Commercial required?

[Wayne]

Is there any way to do aerial photography and sell the pictures without
having a commercial license? Seems to me there isn't, but I know people do
it. I was just wondering if there was a catch somewhere that would allow it
and if so, under what circumstances.

Thanks

Wayne

[Teacherjh]

>>
Is there any way to do aerial photography and sell the pictures without
having a commercial license? Seems to me there isn't
<<

My reading is that there is.

First off, if you are not a photographer by trade, but take some pics when
you're flying and then decide to sell them, that should be ok part 91. You
didn't fly for money, and once you have the pictures, you should not be
enjoined from selling them.

If you go flying for the purpose of taking pics (of your own choice) and
selling them, that should still be ok in the situation that you are
professional photographer but your business is not aerial photography. I.e.
you do weddings, commercials, magazines, and such. The flight is incidental to
your business (of photography). If you are not a professional photographer,
the rules should be even looser; similar to the first case.

If you are approached by somebody and agree that in exchange for money you will
take some aerials, that's probably not ok. You would be being paid
=to=make=the=flight= and take pictures.

If you are a magazine photographer, and one of your assignments involves aerial
work, that should be ok, as the flying is again incidental to your business
(even though it's necessary for this particular photograph).

If you are a professional photographer who specialized in aerials (you hire a
135 pilot and take pictures), and decide to do your own flying, well maybe
that's not ok, especially if you are on salary rather than self employed.

That's my take. But I'm just a private pilot and not a professional
photographer. We have some on the group who are both; we'll probably hear
their take shortly.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[James M. Knox]

"Wayne" > wrote in
:

> Is there any way to do aerial photography and sell the pictures
> without
> having a commercial license? Seems to me there isn't, but I know
> people do it. I was just wondering if there was a catch somewhere that
> would allow it and if so, under what circumstances.

This one has been taken both ways by the FAA. They have prosecuted guys
for doing aerial photography without a commercial, and specifically
listed it as allowed as "incidental" and thus only requiring a private.

There were differences in the two cases. In the first case, where they
ruled that a commercial was needed, the pilot was clearly "holding out"
to the public. He had a studio that was specifically advertising
"aerial photography" and soliciting business of that type. The FAA
violated him and it was upheld.

In the second case the person *was* a professional photographer.
However, what he was doing was flying over areas such as lakefront
housing and taking pictures. He was then blowing up the pictures and
going door to door trying to sell "this beautiful aerial photo of your
home." Some local FAA type violated the guy, but it was determined that
the flying was not the primary business - i.e. the photography was, and
only a private ticket was required.

So... no assurances. **Probably** if you are interested in taking
pictures from the air and trying to sell them then you are okay. If,
however, you want to start running advertising touting "Aerial
Photographer for hire" then you better get a letter ruling just for you,
just to be safe. [Or just get the commercial.]

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Teacherjh]

>> [Or just get the commercial.]

More than that - wouldn't you also need part 135 procedures and certification
for your entire opreration? (at least if you owned the plane from which you
were taking pictures and flying?)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[C J Campbell]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
| >> [Or just get the commercial.]
|
| More than that - wouldn't you also need part 135 procedures and
certification
| for your entire opreration? (at least if you owned the plane from which
you
| were taking pictures and flying?)
|

Aerial photography is specifically exempted from part 135. See part 119.

[C J Campbell]

"Wayne" > wrote in message
...
| Is there any way to do aerial photography and sell the pictures
without
| having a commercial license?

Well, if there isn't, then Barbara and Galen Rowell were violating the law.
You might want to read Barbara Rowell's book, "Flying South," if you ever
need inspiration, though I can't say much for the daredevil attitude
exhibited by some of the pilots throughout the book, or for Barbara's own
willingness to resign herself to going along so that she would not be left
behind.

The FAA is not going to say much if you sell pictures that you happen to
take while flying. You need a commercial license if your business is
specifically aerial photography -- that is, you tell people that you take
aerial photographs for a living and offer to do aerial photographic work. It
is kind of a fine line, but the distinction is whether you are making money
from your photographs or from your flying.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 13 Nov 2003 15:02:56 GMT, (Teacherjh) wrote:

>More than that - wouldn't you also need part 135 procedures and certification
>for your entire opreration? (at least if you owned the plane from which you
>were taking pictures and flying?)

