15 ms·

FAA says monetized videos shot from drones are subject to commercial regulations

194 points by ccvannorman 12y ago

darkstar999 12y ago
Who complained to the FAA about this person's videos? What is the incentive?
Tunecrew 12y ago
Don't think this is gonna "fly" ... ducks out
- herbig 12y ago
  "ducks"... solid.
pluckytree 12y ago
Our tax dollars at work with over-paid over-pensioned government workers trawling YouTube all day long, providing no benefit to anyone other than boosting testosterone levels at the FAA.
- jayvanguard 12y ago
  Conservative axe-grinding.
  - woodman 12y ago
    Yeah, because conservatives love the expansion of government oversight... Both political ideologies, liberal and conservative, want to control you - so lets not pretend that isn't the case.
    - trhway 12y ago
      >Yeah, because conservatives love the expansion of government oversight... being an immigrant with no vested interests with any political movement, during the 15 years here i found the conservatives' alleged "anti-government stance" is among the biggest and most blatant propaganda lies. They are trigger happy to expand the government power and reach whenever it helps to squash the "bigger evil" - people's liberties and freedoms (with the white people's gun rights being the only exception). Voter ID laws for example. Birth control. AETA laws. Or just google ALEC ...
      - woodman 12y ago
        Are you really looking to get into it with lists about which sock puppet espouses which form of oppression? Sorry, not interested.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    So now every kind of of government waste is automatically ignored as conservative axe-grinding?
    - nfoz 12y ago
      The axe-grinding here is, e.g. "over-pensioned" and "providing no benefit to anyone". This is awkward language, I'm not sure it contributes. If the poster had said, "The FAA is wasteful and does not need to exist" that's perhaps an interesting topic that could be discussed. "They're over-paid over-pensioned trawling YouTube all day" doesn't really lend itself to a useful discussion IMO. Maybe it's subtle but attitude matters.
  - cmdrfred 12y ago
    Explain to me how this is a good use of my tax dollars.
bengali3 12y ago
I like how the article links to a drone video shot in the US, hosted on youtube.
Canada 12y ago
That's nonsense. What if I took a copy of footage shot by the drone operator and used it in a commercial for my business? Are they going to shut him down for something he had no control over at all?
- foobarqux 12y ago
  Did the drone operator get paid?
- swang 12y ago
  Shouldn't you get in trouble for taking footage shot by someone else without permission? Assuming you mean you bought the shot footage, then the drone operator is responsible for getting the right clearance to commercially film with a drone and _you_ would probably be rightfully angry that the footage you bought was not "licensed" properly.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    What if the drone operator made the footage CC licensed?
  - Canada 12y ago
    Not necessarily. The footage could have been released to the public domain or under a license that permits my use. And even if I was using it without proper license, why should the drone operator carry the burden of going after me if he doesn't feel like it?
mrfusion 12y ago
How does this jibe with the first amendment?
- icebraining 12y ago
  They aren't actually banning the videos, despite eye catching headlines. They're saying that the videos, if monetized, make the drone flying a commercial activity, which is banned.
  - dang 12y ago
    If anyone wants to take a crack at making an accurate and neutral title for this story, we can change it.
    - shittyanalogy 12y ago
      FAA says monetized youtube videos shot from drones are against the law.
      - dang 12y ago
        Thanks! Changed.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        Retroactively!
      - CognitiveLens 12y ago
        The FAA doesn't say the videos are against the law, or even that the flight is against the law - they're saying the flight must comply with commercial flight regulations if the video it takes is monetized. "Drones taking monetized videos are commercial flights, according to FAA"
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    Not "banned" but excessively regulated. Subtle but important difference.
nfoz 12y ago
Interesting that this is a complaint against the user posting the video, rather than against YouTube.
- obelos 12y ago
  FAA doesn't have any jurisdiction over YouTube.
Zikes 12y ago
If the revenue generated from an act isn't enough to even qualify a passing mention on your tax return, I don't see how it could be considered commercial. It's like if someone saw me pick up a quarter on the sidewalk and cited me for operating a business without a permit and being improperly zoned.
- trhway 12y ago
  >and cited me for operating a business without a permit and being improperly zoned. that wouldn't be that bad considering the alternative charge of say "money laundering" (if, say, you puff off some grains of sand from the quarter), "illegal deposit acceptance" or other money transfer/handling crimes.
  - sitkack 12y ago
    What if an Arab buys the lemonade and is later charged with Terrorism, couldn't the girl with the lemonade stand be charged with material support? Isn't the parent responsible for the income taxes on income earned by minors?
- DanBC 12y ago
  > It's like if someone saw me pick up a quarter on the sidewalk and cited me for operating a business without a permit and being improperly zoned. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3171665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3171665 http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplic... > In Coralville, Iowa police shut down 4-year-old Abigail Krstinger’s lemonade stand after it had been up for half an hour. Dustin Krustinger told reporters that his daughter was selling lemonade at 25 cents a cup during the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Race Across Iowa (or RAGBRAI), and couldn’t have made more than five dollars, adding “If the line is drawn to the point where a four-year-old eight blocks away can’t sell a couple glasses of lemonade for 25 cents, than I think the line has been drawn at the wrong spot.”
  - Zikes 12y ago
    I think it's safe to say now that there are no remaining government institutions that have not jumped the proverbial shark.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
This is awesome, I really hope this guy lawyers up and takes this as high as needed until the FAA is told to go pound sand. Given that Youtube will use any excuse in the world to slap commercials on your video without your approval[1], and even it you do put ads on your video the "money" demonstrates that pan handling is a much more lucrative use of your time. My argument would be this a) oversteps the FAA charter because it is incidental revenue, and b) this level of regulation per injurious to the drone companies and their customers who might wish to share their perfectly legal hobby with their friends over a free video sharing service. [1] - "Oh wait, that bird tweet sounds suspiciously like this note in this copyrighted song, take it down, or let us put ads on it."
