Legal or not

[kcobello]

We have a hobby flyer out my way who has a store advertising an aerial photo he has for sale. Is this commercial? Legal?

 

[burlbark]

We have a hobby flyer out my way who has a store advertising an aerial photo he has for sale. Is this commercial? Legal?

100% legal in the US..... Laws are on the books and we will see where they go.

 

[druiser]

I've often wondered about this. Making a canvas, poster or photo book out of an aerial photo.. and then selling it. I'd be interested in hearing what other's have to say.

 

[SanCap]

Is it a good photo and is it priced correctly? I am looking for Christmas gifts

 

[msinger]

It's only legal with a 333 exemption.

 

[bluethundr]

How was the photo taken? Just because its a hobby store does not mean a UAV was used to take it. Also the term legal and 333 exemption in the same sentence does not make sense. If it were illegal the FAA would have a few problems, not to mention the current lawsuit against them in which a Federal judge held it in abeyance until they review the 33k petitions on commercial use and the 336 regs. In essence the Judge told the FAA they CAN NOT come after anyone for commercial use with out a 333 until that court case is cleared. I'm sure they have a team of FAA working on reading the 33k petitions..right? As you can google search I have not seen one FAA court ruling on commercial use and the fines that follow...not one.

 

[andrew259]

In the uk if the photo was taken by someone without permission for commercial work, they would end up with a criminal conviction.
There was a case of a chap who used his drone to film a fire - and ended up helping the firemen see where the fire was spreading. All well and good... But then the local news station asked to buy the footage for broadcast.... When it was aired, it immediately became illegal, and the chap was prosecuted.... Had he given the footage, there would have been no issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mazz]

Here in the good 'ol USofA it is completely legal. If he claims he was just out flying for fun and got a great shot which he later decided to edit and sell, that is perfectly ok.

 

[SanCap]

What if I go up in a hired hot air balloon and take a great photo and then sell it??

 

[kcobello]

I am reading the comments and I like the ones that call this questionable. Reason. Why are we spending $3000 or trying to get a 333 and legal if I can call anything a hobby flight and sell the printed image. Its making money which to me is commercial and should be illegal. I wouldn't care but while one goes broke the other spends nothing and makes money. This isn't even someone working towards a goal of going by current regulations. I just don't understand...

 

[kcobello]

How was the photo taken? Just because its a hobby store does not mean a UAV was used to take it. Also the term legal and 333 exemption in the same sentence does not make sense. If it were illegal the FAA would have a few problems, not to mention the current lawsuit against them in which a Federal judge held it in abeyance until they review the 33k petitions on commercial use and the 336 regs. In essence the Judge told the FAA they CAN NOT come after anyone for commercial use with out a 333 until that court case is cleared. I'm sure they have a team of FAA working on reading the 33k petitions..right? As you can google search I have not seen one FAA court ruling on commercial use and the fines that follow...not one.

I just received a letter from the FAA saying that commercial use IS illegal and we cannot conduct RCAP until we are 333 exempt and follow the guidelines they set forth....
It was shot with a Phantom...

 

[Jimmykjimmy]

I'd like to see a copy of that FAA letter and if it came from their legal dept. In addition, are we now to believe that they are scouring hobby stores for photos.
Look, 13,000 birds hit planes in 2013, and not one drone. The FAA should focus on the birds.