Does Drone Base pay?

[JonCahillPhoto]

While it does seem obvious that DroneBase pays out some, the ROI is another thing to consider for a commercial pilot. Can anyone attest to DB leading into a larger growth/income stream for their business? Not sure. But like many IT business models, ethics and gray areas are in question.

I'm actually curious if DB has lead into a larger line of business for people. Possibly portfolio growth, but I think I recall TOS limits users from content rights other than DB.

 

[rmp5s]

While it does seem obvious that DroneBase pays out some, the ROI is another thing to consider for a commercial pilot. Can anyone attest to DB leading into a larger growth/income stream for their business? Not sure. But like many IT business models, ethics and gray areas are in question.

I'm actually curious if DB has lead into a larger line of business for people. Possibly portfolio growth, but I think I recall TOS limits users from content rights other than DB.

Probably not. I think of DroneBase in the same way I think of Uber, to a degree. For most people, neither are a full-time gig...neither are a profession. They can both be somewhat in the grey area about certain things. But they're both fun and easy ways to make some coin.

 

[rmp5s]

Also, I thank you for your service sir

My pleasure.

...And by the way... Central Park is ACTUALLY possible. After you pay the City Film Permit, the City Park Film Permit, the NYS Film Permit, the NYS Park special use Permit (drones = e.g. pay the hourly of the officers needed to cordon off the area while you fly) and the usual under-the-table stuff (ever been on a film set?) and THEN wait 90 days for an FAA Class Bravo clearance... and you can understand why cowboys with a random Phantom 3 who don't follow the rules and just go "Derp, up we go!" irk some of us...

I almost have a hard time blaming the "cowboys" when the powers-that-be make is basically impossible for anyone to fly anywhere ever. Think about it...is a little P4/Inspire/Karma/whatever hovering at 50-60AGL snapping some pictures and/or getting some video REALLY going to hurt anything? Very highly unlikely.

BUT...the dumb shits that fly a couple hundred feet up around airports like has happened here in the past? Yea. **** those guys.

Funny side-note: Yesterday on the book of face, a dude in one of the drone groups I am in posted asking if anyone know how he could go about getting an insurance policy for a job he's doing...a ten MILLION DOLLAR insurance policy. ROFL!! We're all like, "why?" My reply: "Dude...are you wanting to fly a Predator in the Louvre or some ****?" lol

 

[licensed pilot]

No negative nancy here, I'm on DroneBase, but your experience must be different than my neck of the woods (greater NYC area). I have no doubt that you fly safely. But you legally cannot launch and land from private property in NY or NJ without the property owner's permission. DroneBase's response to this problem was "launch and land from a public easement" -- sensible enough. But in my area that's pretty much the middle of a highway or county road. No problem, right?

So how many of these suggested sites would be legal under Part 107? View attachment 12794

I am assuming any part 107 pilot knows how to read a sectional, the DB map is not intended to serve as one.

Dude...it's the Internet. If anyone takes Internet **** personally, they're in for a bad time. Good convo, even if it didn't start out the best.

Anyway...that's a slippery slope, man. Most of the country is under some type of restrictive airspace...so, where do you draw the line? What is "blatantly illegal"? Is that better or worse than "sorta illegal"? Maybe not quite as bad as "painfully illegal"?

It all comes down to the pilot. Again...don't be an *** hat...fly smart. Sure, I've seen the missions over by Skyharbor and was like, "yea, good luck getting those done guys". Will someone fly them? Probably. Should they? Probably not. Can you fix stupid? Nope. It's our job as pilots to educate.

And, no matter what, Drone Base or not...stupid people will be stupid.

Regarding your map, yup...TONS of Class B around there. See attachment.

Looks like some flying could possibly be done here and there, maybe south Manhattan for instance (no idea where Central Park is...been a few years since I've been there) as that looks like it's only Class B from 1500 up...but ****. That ****'s crazy. lol One helluva map!! SUPER hard to read. I'd want the supplemental if I were in the area. That higher level map just looks like a mess!

Worse case scenario: If you wanna fly there and be uber-by the book, call the tower.

There's no "tower calling" under part 107, you must file for an authorization vie the FAA's website.

 

[licensed pilot]

So how many of these suggested sites would be legal under Part 107? View attachment 12794

Looks like none. Unless you receive an authorization (fat chance)

 

[William Gaddy]

My pleasure.