I don't see anything in the "applicability" segment of part 135 concerning
aerial photography; nor anything I could construe as related if you were
flying yourself and taking the pictures yourself.

Part 135 does apply to operations which require a certificate under Part
119 (as well as to certain other operations). But aerial photography or
survey in small airplanes is specifically EXcluded from Part 119.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Greg]

"Wayne" > wrote in message >...
> Is there any way to do aerial photography and sell the pictures without
> having a commercial license? Seems to me there isn't, but I know people do
> it. I was just wondering if there was a catch somewhere that would allow it
> and if so, under what circumstances.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wayne

I was considering taking aerial photographs of my clients' businesses
and framing them for XMAS presents but was affraid this might be and
no no.

Also, my buddy wanted to take a picture of a business to use on their
commercial website (he was getting paid by the company to do this). I
of had planned on taking him along on a local flight to take the pics.
Is this legal? How does one go about proving they had already
planned the flight? (That is I didn't make a special flight just for
the purpose of him taking the pic...or is this even relavant?)

[gross_arrow]

(Teacherjh) wrote in message >...
> >> [Or just get the commercial.]
>
> More than that - wouldn't you also need part 135 procedures and certification
> for your entire opreration? (at least if you owned the plane from which you
> were taking pictures and flying?)
>
> Jose


why would you need 135? the way i read it you only need 135 if
you're carrying passengers or mail. of course, it might not be
the way i read it......

g_a

[Wayne]

Thanks for the replies everyone. If I had a friend that was commercial
rated, could he fly while I took the pictures? Would I have to pay him as am
employee? Could we split costs, and have him to his necessary IFR stuff to
keep current and shoot some pictures while we are up?

Thanks again. The FAR's are so greek to me, I appreciate your help.
Wayne

I am thinking about taking over a small company. It is an aerial
photography business, the name makes that impossible to deny. The current
owner is comercially rated, the previous owner was not.

> This one has been taken both ways by the FAA. They have prosecuted guys
> for doing aerial photography without a commercial, and specifically
> listed it as allowed as "incidental" and thus only requiring a private.
>
> There were differences in the two cases. In the first case, where they
> ruled that a commercial was needed, the pilot was clearly "holding out"
> to the public. He had a studio that was specifically advertising
> "aerial photography" and soliciting business of that type. The FAA
> violated him and it was upheld.
>
> In the second case the person *was* a professional photographer.
> However, what he was doing was flying over areas such as lakefront
> housing and taking pictures. He was then blowing up the pictures and
> going door to door trying to sell "this beautiful aerial photo of your
> home." Some local FAA type violated the guy, but it was determined that
> the flying was not the primary business - i.e. the photography was, and
> only a private ticket was required.
>
> So... no assurances. **Probably** if you are interested in taking
> pictures from the air and trying to sell them then you are okay. If,
> however, you want to start running advertising touting "Aerial
> Photographer for hire" then you better get a letter ruling just for you,
> just to be safe. [Or just get the commercial.]
> -----------------------------------------------

[C J Campbell]

"Greg" > wrote in message
om...
| "Wayne" > wrote in message
>...
| > Is there any way to do aerial photography and sell the pictures without
| > having a commercial license? Seems to me there isn't, but I know people
do
| > it. I was just wondering if there was a catch somewhere that would allow
it
| > and if so, under what circumstances.
| >
| > Thanks
| >
| > Wayne
|
| I was considering taking aerial photographs of my clients' businesses
| and framing them for XMAS presents but was affraid this might be and
| no no.

That should be all right.

|
| Also, my buddy wanted to take a picture of a business to use on their
| commercial website (he was getting paid by the company to do this). I
| of had planned on taking him along on a local flight to take the pics.
| Is this legal? How does one go about proving they had already
| planned the flight? (That is I didn't make a special flight just for
| the purpose of him taking the pic...or is this even relavant?)

Not relevant. You are not getting paid for the pictures or the flight.