- Zikes 12y ago
  About your footnote, Google and Twitch's automated copyright protection algorithms have made some pretty silly false positive matches in the past.
- whoopdedo 12y ago
  Well, a guy was sued[1] for "copying" John Cage's 4'33. [1] http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-lawsuit-ever-infringing-on-cages-433/ http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-laws...
- commandar 12y ago
  My question would be is there a similar restriction on PPL holders monetizing videos recorded during their flights?
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    I am not a lawyer but I would guess that it would be ok, the flight is being operated by a commercial airline and the FAA has already signed off on that. That said, one wonders if the airline would sue you for damages since you "stole" that view that they gave you as part of the fee you paid to fly, but did not re-license[1] you the right to share that view with others without their written consent. If this goes through I would not be surprised at all to hear and airline using that tactic to boost their revenue per passenger number. [1] There is a venue where this is already the norm, sports arenas. They explicitly forbid you from recording the event and re-showing it to anyone as part of the ticket "contract". Airlines just need to step up their game and add that to their terms and conditions.
brixon 12y ago
So he just needs to uncheck the "Monetize with Ads" check box on YouTube.
godgod 12y ago
Censorship.
wahsd 12y ago
Based on the existing comments, I realize this won't be popular, but this is a matter of violating FAA regulations for commercial operation of drones. No one is stopping you from posting drone footage for private purposes, but if you are doing it for commercial purposes and reasons (whether you are directly paid or not, smart-ass) does not matter. There is a reason this regulation is in place, because you as a private person flying around a quad-copter (see, you're not even calling it by its right name) for hobby and entertainment is a bit of a different thing than doing so for some commercial purpose and flying it every day, all day. Quit being little brats that are pouting because you can't have what you want when you want it.
- ghaff 12y ago
  I don't think you're being quite fair here. The objections I read are primarily in the vein of this (appearing to be based on the facts as presented) a trivial example of commercial use akin to a blog that has a few Adsense ads. While the commercial use line is difficult to draw, drawing it here makes essentially any public activity commercial whether it involves posting a video on the Web or showing it at anything other than a strictly hobbyist unsponsored event.
- beeworker 12y ago
  I'm going to use that last line next time someone makes a perfectly reasonable request like "sod off FAA," or "please mr. bully stop beating me up."
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Hint: this guy is doing it for hobby and entertainment and not commercial purpose
- dang 12y ago
  > smart-ass [...] Quit being little brats that are pouting because you can't have what you want This is not appropriate for a Hacker News comment. Please follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
slg 12y ago
The headline and most of this article seem to avoid the real point of the FAA complaint. The problem wasn't flying the drone. The problem wasn't posting the drone video to YouTube. The problem was turning on monetization for the drone videos. If you try to make money a drone flight, you are using the drone commercially. The fact that the money actually made is less than a dollar doesn't really matter as the intention is there to make money. Not saying I agree with the rule, but it seems to be pretty straightforward with relatively little room for interpretation. EDIT: Even the updated HN headline still doesn't have it right. Neither the video nor the drone flight are illegal. The video just bumps the flight up to a higher tier of regulation from a hobby flight to a commercial flight. A better headline might be "FAA says monetized videos retroactively qualify drone flights as commercial flights."
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Sure is fun how actions after the fact can change the legality of something like this. I seriously doubt there was any intent at the time of filming to generate income.
  - chisleu 12y ago
    That is interesting. What if the person shooting the video and operating the drone isn't the one monetizing it? What if he uploads the video to a site that won't pay him and the video is stolen and put on a site that pays the person who stole it? Is the flight of the drone illegal then? Ridiculous logic. We can use them to kill innocent children who happen to be at a party where some scumbag is hanging out, but don't film your birthday party and upload it to youtube! Don't try to sell your house with a video featuring using a drone to show the roof is in good condition! Oh no! This is the end!
    - icebraining 12y ago
      It's not interesting. If the person flying the thing makes money - or intends to -, it's commercial, if not, it isn't. Profit by unrelated third-parties is, unsurprisingly, unrelated.
cmurf 12y ago
If you make a profit derived from aviation activity in the U.S. you have to have a commercial pilot certificate. It's been this way for decades. The FAA has proposed a reduced burden certification for drones that merely involves passing a test. A certified private pilot can't even break even when sharing expenses. It's operating cost divided by number of occupants, and since the pilot is an occupant he must pay a fair share or it's a violation of his certification. A certified commercial pilot can't even arrange the aircraft, or it's considered a charter operation, which operates under different regulations (FAR 135). So the commercial pilot has to be hired separately from the aircraft to engage in a general aviation for profit flight. Again, it's been this way for decades.
- ccvannorman 12y ago
  It would seem this law made sense before, but one should be allowed to video oneself with a drone and post it to YouTube without consequences. I don't really see what the general population has to lose from this action.
  - cmurf 12y ago
    The same problem applies to a pilot who sells aerial photos, and even if there's a photographer on board taking aerial photos for the purpose of licensing them commercially, the purpose of the flight is commercial. It's a slippery slope if the purpose of the video is purely personal, yet the video author knows he's going to make money by putting it up on youtube. Seems like Google should have a way to opt out of being paid for videos. You're either selling a license, or you're sharing them under some e.g. "creative commons" type license and not making any money off of them.
    - hurin 12y ago
