The FAA Says You Can't Post Drone Videos on YouTube
- Thread starter SleepyC
- Start date
SleepyC
www.AirHeadMedia.com
A FAA letter sent to a Youtuber....
View attachment 23743 View attachment 23744 View attachment 23745 View attachment 23746
View attachment 23743 View attachment 23744 View attachment 23745 View attachment 23746
Attachments
Gary Seven
Rocketman
Well, my first reaction to a letter like that would be, "F**k you AND the horse you rode in on", but that's just me. Really, what can one do with bureaucracy run amok??
SamaraMedia
Active Member
Total government control and total BS. It was only a matter of time before the FAA stepped in, now they feel they can regulate our free speech by what we can and can't post on YouTube? Why stop there, I think they should go straight to Google, since they own YouTube, and demand they not allow any more video from drones. I don't sign up for YouTube to run ads on any videos I post but they end up there anyway so really I'm not making any money off the video so why should I be responsible for what YouTube has for a business model. Our government is WAY out of control. I prefer everything I post goes to Vimeo anyway.
SchrodingersCar
Member
I was getting the impression that many people expected the FAA to be relatively more "chill" about things like this now that the new NPRM is out for comments. Guess that's not true...
DucktileMedia
Drone Enthusiast
wow, the government found a loophole in the system. As stated, vimeo does not have ads, so therefore would not be commercial. This is ridiculous. This would never fly in court though. You, as a video uploader, have no choice what ads are placed if at all. It is Youtube that is monetizing the videos. Can one opt out of making money from ads on YT? This is like Facebook claiming possession of your uploaded content and selling it without your permission. Is it illegal to upload to facebook as well? There are better ways to solve the growing drone problem. 500% import tax from China!
SchrodingersCar
Member
Hang on, maybe I missed it but where in the FAA letter does it say this has anything to do with ads?
Update: The FAA says it's now looking further into how its safety inspectors send letters like this.
"The FAA’s goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws," the agency said. "The FAA’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."
Update: The FAA says it's now looking further into how its safety inspectors send letters like this.
"The FAA’s goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws," the agency said. "The FAA’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."
DucktileMedia
Drone Enthusiast
"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."
SchrodingersCar
Member
I think that's just bad journalism. It seems pretty clear that the FAA rep they interviewed has no clue why the letter was sent. The "FAA" said nothing about ads in the actual letter.
It all depends on who gets the money. If he gets nothing... Then it's not commercial now they have to prove that he got money from it. Ads by them self doesn't prove anything as putting music that on it may make it so he doesn't get anything from it.
1 could argue that you didn't get paid for the drone footage you got paid for editing the footage and puttings music on it ect. If you tweaked it then you edited it. It's not for a commercial purpose if you get paid to edit footage... The flight was free.....
Hexacrafter
Manufacturer
I have been contacted by a few of our clients who have received similar letters. From what we can ascertain, most of these letters are initiated by someone contacting the FAA with a complaint about a specific operator. They usually refer to "evidence" of improper use referencing YouTube videos posted the operator. This then leads the FAA investigator to the operator's Website which slams the door that the operator is running a commercial operation.
I have seen postings that the FAA is out scanning YouTube for videos to catch offenders. From the information we have been provided, this is not the case, but rather a rival operator has contacted the FAA and complained which initiated the FAA investigation. In all cases that I have knowledge of, the operator also maintained a website advertising aerial services with links to the YouTube videos.
It is just my opinion, but posting aerial videos to YouTube by a hobbyist are not being banned by the FAA, but rather YouTube videos posted by commercial operators, helps provide the FAA with evidence of a violation... especially when their are company logos or web-link information on the posted videos.
I have seen postings that the FAA is out scanning YouTube for videos to catch offenders. From the information we have been provided, this is not the case, but rather a rival operator has contacted the FAA and complained which initiated the FAA investigation. In all cases that I have knowledge of, the operator also maintained a website advertising aerial services with links to the YouTube videos.
It is just my opinion, but posting aerial videos to YouTube by a hobbyist are not being banned by the FAA, but rather YouTube videos posted by commercial operators, helps provide the FAA with evidence of a violation... especially when their are company logos or web-link information on the posted videos.
SchrodingersCar
Member
JoeBob
Elevation via Flatulation
Aviation lawyer discussed it on FoxNews:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/41101030...eos-you-take-with-your-drones/?#sp=show-clips
http://video.foxnews.com/v/41101030...eos-you-take-with-your-drones/?#sp=show-clips
dazzab
Member
What I don't understand about situation like this is that there must be thousands of people openly advertising commercial businesses using multi rotors. How are they getting away with that when even someone like this who is just openly sharing his photos casually is being contacted by the FAA?
chopper jockey
Member
[QUOTE="haha49, post: 198629, member: 13914"]It all depends on who gets the money. If he gets nothing... Then it's not commercial now they have to prove that he got money from it. Ads by them self doesn't prove anything as putting music that on it may make it so he doesn't get anything from it.
1 could argue that you didn't get paid for the drone footage you got paid for editing the footage and puttings music on it ect. If you tweaked it then you edited it. It's not for a commercial purpose if you get paid to edit footage... The flight was free.....[/QUOTE]
In the UK, it does not depend on who gets the money. It depends on "if valuable consideration has been paid or promised in connection with or for the purpose of the flight".
So if any money was paid (to anyone) as a result of the flight taking place, then it commercial.
Presumably the same interpretation applies in the US?
1 could argue that you didn't get paid for the drone footage you got paid for editing the footage and puttings music on it ect. If you tweaked it then you edited it. It's not for a commercial purpose if you get paid to edit footage... The flight was free.....[/QUOTE]
In the UK, it does not depend on who gets the money. It depends on "if valuable consideration has been paid or promised in connection with or for the purpose of the flight".
So if any money was paid (to anyone) as a result of the flight taking place, then it commercial.
Presumably the same interpretation applies in the US?