areas, there’s going to be a SWAT raid, and every drone and electronic decide in the house would get confiscated. Things could get life-threatening really fast, because deaths of unarmed civilians are pretty common in no-knock raids these days.
If he is trying to make money from his Youtube postings, he really, really IS a commercial enterprise - the fact that he does or does not make money is irrelevant - it is his INTENT to make money.
I’m not certain how many views he is going to get from shots of the city park - gee, I wonder what kinds of videos would get lots of hits.
Cats - yeah, that’s it - lots of pics of cute kitties trying to swat the drone…
Not really. If the FAA decides to push this issue, they don’t have to go after individual posters. All they have to do is push YouTube to “voluntarily” agree to enforce this policy.
I don’t see that letter saying it’s a commercial purposes because of Youtube, it says, “This office has received a complaint regarding your use of unmanned aerial vehicle (aka drone) for commercial purposes referencing your video on the website Youtube.com as evidence.”
Am I just not understanding government legalese, because I see this as they saw it used for a commercial purpose on Youtube, not Youtube as being the commercial purpose? He’s got seven pages of videos; admittedly, I didn’t search them all to see if any look like they may have been paid for, but the one in the article about The Pier looks like it could be advertizing for them.
Further, in his video titled AUTO-PILOT NEAR FAIL:… video, *his own comments *talk about how unsafe he was flying - 64’ AGL, with trees @ 1.6 miles downrange; watching that video, there’s no way he’s flying line of sight for something the size of a DJI Phantom 2, espeically given that he’s flying in trees.
The letter also says, ‘After a review of your website, it does appear that the complaint is valid.’ So: The FAA says that the video is being used for commercial purposes because there are ads that appear when his videos play.
(Bolding mine). The letter doesn’t explicitly say that.
If he had a video titled, “the ___ building I was paid to film”, without any ads, this would be a clear violation because he’s admitting to being paid.
The article also states, “Dorr, who was not involved in sending the letter to Hanes, reviewed some of his videos in response to my inquiry. He says it’s possible the letter was sent because of those potential safety violations.” This I agree with. His own comments, both below & embedded in the video(s) show safety violations & recklessness.
I guess that the power companies using drones to inspect lines have to stop, too, right?
When I first heard about the FAA’s “commercial purposes” ruling on drone flights, I thought it was stupid as hell. So far, I haven’t seen or heard anything to change my mind.
The FAA said ‘This office has received a complaint regarding your use of an unmanned aerial vehicle (aka drone) for commercial purposes referencing your video on the website youtube.com as evidence.’ The way I read it, the office received a complaint regarding Hanes’s use of an unmanned aerial vehicle (aka drone) for commercial purposes. A video on YouTube was referenced as evidence. The FAA reviewed the evidence, and found that Hanes was using a UAV for commercial purposes.
Whether Dorr thinks the violation was a safety issue is not relevant. The letter was specifically about Hanes using a UAV for commercial purposes.
I can understand the FAA not wanting Amazon’s fleet of mindless drones wandering the skies dropping packages off at front doors. I can understand the FAA wanting to insure that drones follow the same rules and procedures necessary to protect pilots and aircraft. But those are clearly safety issues.
But nixing a amature hobbyist ability to share video he’s ALREADY shot, and will probably continue to shoot, because he might make a penny or two in the future is dumb. The safety issue is in the flying, not the filming and sharing of the video.
I totally support the FAA and its mission. That mission is making the skies safer for all of us to share. Its mission is not to regulate commerce of a YouTube channel.
Here’s an example. I was watching an aviation video (on YouTube) where they were discussing a “drone pilot’s” posting of a video (again, on YouTube) where the drone flew through a cloud layer to film on top. That type of flight (for an aircraft) typically requires an IFR clearance so as to avoid popping out of the clouds in the path of another aircraft. The “drone pilot” refused to accept that his actions were dangerous. The pilot community was less than cordial about his breach of safety. My point is that the safety issue was the flying, not the filming and posting. That’s where the FAA should have taken their “banhammer” out of the closet and smashed someone’s droning abilities.
He was filming The Everglades Challenge, a small craft sailing and rowing event which also came under a lot of scrutiny when the Coast Guard terminated the event just after it started following a couple rescues.