      You're saying every pilot whose flown a small Cessna where a passenger writing an article for a magazine took a photo or two was commercially certified? " In general, whenever we receive a complaint about an unauthorized UAS operation, we contact the operator and educate them about the regulations so they can comply," It seems to me that the above is more orientated towards repeat offenders than for a couple one-time pictures.
avelis 12y ago
I would agree in principle but what part of the drone's labor, the hobbyist labor, or any service the drone provided did the hobbyist charge for?
hughes 12y ago
Is the FAA's problem here that the drone was involved in a monetized video, or that it was carrying the camera that recorded the monetized video? I wonder if this would apply equally to other drone-related video production techniques: - A video of a drone, recorded from the ground - A prop is carried by a drone but the drone never appears in the frame - The audio is recorded by a drone, but not video - A camera is dropped from a drone but doesn't begin recording until after release - The drone's engines are powered off during recording
- lutorm 12y ago
  If you are making money off of flying, then the FAA considers it a commercial activity, which by the letter of the regulations requires a commercial certificate. It matters not one bit to the FAA whether the video is taken by a drone, a balloon, a human pilot, a monkey, or whatever.
  - bholzer 12y ago
    Remember the video where the GoPro falls off a skydiver's helmet and lands in a pig pen? Is the falling considered flying, in this case?
    - lutorm 12y ago
      Interesting question, I don't know whether skydiving is regulated by the FAA. You don't need a certificate at all to do that.
      - lutorm 12y ago
        Thinking some more about this, I also believe that shooting a Gopro into the air with a trebuchet does not constitute flying, because the regs define aircraft something along the lines of "a device designed to travel through the air". If you put fins on it, though, one could argue that you have now designed it to travel through the air, and hence you now become subject to the FARs.
pkinsky 12y ago
It's like they're trying to create an unregulated grey-market drone economy. Not the best idea from a national security standpoint.
basseq 12y ago
There seems to be a big gray area with "pure hobbyist" on the left and "commercial drone operations" (let's say Amazon's hypothetical delivery service by way of an example) on the right. This particular case would be one tick from "pure hobbyist". More concerning to me are those small-scale "commercial" operations that I'm seeing more and more: wedding photographers using quadcopters, or realtors taking "eagle-eye" photographs. These are "commercial" operations (even though by every other definition they would fall into the hobbyist definition[1]), so according to the FAA, they need one of two things[2]: 1. A section 33 exemption, of which only 44 have been granted. 2. A Special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) from the FAA. Maybe the Small UAS Rule will change this for the better, but right now, this seems ridiculous. [1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ [2] https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/
DEinspanjer 12y ago
FAA spokesperson Les Dorr was quoted in the article as saying that it was possible the reason the FAA decided to send the warning letter was because several of his videos involve flying near and overhead of non-participants. Depending on the UAV, that could present a significant danger to them, especially if he lost control of it. The FAA letter makes reference to this at the bottom of page one. Flying in that manner is against the regulations of the AMA. I suspect that the reason the FAA letter even mentions the word "commercial" is because there are basically three ways to fly UAV that the FAA considers legal: 1. Government -- I don't know much about this one. 2. Commercial -- requires the appropriate licenses and permits from the FAA with strict guidelines on the restrictions for any given flight. 3. Hobby -- The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 has a few specific requirements to be eligible to fly as a Hobbyist. The first is that the flight does not result in any revenue (with a few very small and fuzzy exemptions) and the second is "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" Since he was flying in a way that would not be in accordance to the AMA's regulations, and he isn't flying as an authorized government agent, the FAA is likely putting him in the only remaining category, commercial. All that said, I despise the way the FAA is treating UAV operators. Everything from their absurd interpretations of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to their glacial pace at actually making commercial flights a reasonable possibility.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
First, the FAA should care about safety, not money. But it seems all they care about is that you could actually compete with maned planes' pilots. I fly my drones against the law every single day because the law is completely outdated in my country(Spain) because basically they copy the stupid US model. In theory I have to put a deposit of 3000 euros for flying a less than 1 kg drone,and register my activity, and what not for a 5 meters above ground recordings. The same as I would have to if I flied a more than 600Kgs helicopter. Non sense. Companies are using drones anyway, they just don't tell anybody. Proof that I am using a drone and not a crane.
- gnopgnip 12y ago
  The FAA does care about safety. A commercial incentive for any flight changes how people act.
Pyrodogg 12y ago
Can't read the article right now, so going off of title and other comments... This does not fly (heh) with my current understanding of "commercial use" in regards to photography, which I wouldn't consider much different than video. I can enter a US National Park without any specific permit and take a photo of a natural feature. I can sell prints of this photo for a profit. This is not a "commercial use" of the photo. I can't enter said park without permit and with the intention to shoot promotional photos of my new super nature product. These photos would be used to sell said product. This is a commercial use. The distinction is profiting from the work itself or using the work to generate profit on something else.
spiritplumber 12y ago
What if I sell drone accessories and my video is not monetized, but links to my website?
vanzard 12y ago
The FAA was established in the late 1950s, spurred by the then-largest largest air collision in 1956 over the Grand Canyon causing 100+ deaths. The original intent of the FAA was to increase safety in obvious ways: monitor the air space, define flight rules, etc. But today they are spending time and resources deciding what to do with drone videos being monetized or not?? Clearly they have deviated from their original intent...
thrownaway2424 12y ago
This is a sort of repeating event over the last several decades. People with libertarian leanings find (thing) which they believe sidesteps (regulator powers of some kind). Slowly, (regulator) asserts itself, up to and including force of law or even armed response. I don't know when this pattern will stop happening. You're _never_ going to move to a floating/flying platform in the middle of the ocean/in space and cyberjack into a utopian free-for-all.