I almost have a hard time blaming the "cowboys" when the powers-that-be make is basically impossible for anyone to fly anywhere ever. Think about it...is a little P4/Inspire/Karma/whatever hovering at 50-60AGL snapping some pictures and/or getting some video REALLY going to hurt anything? Very highly unlikely.

BUT...the dumb shits that fly a couple hundred feet up around airports like has happened here in the past? Yea. **** those guys.

Funny side-note: Yesterday on the book of face, a dude in one of the drone groups I am in posted asking if anyone know how he could go about getting an insurance policy for a job he's doing...a ten MILLION DOLLAR insurance policy. ROFL!! We're all like, "why?" My reply: "Dude...are you wanting to fly a Predator in the Louvre or some ****?" lol

Well you and I can agree that the current regs are overwrought -- to give an example. I got pinched by a PA park ranger last fall for flying my drone in a State Game Preserve. He was nice enough about it, especially after I pointed to the "rules and regs" sign right behind me that said nothing about drones. He proceeded to tell me it was a new law passed by the state legislature a month ago and they didn't have time yet to update all the signs. He then proceeded to preach to the choir about the difference between "launch and land" and "flying" -- e.g. I can't launch nor land within state parks ... but if I go over "THERE" [he points] outside of park land boundaries I can launch and land from there, and fly anywhere I want, because anything in the air is FAA jurisdiction. Now, this is nice -- but it's also stupid. All this does is encourage people to fly beyond visual line of sight. If I launched where he pointed, and I shot the waterfall that I shot, I would have been completely BVLOS. Perverse incentives yield perverse results.

As for the $10M insurance policy, hell, we put on 5-day 25-band show in Sturgis with helicopters, super technocranes, and 20 camera positions. And we served BEER. To PISSED-OFF BIKERS (Axl Rose was late, my boss got hit in the back of the head with a beer bottle, etc). $5M policy.

 

[licensed pilot]

It is what it is.

 

[William Gaddy]

Looks like none. Unless you receive an authorization (fat chance)

I'm actually working on two: one in Bronx (inside the LGA Class B surface veil) and Brooklyn (inside the JFK Class B surface veil). It's definitely possible, just not easy. Central Park? HAHA yeah, uh, NO. Forget the FAA, you have 4 other agencies to contend with too. Sure, if you're Paramount studios and have lawyers stacked "yea-high" to contend with it, all good.

 

[SkipTV]

I've been in TV and Film Industry for 20 years. The one rule you live by and learn quickly is NEVER do spec work if you want to get paid. If you are flying and not getting paid, you are not flying commercial. So, you are not flying under 107, 333 "pretty gray area" if you get paid on a later date. Drone Base does pay. They contacted me on a local job. Fortunately it was outside of city and in Class G airspace. I had room to take off, land and fly, with permission. It took 20 minutes, as soon as I uploaded the pics I got paid.

 

[licensed pilot]

" So, you are not flying under 107, 333 "pretty gray area" What?
Is this an FAA interpretation? All due respect, if we are discussing TV and Film, I'd defer to you. However. Shooting freelance photography with UAV, whether you get paid at the front or back end, is most certainly a 107/333 activity. No grey area...The FAA has been quite clear on this. If one intends to sell the pics, it's commercial.

 

[William Gaddy]

I've been in TV and Film Industry for 20 years. The one rule you live by and learn quickly is NEVER do spec work if you want to get paid. If you are flying and not getting paid, you are not flying commercial. So, you are not flying under 107, 333 "pretty gray area" if you get paid on a later date. Drone Base does pay. They contacted me on a local job. Fortunately it was outside of city and in Class G airspace. I had room to take off, land and fly, with permission. It took 20 minutes, as soon as I uploaded the pics I got paid.

Well, this gets into really interesting regulation interpretation, now we're invoking "mens rae" or intention. Regardless of your interpretation, as it stands now, if the footage from your flight is used commercially to the commercial BENEFIT of you (or your company, or ANYONE ELSE), even if it was flown under hobby (Part 101 rules) INITIALLLY -- means you could be subject to Part 107 violation and fines AFTER the fact if the footage changed character from personal to commercial. This is NOT tested in a court of law as yet but all I can say is the legal standard is very confusing and, I dare to say it, vexatious.

Example. I fly under AMA/Part 101 rules within 2 miles of an airport, as a hobbyist. I get bitchin' footage. I post it to YouTube. I get's unk-teen-cagillion hits and I sell rights to CNN like Casey Neistat. Guess what? That flight is now Part 107 and the chain of liability ends with ME. The release I sign with CNN will state that. If the FAA decides to come after me (they probably Won't, but it's a non-zero risk, especially if I piss them off) -- I have Zero Legal Cover. It ain't CNN getting the nastygram, it's me. Have a good lawyer, and a deep bank account, or be willing to cover your eyes and ears.

