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

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?