ericnimia 12y ago
I am an attorney and the law is actually more nuanced. If you are flying under 83 feet on private property you can monetize the video and it is not against the law. U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 258 (1946)->https://nimia.com/drone-footage-require-property-release/ https://nimia.com/drone-footage-require-property-release/
- lutorm 12y ago
  That page you linked to says you can monetize the video if you get FAA certification before the flight. That doesn't seem to be any different from what the story here is.
ericnimia 12y ago
I am an attorney and the law is actually more nuanced. If you are flying under 83 feet on private property you can monetize the video and it is not against the law. U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 258 (1946)->https://nimia.com/drone-footage-require-property-release/ https://nimia.com/drone-footage-require-property-release/
danellis 12y ago
The FAA received a complaint and they acted on it according to their current regulations. I'm sure that at the same time there are people looking at those regulations and saying, "This doesn't make sense as things are now. We need to rethink this."
will_brown 12y ago
I am not entirely sure if there is a distinction between Drones and Piloted aircraft as it relates to the word "commercial." For example, I know while a pilot with only a private pilot license can not charge passengers for the flight, they can charge passengers for costs (fuel, maintenance, ect...). Therefore, if this guy truly made less than a dollar for his drone video, maybe he could prove that the videos do not even cover the cost of the flights. And I just have to say as a fellow lawyer, I do not agree with the following 1st Amendment argument from the article, clearly calling something "art" does not prohibit government regulation: >"Selling art is unquestionably one's right, and the government is forbidden from infringing upon that right."
c4n4rd 12y ago
What would that entail to independent nature film makers or even companies like National Geographic?
gerhardi 12y ago
If one uploaded a video shot with drone to youtube/etc. and google / facebook / ... showed advert on the same page as the drone video is shown on, wouldn't Google / Facebook be monetising with the video and the drone flight would have become illegal?
Buge 12y ago
He made less than a dollar on his videos? I made $23 on a video with 17k views.
rdlecler1 12y ago
If a Drone company is showing video of their drone on their site to advertise themselves is that also prohibited?
Animats 12y ago
Oh, quit whining. The FAA will have a "drone pilot license" test out soon. That will cover important things like how to find out if you're in an airport's controlled airspace. The sky is a busy place and has traffic rules. The FAA's proposed drone rules are quite sensible. Meanwhile, the FAA is trying hard to prevent an accident where a drone gets sucked into a commercial aircraft's jet intake. There have been drone near-misses at Heathrow, JFK, LAX, and some smaller airports.[1] The FAA has a long-standing approach of regulating commercial aircraft operations much more strictly than personal or hobbyist ones. "Commercial" is strictly defined to prevent someone with a private pilot's ticket and no IFR rating from running an air taxi service. The FAA has even lighter regulation for light sport aircraft and ultralights. The commercial/non commercial distinction is not new. This reminds me of the whining from the hang glider crowd which had a popular gliding spot near LAX. The FAA and Dockweiler State Beach came up with rules, such as a top altitude of 65' AGL, to keep hang gliders from being smacked into the ground by the wake from a heavy coming into LAX. [1] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/10/near-miss-at-lax-may-spark-tighter-regulations-on-drone-use/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/10/near-miss-at-lax-m...
- fixedd 12y ago
  The FAA never has anything out "soon". They're currently in violation of a direct order from Congress because they're so slow.
gojomo 12y ago
The FAA apparently views drone video like sex acts: A-OK unless money is involved.
ratsbane 12y ago
The FAA has created a lot of FUD by not drawing clear lines on what they don't control. I'm a private pilot with rotorcraft rating as well as frequently a passenger and there's nothing I'd rather not have happen than a DJI Phantom through the windshield, and I don't think the FAA's actions are helping. By attempting to ban actions that are clearly not unsafe they're promoting disrespect for the law and crippling development of the drone industry in the U.S. What they need to say: no UAVs above 400' AGL or within a mile of airports, or whenever aircraft are operating in the vicinity (without mitigating controls). The commercial/non-commercial distinction is irrelevant.
- commandar 12y ago
  >What they need to say: no UAVs above 400' AGL or within a mile of airports Actually not far off from the model aircraft provisions of the FAA Modernization Act, except that the requirement is getting in contact with ATC if you're flying within a 5 mile radius of an airport. Agreed that the commercial/non-commercial distinction is totally arbitrary.
BurningFrog 12y ago
"A Wall Street Journal report suggests that the FAA is dragging its feet on drone rules large part due to pressure from commercial pilots whose job could be at risk from commercial competition" https://gigaom.com/2015/01/15/pilot-pressure-explains-faas-indecisiveness-on-drones/ https://gigaom.com/2015/01/15/pilot-pressure-explains-faas-i...
Roboprog 12y ago
Stupid question: why does the FAA care whether your heli/plane has a camera, or whether the camera stores the footage vs transmitting it in real time? Guns and missiles, I understand we might want to regulate a bit :-) It seems like the weight, location, and height depending on the location would be the primary safety issue.
michael_miller 12y ago
IMHO, the commercial vs. private distinction doesn't make sense when applied to drones. For airplanes, the logic is that paying passengers expect a certain level of safety which cannot be provided by someone with 40 hours of flight time. In essence, the FAA is shielding paying customers from the risks of low-time pilots. For drones, this logic doesn't follow. A private operation inherently has the same risks as a commercial operation. There's no passengers to kill - only people on the ground to hurt. The people are there regardless of whether you're flying for hire or not, and have no say on your flight. I do think drones pose a significant risk to the NAS (National Airspace System) unless regulated correctly. To me this doesn't mean that we need to start fining people who post YouTube videos. I believe a pragmatic approach is best - people are going to be dumb and use drones for illegal / dangerous things. The best action the FAA can take to mitigate this is to require manufacturers to include an ADS-B transponder to broadcast the drone's GPS position at all times. At least then, pilots can safely avoid reckless drone pilots.