 

[licensed pilot]

Now we are off into the weeds and la la land...

"Well, this gets into really interesting regulation interpretation, now we're invoking "mens rae" or intention. Regardless of your interpretation, as it stands now, if the footage from your flight is used commercially to the commercial BENEFIT of you (or your company, or ANYONE ELSE), even if it was flown under hobby (Part 101 rules) INITIALLLY -- means you could be subject to Part 107 violation and fines AFTER the fact if the footage changed character from personal to commercial. This is NOT tested in a court of law as yet but all I can say is the legal standard is very confusing and, I dare to say it, vexatious."

If someone else uses your video for commercial purposes w/o permission how can you be geld accountable? Even the FAA is not that stupid/****.

"I sell rights to CNN like Casey Neistat" then you are presenting your work product commercially at that time, can't pull a fast one to get around 107. Now you have to prove to the FAA than your initial intentions were as a hobbyist. I'm guessing the first time you may get away with the hobby explanation, but not the 2nd, third or fourth.

I think the legal standard is quite clear, flying with commercial intentions, 107 or 333. Flying for "fun" then deciding your footage has value and u want to sell it? You may get away with it once, but after that you are clearly in the business and no hobbyist. Were I an FAA enforcement dude or dudette, tha's how I'd look at it.

 

[William Gaddy]

Now we are off into the weeds and la la land...

"Well, this gets into really interesting regulation interpretation, now we're invoking "mens rae" or intention. Regardless of your interpretation, as it stands now, if the footage from your flight is used commercially to the commercial BENEFIT of you (or your company, or ANYONE ELSE), even if it was flown under hobby (Part 101 rules) INITIALLLY -- means you could be subject to Part 107 violation and fines AFTER the fact if the footage changed character from personal to commercial. This is NOT tested in a court of law as yet but all I can say is the legal standard is very confusing and, I dare to say it, vexatious."

If someone else uses your video for commercial purposes w/o permission how can you be geld accountable? Even the FAA is not that stupid/****.

"I sell rights to CNN like Casey Neistat" then you are presenting your work product commercially at that time, can't pull a fast one to get around 107. Now you have to prove to the FAA than your initial intentions were as a hobbyist. I'm guessing the first time you may get away with the hobby explanation, but not the 2nd, third or fourth.

That was my point -- "mens rae" -- your intentions don't matter at the time of flying. All that matters is how the footage is used. The minute your Part 101 footage is used commercially it becomes Part 107 and you have liability if it violated Part 107.

 

[licensed pilot]

That was my point -- "mens rae" -- your intentions don't matter at the time of flying. All that matters is how the footage is used. The minute your Part 101 footage is used commercially it becomes Part 107 and you have liability if it violated Part 107.

We agree. But intentions do matter if you decide to sell the footage after the fact... As I said before, one may make a case to the feds it was just a fortuitous accident, try it a second time and they may decide you are now in the business.

 

[William Gaddy]

That was my point -- "mens rae" -- your intentions don't matter at the time of flying. All that matters is how the footage is used. The minute your Part 101 footage is used commercially it becomes Part 107 and you have liability if it violated Part 107.

TO BE CLEAR, I don't agree with this fucked up regime, but it is what it is

 

[rmp5s]

Another one sold this morning. lol That's almost 60 bucks for doing nothing but a bit of flying and uploading some pics. I'm definitely not complaining.

Will be flying some more missions later this week.

 

[William Gaddy]

Another one sold this morning. lol That's almost 60 bucks for doing nothing but a bit of flying and uploading some pics. I'm definitely not complaining.

Will be flying some more missions later this week.

More power to you, brother. That would only half cover my mileage costs. But if it works for you, great!

 

[licensed pilot]

I still try to do panos, but honestly, it barely pays for mileage AND insurance.

 

[William Gaddy]

licensed pilot: I've never even bothered for exactly that reason. I seem to get paid more for 360 GROUND shooting on commission in Manhattan than flying some random aerial pano stuff in Who-The-Hell-Is-Here, NJ.

 

[licensed pilot]

The only way to make any $ is to skip my Verifly insurance, which I will not never ever do. DB needs to increase the % for pilots...soon.

Who-The-Hell-Is-Here, NJ. I s that near Why, AZ?