taking pictures from the sky

On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:48:30 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

wrote:

But aerial photography where the photographs are for sale is clearly
a flight made for the sole purpose of making money and the flight is
essential to the photography so it requires a commercial.



I can't find it any more but there was that list of opinions from the
FAA chief counsel that while not having the effect of law was a pretty
damn good idea of how the FAA was going to treat a given situation.

For some reason there is a memory stuck in my head there was an opinion
in there that stated that the FAA or at least the Chief Counsel did
feel that when flying for professional photography the flying was
incidental to the photography and hence legal for a private pilot.

P.S. If anyone knows where that list of opinions is archived please
chime in. I'd really like to bookmark it.


The answer below may be what you were looking for:


http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.c...61_72205 .doc
QUESTION: I just had a question regarding pilots who received
their commercial license prior to the limitation/ restriction
requiring them to have an instrument rating before they could fly
for compensation (i.e., issued prior to the November*1, 1974
effective date when Part*61 was revised requiring
Instrument?Airplane rating). Are they grandfathered in, or to fly
for hire, are they required to go out and get the instrument
rating?

ANSWER: Ref. §*61.133(b); Yes, a person who holds a commercial
pilot certificate with the airplane rating but without the
instrument-airplane rating issued prior to November*1, 1974 are
grandfathered in

However, if the question you’re asking is whether a person may fly
for a Part*121 or Part*135 operator flying airplanes, the answer
is no. Because note in both provisions of §*61.133(a)(1)(i) and
(ii), the words “. . . is qualified in accordance. . . and with
the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation .
. .” For example, if a person holds a commercial pilot
certificate with an Airplane-Single-engine Land rating, but does
not hold an Instrument-Airplane rating. Then per §135.243(b)(3),
it requires a person to hold an Instrument-Airplane rating. But
certainly, the pilot may continue to perform some commercial
operations (that are not applicable to Parts*121 or 135
operations), such as photography flights, pipeline patrols, etc.
where there is a carriage of persons or property for compensation
or hire.

This answer is based on previous policy letters that were issued
on November 20, 1973 and October*9, 1974.
{Q&A-305}


Apparently inspector Lynch created several of these FAQs:

http://www.soaringsafety.org/pilots/FAQ_Glider.doc
http://trifocus.net/~casey/pt141faq.doc

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Generally, any flight that includes compensation to the pilot in any
form as a result of having made the flight requires a commercial.

If he is compensated for the flight. But if he is working on his own as a
photographer, that doesn't count. The aircraft is a tool of his trade, he is
not flying for hire.

If he is selling the photos he is compensated.

But aerial photography where the photographs are for sale is clearly
a flight made for the sole purpose of making money and the flight is
essential to the photography so it requires a commercial.

The flight is not essential to the photography, since he could hire someone
else to do the flying.

Bad logic.

A flight is essential to aerial photography.

A flight is not essential to ground photography.

No matter who is flying the airplane, that person must have a commercial.

See:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/to...otography.html

"Here's the answer: FAR 61.113(b)(1) states that a private pilot may
act as pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft in connection with any
business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that business
or employment. Clearly, this flight on its photography mission is not
merely incidental to the business, because the photos are to be sold or
used in the business. Therefore, a private pilot cannot legally be PIC
of this flight; the PIC must hold a commercial pilot certificate."

If he hires someone, the flight is governed by part 91 as long as the
flight lands only at the original point of departure. If the flight
lands anywhere else, it is governed by part 135.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:

Passengers and cargo have little to do with it. You're probably
confusing commercial with 135.

I'm making a distinction between flying for hire and flying for one's own
business purposes. Just as a private pilot can fly between his offices in
different cities for business purposes, he can fly for the purpose of taking
pictures. If he transports someone _else_ who acts as photographer, though,
the situation may change.

Wrong.

If the purpose of the flight is to take pictures to sell, the purpose of
the flight is to make money and a private pilot can't do that.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/to...otography.html

for starters.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Flying is not "incidental" to the business of aerial photography. It
is, in fact, an integral part of it. I would say a Commercial
Certificate is required to be PIC on a hired photography flight.

If a Private Pilot is flying around taking pretty pictures, and then
selling them door-to-door or at art shows, I don't see how that would
require a Commercial Certificate.

If you asked 4 FSDOs, you'd get 4 different answers.

Lee Ross
N466SR
CP SEL IA
www.Rosspilot.com

"rosspilot" wrote in message
...
Flying is not "incidental" to the business of aerial photography. It
is, in fact, an integral part of it. I would say a Commercial
Certificate is required to be PIC on a hired photography flight.

If a Private Pilot is flying around taking pretty pictures, and then
selling them door-to-door or at art shows, I don't see how that would
require a Commercial Certificate.

If you asked 4 FSDOs, you'd get 4 different answers.

Lee Ross
N466SR
CP SEL IA
www.Rosspilot.com


I strongly suspect that you have summed it up rather well.