194 points by ccvannorman 12y ago

darkstar999 12y ago

Who complained to the FAA about this person's videos? What is the incentive?

Tunecrew 12y ago

Don't think this is gonna "fly" ... ducks out

herbig 12y ago
"ducks"... solid.

pluckytree 12y ago

Our tax dollars at work with over-paid over-pensioned government workers trawling YouTube all day long, providing no benefit to anyone other than boosting testosterone levels at the FAA.

jayvanguard 12y ago
Conservative axe-grinding.
- woodman 12y ago
  Yeah, because conservatives love the expansion of government oversight... Both political ideologies, liberal and conservative, want to control you - so lets not pretend that isn't the case.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >Yeah, because conservatives love the expansion of government oversight... being an immigrant with no vested interests with any political movement, during the 15 years here i found the conservatives' alleged "anti-government stance" is among the biggest and most blatant propaganda lies. They are trigger happy to expand the government power and reach whenever it helps to squash the "bigger evil" - people's liberties and freedoms (with the white people's gun rights being the only exception). Voter ID laws for example. Birth control. AETA laws. Or just google ALEC ...
    - woodman 12y ago
      Are you really looking to get into it with lists about which sock puppet espouses which form of oppression? Sorry, not interested.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  So now every kind of of government waste is automatically ignored as conservative axe-grinding?
  - nfoz 12y ago
    The axe-grinding here is, e.g. "over-pensioned" and "providing no benefit to anyone". This is awkward language, I'm not sure it contributes. If the poster had said, "The FAA is wasteful and does not need to exist" that's perhaps an interesting topic that could be discussed. "They're over-paid over-pensioned trawling YouTube all day" doesn't really lend itself to a useful discussion IMO. Maybe it's subtle but attitude matters.
- cmdrfred 12y ago
  Explain to me how this is a good use of my tax dollars.

bengali3 12y ago

I like how the article links to a drone video shot in the US, hosted on youtube.

Canada 12y ago

That's nonsense. What if I took a copy of footage shot by the drone operator and used it in a commercial for my business? Are they going to shut him down for something he had no control over at all?

foobarqux 12y ago
Did the drone operator get paid?
swang 12y ago
Shouldn't you get in trouble for taking footage shot by someone else without permission? Assuming you mean you bought the shot footage, then the drone operator is responsible for getting the right clearance to commercially film with a drone and _you_ would probably be rightfully angry that the footage you bought was not "licensed" properly.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  What if the drone operator made the footage CC licensed?
- Canada 12y ago
  Not necessarily. The footage could have been released to the public domain or under a license that permits my use. And even if I was using it without proper license, why should the drone operator carry the burden of going after me if he doesn't feel like it?

mrfusion 12y ago

How does this jibe with the first amendment?

icebraining 12y ago
They aren't actually banning the videos, despite eye catching headlines. They're saying that the videos, if monetized, make the drone flying a commercial activity, which is banned.
- dang 12y ago
  If anyone wants to take a crack at making an accurate and neutral title for this story, we can change it.
  - shittyanalogy 12y ago
    FAA says monetized youtube videos shot from drones are against the law.
    - dang 12y ago
      Thanks! Changed.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Retroactively!
    - CognitiveLens 12y ago
      The FAA doesn't say the videos are against the law, or even that the flight is against the law - they're saying the flight must comply with commercial flight regulations if the video it takes is monetized. "Drones taking monetized videos are commercial flights, according to FAA"
- Someone1234 12y ago
  Not "banned" but excessively regulated. Subtle but important difference.

nfoz 12y ago

Interesting that this is a complaint against the user posting the video, rather than against YouTube.

obelos 12y ago
FAA doesn't have any jurisdiction over YouTube.

Zikes 12y ago

If the revenue generated from an act isn't enough to even qualify a passing mention on your tax return, I don't see how it could be considered commercial. It's like if someone saw me pick up a quarter on the sidewalk and cited me for operating a business without a permit and being improperly zoned.

trhway 12y ago
>and cited me for operating a business without a permit and being improperly zoned. that wouldn't be that bad considering the alternative charge of say "money laundering" (if, say, you puff off some grains of sand from the quarter), "illegal deposit acceptance" or other money transfer/handling crimes.
- sitkack 12y ago
  What if an Arab buys the lemonade and is later charged with Terrorism, couldn't the girl with the lemonade stand be charged with material support? Isn't the parent responsible for the income taxes on income earned by minors?
DanBC 12y ago
> It's like if someone saw me pick up a quarter on the sidewalk and cited me for operating a business without a permit and being improperly zoned. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3171665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3171665 http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplic... > In Coralville, Iowa police shut down 4-year-old Abigail Krstinger’s lemonade stand after it had been up for half an hour. Dustin Krustinger told reporters that his daughter was selling lemonade at 25 cents a cup during the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Race Across Iowa (or RAGBRAI), and couldn’t have made more than five dollars, adding “If the line is drawn to the point where a four-year-old eight blocks away can’t sell a couple glasses of lemonade for 25 cents, than I think the line has been drawn at the wrong spot.”
- Zikes 12y ago
  I think it's safe to say now that there are no remaining government institutions that have not jumped the proverbial shark.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

This is awesome, I really hope this guy lawyers up and takes this as high as needed until the FAA is told to go pound sand. Given that Youtube will use any excuse in the world to slap commercials on your video without your approval[1], and even it you do put ads on your video the "money" demonstrates that pan handling is a much more lucrative use of your time. My argument would be this a) oversteps the FAA charter because it is incidental revenue, and b) this level of regulation per injurious to the drone companies and their customers who might wish to share their perfectly legal hobby with their friends over a free video sharing service. [1] - "Oh wait, that bird tweet sounds suspiciously like this note in this copyrighted song, take it down, or let us put ads on it."