[BTIZ]

the FARs are Greek to everyone.. even the FAA

BT

"Wayne" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the replies everyone. If I had a friend that was commercial
> rated, could he fly while I took the pictures? Would I have to pay him as
am
> employee? Could we split costs, and have him to his necessary IFR stuff to
> keep current and shoot some pictures while we are up?
>
> Thanks again. The FAR's are so greek to me, I appreciate your help.
> Wayne
>
> I am thinking about taking over a small company. It is an aerial
> photography business, the name makes that impossible to deny. The current
> owner is comercially rated, the previous owner was not.
>
> > This one has been taken both ways by the FAA. They have prosecuted guys
> > for doing aerial photography without a commercial, and specifically
> > listed it as allowed as "incidental" and thus only requiring a private.
> >
> > There were differences in the two cases. In the first case, where they
> > ruled that a commercial was needed, the pilot was clearly "holding out"
> > to the public. He had a studio that was specifically advertising
> > "aerial photography" and soliciting business of that type. The FAA
> > violated him and it was upheld.
> >
> > In the second case the person *was* a professional photographer.
> > However, what he was doing was flying over areas such as lakefront
> > housing and taking pictures. He was then blowing up the pictures and
> > going door to door trying to sell "this beautiful aerial photo of your
> > home." Some local FAA type violated the guy, but it was determined that
> > the flying was not the primary business - i.e. the photography was, and
> > only a private ticket was required.
> >
> > So... no assurances. **Probably** if you are interested in taking
> > pictures from the air and trying to sell them then you are okay. If,
> > however, you want to start running advertising touting "Aerial
> > Photographer for hire" then you better get a letter ruling just for you,
> > just to be safe. [Or just get the commercial.]
> > -----------------------------------------------
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On 13 Nov 2003 15:02:56 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>>> [Or just get the commercial.]
>
>More than that - wouldn't you also need part 135 procedures and certification
>for your entire opreration? (at least if you owned the plane from which you
>were taking pictures and flying?)
>
>Jose


Last time I looked at the regs (admittedly a few decades ago), the
holder of a commercial pilots certificate could fly pipeline patrols,
tow banners, and perform aerial photography (in addition to a few
other similar things) without the necessity of Part 135 operation.

IIRC, the holder of a private certificate may also sell his aerial
photos. But it looks like he'll soon lose the right to conduct
sightseeing within 25 miles of the departure airport.

The OP needs to spend some time here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfrv2_00.html

[John E. Carty]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:NuVsb.631$Ue4.504@fed1read01...
> the FARs are Greek to everyone.. even the FAA
>
> BT

Unfortunately, you are correct :-)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Wayne wrote:
>
> If I had a friend that was commercial rated, could he fly while I took the
> pictures?

Of course.

> Would I have to pay him as am employee?

That's up to him.

> Could we split costs, and have him to his necessary IFR stuff to
> keep current and shoot some pictures while we are up?

Well, you can't be a very good safety pilot if you're taking photos, but there's
no reason you can't do his currency work and your photo work on the same flight.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[C J Campbell]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:NuVsb.631$Ue4.504@fed1read01...
| the FARs are Greek to everyone.. even the FAA
|

What do you have against the Greeks?

[Andrew Gideon]

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:NuVsb.631$Ue4.504@fed1read01...
> | the FARs are Greek to everyone.. even the FAA
> |
>
> What do you have against the Greeks?

Indeed. It's not as if being Greek helps one understand the FARs.

- Andrew

[C J Campbell]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
| C J Campbell wrote:
|
| >
| > "BTIZ" > wrote in message
| > news:NuVsb.631$Ue4.504@fed1read01...
| > | the FARs are Greek to everyone.. even the FAA
| > |
| >
| > What do you have against the Greeks?
|
| Indeed. It's not as if being Greek helps one understand the FARs.
|

They might even be more intelligible if written in Greek.

[Tom S.]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >
> > "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> > news:NuVsb.631$Ue4.504@fed1read01...
> > | the FARs are Greek to everyone.. even the FAA
> > |
> >
> > What do you have against the Greeks?
>
> Indeed. It's not as if being Greek helps one understand the FARs.
>

Blessed are the Greeks?