5 ms·

If you're monetizing it at all it seems pretty straightforward. A video you don't consider art could be monetized, a video you do consider art could be monetize

by m3rc 12y ago

If you're monetizing it at all it seems pretty straightforward. A video you don't consider art could be monetized, a video you do consider art could be monetized, it doesn't really matter. It's kind of a silly distinction to say that the person's intent means the FAA couldn't make any case to categorize it as commercial, because they laid out a very clear cut definition. I mean if someone does consider their video a purely artistic endeavor, then they just shouldn't monetize it. If it's a case like here where the money would have been nominal, then it shouldn't matter. And if they have an issue with not monetizing it then they're looking to make money off of it, and so it would certainly be commercial use.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
6stringmerc 12y ago
What I'm saying though is that it's the artistic effort being monetized. It's kind of like saying a person can go buy a lump of clay, but if they turn it into a vase, then they can't sell it. Thus, the flight itself isn't being monetized. My point is that the FAA thinks it has authority to regulate artistic endeavors in this case, because they choose to define the flight's nature retroactively, when in essence, the flight itself is not the commodity, nor is the product of the flight the actual commercial product...I mean, tying a camera to a balloon and then making a video of that runs afoul of the FAA with this/your logic?
- baddox 12y ago
  > It's kind of like saying a person can go buy a lump of clay, but if they turn it into a vase, then they can't sell it. That is precisely how all regulations work that make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial activity.
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Let's say you upload the video to YouTube. You don't monetize it. But you have it linked to a channel that has completely legal videos being monetized. Being that someone could be drawn to the other videos by first watching your video, should it be considered to be monetized? Or let's say you upload the video to YouTube. This is your only video, you don't monetize it. But by YouTube hosting it, people go to YouTube where they will now see other videos on the side bar. They click one and it is monetized. Because of your video, YouTube made some money (even if it is a fraction of a penny). What if you used the video in a portfolio to get a job. Maybe it was the pièce de résistance that won you the job. You used it to secure financial gain... should that count as commercial use?
- gamblor956 12y ago
  1) Maybe. If all the videos on that channel are monetized, than it should be considered monetized (i.e., as an ad or trailer for the other videos. 2) Why does it matter if an unrelated third party can monetize other videos using your unmonetized video? You cannot control whether YouTube shows monetized videos in its suggested watching sidebar. You, the pilot, did not monetize your video, and that is what matters for purposes of the regulation. 3) Context matters. It could be treated as a commercial use, but it depends on the greater context of the video. If it was just a portfolio item to get a job as an employee, it likely would not rise to the level of commercial use. But if it was used as a portfolio item to get a job as a contractor/service provider providing drone footage, then it would most likely be treated as a commercial use.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    >2 The reason YouTube exists and that you can upload videos is so said third party can make money. If they weren't monetizing videos, including yours, the service wouldn't exist. In effect, you are using your video as a form fo payment for having the service. Is a single video that much in the grand scheme of things? No; probably a fraction of a penny. But it is still part of the transaction you are paying to use their service. >3 Why would this context matter when monetizing it the context of how much money is made doesn't matter. Even if operating at a loss, making only pennies for every dollar spent, it still counts as monetizing?
baddox 12y ago
It's really not that straightforward. What if you don't directly put ads on the video, but the video attracts attention to you or your company, which indirectly provides some monetary benefits? Heck, what if flying a drone on my own time helps me relax, which makes me more productive at my normal desk job?

by m3rc 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

6stringmerc 12y ago

What I'm saying though is that it's the artistic effort being monetized. It's kind of like saying a person can go buy a lump of clay, but if they turn it into a vase, then they can't sell it. Thus, the flight itself isn't being monetized. My point is that the FAA thinks it has authority to regulate artistic endeavors in this case, because they choose to define the flight's nature retroactively, when in essence, the flight itself is not the commodity, nor is the product of the flight the actual commercial product...I mean, tying a camera to a balloon and then making a video of that runs afoul of the FAA with this/your logic?

baddox 12y ago
> It's kind of like saying a person can go buy a lump of clay, but if they turn it into a vase, then they can't sell it. That is precisely how all regulations work that make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial activity.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

Let's say you upload the video to YouTube. You don't monetize it. But you have it linked to a channel that has completely legal videos being monetized. Being that someone could be drawn to the other videos by first watching your video, should it be considered to be monetized? Or let's say you upload the video to YouTube. This is your only video, you don't monetize it. But by YouTube hosting it, people go to YouTube where they will now see other videos on the side bar. They click one and it is monetized. Because of your video, YouTube made some money (even if it is a fraction of a penny). What if you used the video in a portfolio to get a job. Maybe it was the pièce de résistance that won you the job. You used it to secure financial gain... should that count as commercial use?

gamblor956 12y ago
1) Maybe. If all the videos on that channel are monetized, than it should be considered monetized (i.e., as an ad or trailer for the other videos. 2) Why does it matter if an unrelated third party can monetize other videos using your unmonetized video? You cannot control whether YouTube shows monetized videos in its suggested watching sidebar. You, the pilot, did not monetize your video, and that is what matters for purposes of the regulation. 3) Context matters. It could be treated as a commercial use, but it depends on the greater context of the video. If it was just a portfolio item to get a job as an employee, it likely would not rise to the level of commercial use. But if it was used as a portfolio item to get a job as a contractor/service provider providing drone footage, then it would most likely be treated as a commercial use.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  >2 The reason YouTube exists and that you can upload videos is so said third party can make money. If they weren't monetizing videos, including yours, the service wouldn't exist. In effect, you are using your video as a form fo payment for having the service. Is a single video that much in the grand scheme of things? No; probably a fraction of a penny. But it is still part of the transaction you are paying to use their service. >3 Why would this context matter when monetizing it the context of how much money is made doesn't matter. Even if operating at a loss, making only pennies for every dollar spent, it still counts as monetizing?

baddox 12y ago

It's really not that straightforward. What if you don't directly put ads on the video, but the video attracts attention to you or your company, which indirectly provides some monetary benefits? Heck, what if flying a drone on my own time helps me relax, which makes me more productive at my normal desk job?