Zikes 12y ago
About your footnote, Google and Twitch's automated copyright protection algorithms have made some pretty silly false positive matches in the past.
whoopdedo 12y ago
Well, a guy was sued[1] for "copying" John Cage's 4'33. [1] http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-lawsuit-ever-infringing-on-cages-433/ http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-laws...
commandar 12y ago
My question would be is there a similar restriction on PPL holders monetizing videos recorded during their flights?
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  I am not a lawyer but I would guess that it would be ok, the flight is being operated by a commercial airline and the FAA has already signed off on that. That said, one wonders if the airline would sue you for damages since you "stole" that view that they gave you as part of the fee you paid to fly, but did not re-license[1] you the right to share that view with others without their written consent. If this goes through I would not be surprised at all to hear and airline using that tactic to boost their revenue per passenger number. [1] There is a venue where this is already the norm, sports arenas. They explicitly forbid you from recording the event and re-showing it to anyone as part of the ticket "contract". Airlines just need to step up their game and add that to their terms and conditions.

brixon 12y ago

So he just needs to uncheck the "Monetize with Ads" check box on YouTube.

godgod 12y ago

Censorship.

wahsd 12y ago

Based on the existing comments, I realize this won't be popular, but this is a matter of violating FAA regulations for commercial operation of drones. No one is stopping you from posting drone footage for private purposes, but if you are doing it for commercial purposes and reasons (whether you are directly paid or not, smart-ass) does not matter. There is a reason this regulation is in place, because you as a private person flying around a quad-copter (see, you're not even calling it by its right name) for hobby and entertainment is a bit of a different thing than doing so for some commercial purpose and flying it every day, all day. Quit being little brats that are pouting because you can't have what you want when you want it.

ghaff 12y ago
I don't think you're being quite fair here. The objections I read are primarily in the vein of this (appearing to be based on the facts as presented) a trivial example of commercial use akin to a blog that has a few Adsense ads. While the commercial use line is difficult to draw, drawing it here makes essentially any public activity commercial whether it involves posting a video on the Web or showing it at anything other than a strictly hobbyist unsponsored event.
beeworker 12y ago
I'm going to use that last line next time someone makes a perfectly reasonable request like "sod off FAA," or "please mr. bully stop beating me up."
Dylan16807 12y ago
Hint: this guy is doing it for hobby and entertainment and not commercial purpose
dang 12y ago
> smart-ass [...] Quit being little brats that are pouting because you can't have what you want This is not appropriate for a Hacker News comment. Please follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

slg 12y ago

The headline and most of this article seem to avoid the real point of the FAA complaint. The problem wasn't flying the drone. The problem wasn't posting the drone video to YouTube. The problem was turning on monetization for the drone videos. If you try to make money a drone flight, you are using the drone commercially. The fact that the money actually made is less than a dollar doesn't really matter as the intention is there to make money. Not saying I agree with the rule, but it seems to be pretty straightforward with relatively little room for interpretation. EDIT: Even the updated HN headline still doesn't have it right. Neither the video nor the drone flight are illegal. The video just bumps the flight up to a higher tier of regulation from a hobby flight to a commercial flight. A better headline might be "FAA says monetized videos retroactively qualify drone flights as commercial flights."

Dylan16807 12y ago
Sure is fun how actions after the fact can change the legality of something like this. I seriously doubt there was any intent at the time of filming to generate income.
- chisleu 12y ago
  That is interesting. What if the person shooting the video and operating the drone isn't the one monetizing it? What if he uploads the video to a site that won't pay him and the video is stolen and put on a site that pays the person who stole it? Is the flight of the drone illegal then? Ridiculous logic. We can use them to kill innocent children who happen to be at a party where some scumbag is hanging out, but don't film your birthday party and upload it to youtube! Don't try to sell your house with a video featuring using a drone to show the roof is in good condition! Oh no! This is the end!
  - icebraining 12y ago
    It's not interesting. If the person flying the thing makes money - or intends to -, it's commercial, if not, it isn't. Profit by unrelated third-parties is, unsurprisingly, unrelated.

cmurf 12y ago

If you make a profit derived from aviation activity in the U.S. you have to have a commercial pilot certificate. It's been this way for decades. The FAA has proposed a reduced burden certification for drones that merely involves passing a test. A certified private pilot can't even break even when sharing expenses. It's operating cost divided by number of occupants, and since the pilot is an occupant he must pay a fair share or it's a violation of his certification. A certified commercial pilot can't even arrange the aircraft, or it's considered a charter operation, which operates under different regulations (FAR 135). So the commercial pilot has to be hired separately from the aircraft to engage in a general aviation for profit flight. Again, it's been this way for decades.

ccvannorman 12y ago
It would seem this law made sense before, but one should be allowed to video oneself with a drone and post it to YouTube without consequences. I don't really see what the general population has to lose from this action.
- cmurf 12y ago
  The same problem applies to a pilot who sells aerial photos, and even if there's a photographer on board taking aerial photos for the purpose of licensing them commercially, the purpose of the flight is commercial. It's a slippery slope if the purpose of the video is purely personal, yet the video author knows he's going to make money by putting it up on youtube. Seems like Google should have a way to opt out of being paid for videos. You're either selling a license, or you're sharing them under some e.g. "creative commons" type license and not making any money off of them.
  - hurin 12y ago
    You're saying every pilot whose flown a small Cessna where a passenger writing an article for a magazine took a photo or two was commercially certified? " In general, whenever we receive a complaint about an unauthorized UAS operation, we contact the operator and educate them about the regulations so they can comply," It seems to me that the above is more orientated towards repeat offenders than for a couple one-time pictures.

avelis 12y ago

I would agree in principle but what part of the drone's labor, the hobbyist labor, or any service the drone provided did the hobbyist charge for?

hughes 12y ago

Is the FAA's problem here that the drone was involved in a monetized video, or that it was carrying the camera that recorded the monetized video? I wonder if this would apply equally to other drone-related video production techniques: - A video of a drone, recorded from the ground - A prop is carried by a drone but the drone never appears in the frame - The audio is recorded by a drone, but not video - A camera is dropped from a drone but doesn't begin recording until after release - The drone's engines are powered off during recording

lutorm 12y ago
If you are making money off of flying, then the FAA considers it a commercial activity, which by the letter of the regulations requires a commercial certificate. It matters not one bit to the FAA whether the video is taken by a drone, a balloon, a human pilot, a monkey, or whatever.
- bholzer 12y ago
  Remember the video where the GoPro falls off a skydiver's helmet and lands in a pig pen? Is the falling considered flying, in this case?
  - lutorm 12y ago
    Interesting question, I don't know whether skydiving is regulated by the FAA. You don't need a certificate at all to do that.
    - lutorm 12y ago
      Thinking some more about this, I also believe that shooting a Gopro into the air with a trebuchet does not constitute flying, because the regs define aircraft something along the lines of "a device designed to travel through the air". If you put fins on it, though, one could argue that you have now designed it to travel through the air, and hence you now become subject to the FARs.

pkinsky 12y ago

It's like they're trying to create an unregulated grey-market drone economy. Not the best idea from a national security standpoint.

basseq 12y ago

There seems to be a big gray area with "pure hobbyist" on the left and "commercial drone operations" (let's say Amazon's hypothetical delivery service by way of an example) on the right. This particular case would be one tick from "pure hobbyist". More concerning to me are those small-scale "commercial" operations that I'm seeing more and more: wedding photographers using quadcopters, or realtors taking "eagle-eye" photographs. These are "commercial" operations (even though by every other definition they would fall into the hobbyist definition[1]), so according to the FAA, they need one of two things[2]: 1. A section 33 exemption, of which only 44 have been granted. 2. A Special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) from the FAA. Maybe the Small UAS Rule will change this for the better, but right now, this seems ridiculous. [1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ [2] https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/

DEinspanjer 12y ago

FAA spokesperson Les Dorr was quoted in the article as saying that it was possible the reason the FAA decided to send the warning letter was because several of his videos involve flying near and overhead of non-participants. Depending on the UAV, that could present a significant danger to them, especially if he lost control of it. The FAA letter makes reference to this at the bottom of page one. Flying in that manner is against the regulations of the AMA. I suspect that the reason the FAA letter even mentions the word "commercial" is because there are basically three ways to fly UAV that the FAA considers legal: 1. Government -- I don't know much about this one. 2. Commercial -- requires the appropriate licenses and permits from the FAA with strict guidelines on the restrictions for any given flight. 3. Hobby -- The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 has a few specific requirements to be eligible to fly as a Hobbyist. The first is that the flight does not result in any revenue (with a few very small and fuzzy exemptions) and the second is "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" Since he was flying in a way that would not be in accordance to the AMA's regulations, and he isn't flying as an authorized government agent, the FAA is likely putting him in the only remaining category, commercial. All that said, I despise the way the FAA is treating UAV operators. Everything from their absurd interpretations of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to their glacial pace at actually making commercial flights a reasonable possibility.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

First, the FAA should care about safety, not money. But it seems all they care about is that you could actually compete with maned planes' pilots. I fly my drones against the law every single day because the law is completely outdated in my country(Spain) because basically they copy the stupid US model. In theory I have to put a deposit of 3000 euros for flying a less than 1 kg drone,and register my activity, and what not for a 5 meters above ground recordings. The same as I would have to if I flied a more than 600Kgs helicopter. Non sense. Companies are using drones anyway, they just don't tell anybody. Proof that I am using a drone and not a crane.

gnopgnip 12y ago
The FAA does care about safety. A commercial incentive for any flight changes how people act.

Pyrodogg 12y ago

Can't read the article right now, so going off of title and other comments... This does not fly (heh) with my current understanding of "commercial use" in regards to photography, which I wouldn't consider much different than video. I can enter a US National Park without any specific permit and take a photo of a natural feature. I can sell prints of this photo for a profit. This is not a "commercial use" of the photo. I can't enter said park without permit and with the intention to shoot promotional photos of my new super nature product. These photos would be used to sell said product. This is a commercial use. The distinction is profiting from the work itself or using the work to generate profit on something else.

spiritplumber 12y ago

What if I sell drone accessories and my video is not monetized, but links to my website?

vanzard 12y ago

The FAA was established in the late 1950s, spurred by the then-largest largest air collision in 1956 over the Grand Canyon causing 100+ deaths. The original intent of the FAA was to increase safety in obvious ways: monitor the air space, define flight rules, etc. But today they are spending time and resources deciding what to do with drone videos being monetized or not?? Clearly they have deviated from their original intent...

thrownaway2424 12y ago

This is a sort of repeating event over the last several decades. People with libertarian leanings find (thing) which they believe sidesteps (regulator powers of some kind). Slowly, (regulator) asserts itself, up to and including force of law or even armed response. I don't know when this pattern will stop happening. You're _never_ going to move to a floating/flying platform in the middle of the ocean/in space and cyberjack into a utopian free-for-all.

ericnimia 12y ago

I am an attorney and the law is actually more nuanced. If you are flying under 83 feet on private property you can monetize the video and it is not against the law. U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 258 (1946)->https://nimia.com/drone-footage-require-property-release/ https://nimia.com/drone-footage-require-property-release/

lutorm 12y ago
That page you linked to says you can monetize the video if you get FAA certification before the flight. That doesn't seem to be any different from what the story here is.

ericnimia 12y ago

danellis 12y ago

The FAA received a complaint and they acted on it according to their current regulations. I'm sure that at the same time there are people looking at those regulations and saying, "This doesn't make sense as things are now. We need to rethink this."

will_brown 12y ago

I am not entirely sure if there is a distinction between Drones and Piloted aircraft as it relates to the word "commercial." For example, I know while a pilot with only a private pilot license can not charge passengers for the flight, they can charge passengers for costs (fuel, maintenance, ect...). Therefore, if this guy truly made less than a dollar for his drone video, maybe he could prove that the videos do not even cover the cost of the flights. And I just have to say as a fellow lawyer, I do not agree with the following 1st Amendment argument from the article, clearly calling something "art" does not prohibit government regulation: >"Selling art is unquestionably one's right, and the government is forbidden from infringing upon that right."

c4n4rd 12y ago

What would that entail to independent nature film makers or even companies like National Geographic?

gerhardi 12y ago

If one uploaded a video shot with drone to youtube/etc. and google / facebook / ... showed advert on the same page as the drone video is shown on, wouldn't Google / Facebook be monetising with the video and the drone flight would have become illegal?

Buge 12y ago

He made less than a dollar on his videos? I made $23 on a video with 17k views.

rdlecler1 12y ago

If a Drone company is showing video of their drone on their site to advertise themselves is that also prohibited?

Animats 12y ago

Oh, quit whining. The FAA will have a "drone pilot license" test out soon. That will cover important things like how to find out if you're in an airport's controlled airspace. The sky is a busy place and has traffic rules. The FAA's proposed drone rules are quite sensible. Meanwhile, the FAA is trying hard to prevent an accident where a drone gets sucked into a commercial aircraft's jet intake. There have been drone near-misses at Heathrow, JFK, LAX, and some smaller airports.[1] The FAA has a long-standing approach of regulating commercial aircraft operations much more strictly than personal or hobbyist ones. "Commercial" is strictly defined to prevent someone with a private pilot's ticket and no IFR rating from running an air taxi service. The FAA has even lighter regulation for light sport aircraft and ultralights. The commercial/non commercial distinction is not new. This reminds me of the whining from the hang glider crowd which had a popular gliding spot near LAX. The FAA and Dockweiler State Beach came up with rules, such as a top altitude of 65' AGL, to keep hang gliders from being smacked into the ground by the wake from a heavy coming into LAX. [1] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/10/near-miss-at-lax-may-spark-tighter-regulations-on-drone-use/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/10/near-miss-at-lax-m...

fixedd 12y ago
The FAA never has anything out "soon". They're currently in violation of a direct order from Congress because they're so slow.

gojomo 12y ago

The FAA apparently views drone video like sex acts: A-OK unless money is involved.

ratsbane 12y ago

The FAA has created a lot of FUD by not drawing clear lines on what they don't control. I'm a private pilot with rotorcraft rating as well as frequently a passenger and there's nothing I'd rather not have happen than a DJI Phantom through the windshield, and I don't think the FAA's actions are helping. By attempting to ban actions that are clearly not unsafe they're promoting disrespect for the law and crippling development of the drone industry in the U.S. What they need to say: no UAVs above 400' AGL or within a mile of airports, or whenever aircraft are operating in the vicinity (without mitigating controls). The commercial/non-commercial distinction is irrelevant.

commandar 12y ago
>What they need to say: no UAVs above 400' AGL or within a mile of airports Actually not far off from the model aircraft provisions of the FAA Modernization Act, except that the requirement is getting in contact with ATC if you're flying within a 5 mile radius of an airport. Agreed that the commercial/non-commercial distinction is totally arbitrary.

BurningFrog 12y ago

"A Wall Street Journal report suggests that the FAA is dragging its feet on drone rules large part due to pressure from commercial pilots whose job could be at risk from commercial competition" https://gigaom.com/2015/01/15/pilot-pressure-explains-faas-indecisiveness-on-drones/ https://gigaom.com/2015/01/15/pilot-pressure-explains-faas-i...

Roboprog 12y ago

Stupid question: why does the FAA care whether your heli/plane has a camera, or whether the camera stores the footage vs transmitting it in real time? Guns and missiles, I understand we might want to regulate a bit :-) It seems like the weight, location, and height depending on the location would be the primary safety issue.

michael_miller 12y ago

IMHO, the commercial vs. private distinction doesn't make sense when applied to drones. For airplanes, the logic is that paying passengers expect a certain level of safety which cannot be provided by someone with 40 hours of flight time. In essence, the FAA is shielding paying customers from the risks of low-time pilots. For drones, this logic doesn't follow. A private operation inherently has the same risks as a commercial operation. There's no passengers to kill - only people on the ground to hurt. The people are there regardless of whether you're flying for hire or not, and have no say on your flight. I do think drones pose a significant risk to the NAS (National Airspace System) unless regulated correctly. To me this doesn't mean that we need to start fining people who post YouTube videos. I believe a pragmatic approach is best - people are going to be dumb and use drones for illegal / dangerous things. The best action the FAA can take to mitigate this is to require manufacturers to include an ADS-B transponder to broadcast the drone's GPS position at all times. At least then, pilots can safely avoid reckless drone pilots.