Peter

On 2008-05-15 20:37:54 -0700, said:

Can a person take pictures of properties from a private airplane and
charge for doing it?
What kind of license or permits do they need to do this?


Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

The pilot would probably need a commercial pilot certificate in the US.
Aerial photography is a listed exception to the common carriage rules,
so any commercial pilot could do it.

Espionage laws prohibit you from taking any photograph if you know or
should know that it will be used to injure the United States or benefit
a foreign government. You also may not take unauthorized photographs of
military installations and/or equipment that have been classified as
top secret, secret, confidential, or restricted, whether you intend to
disclose the photographs to a foreign government or not. However,
authorization is usually not that difficult to get.

The military can also regulate photography at sensitive defense
manufacturing and research facilities, photography of experimental
aircraft and equipment, and even crash sites.

You are also prohibited from photographing nuclear facilities that have
been specifically designated by the government as requiring protection
from general dissemination, either while on the property of these
facilities or from the air. However, a guy standing next to the fence
can take all the pictures he wants as long as he is not on the property.

According to the "Legal Handbook for Photographers," by Bert Krages (I
strongly recommend that all photographers, even amateurs, read this
book), you also may not photograph facilities from the air in order to
obtain trade secrets. Two aerial photographers in 1970, for example,
were found guilty of industrial espionage because they photographed a
chemical plant that was under construction. They were hoping to uncover
a secret manufacturing process. Since 1996, you can be fined up to
$500,000 and imprisoned for industrial espionage, plus have your
photographic equipment, including computers and airplanes confiscated.
The fine goes to $10,000,000 if you were doing it for a foreign
government.

You may not photograph copyrighted material, which you would not think
is a big deal until you realize that the layouts of many large works of
art, gardens, distinctive buildings, and even theme parks are all
copyrighted. The copyrighted material does not have to be registered
for you to violate the copyright. However, using the material for
things like news reporting, commentary, or education may be considered
to be fair use. Taking photos of Epcot Center and producing your own
calendar for sale is not fair use.

You may not photograph trademarks and use them improperly. Doing your
own Absolut type photo is a no-no if it violates a trademark -- and
copying the idea of an Absolut photo might violate copyrights, even if
you do something like a flower instead. You also may not substantially
copy the work or original ideas of other artists.

You may not photograph things for which a fee is normally charged
without paying the fee. National Parks, for example, normally charge a
fee for cinema film, but not for general photography even for
commercial purposes. Major league sports organizations, universities,
and many other organizations normally charge a fee for photography of
events.

You may not harass wildlife while taking its picture. If the wildlife
takes evasive action, cries out, or acts startled you are harassing it.
However, it seems to me that wild horses being herded from the air or
animals being legally killed as part of a predator control program
would be an exception. Domestic animals get similar protection. No
flying low over a turkey farm in order to scare the turkeys just so you
can take an aerial picture of them piled up against the fence. In fact,
you may not do anything with an airplane that endangers people or
property.

You may not take a photograph and modify it so as to publicly humiliate
or embarrass someone. Taking a picture of someone running naked from a
burning house would probably be a breach of privacy, no matter how
newsworthy it might be. Taking pictures of people who have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, such as bathing in an outdoor hot tub, would
also probably be considered an invasion of privacy. You may not harass
people by following them around in an airplane everywhere they go,
taking their picture.

Barbara Streisand sued a photographer who took a picture of her house
from the air. She not only lost, but the photographer was awarded his
legal costs. The next photographer might not be so lucky. Streisand
obviously irritated the court by asserting a right to deny access to
anyone she felt like to the airspace above her house. A smarter
plaintiff would have simply asserted invasion of privacy or copyright
infringement and might have won.

Anyway, as you can see, aerial photography is not quite so simple as we
would like it to be, but you do have on your side the general principal
that you have the right to photograph anything you like unless there is
an overwhelming public interest in preventing from doing that. It is up
to the government or a plaintiff to prove that overwhelming interest.
If there is any doubt, the courts will generally rule in favor of the
photographer's right to freedom of the press.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:43:43 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008051617434343658-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

Interesting information. Thanks.

Regarding:

Barbara Streisand sued a photographer who took a picture of her house
from the air. She not only lost, but the photographer was awarded his
legal costs. The next photographer might not be so lucky. Streisand
obviously irritated the court by asserting a right to deny access to
anyone she felt like to the airspace above her house. A smarter
plaintiff would have simply asserted invasion of privacy or copyright
infringement and might have won.


http://www.californiacoastline.org/s...d/lawsuit.html
Barbra Streisand Sues to Suppress Free Speech Protection for
Widely Acclaimed Website

Barbra Streisand, known for espousing pro-environmental views and
criticizing those who don't, has sued the California Coastal
Records Project, a landmark photographic database of over 12,000
frames of the California coast shot since 2002, asserting that the
inclusion of a single frame that includes her blufftop Malibu
estate invades her privacy, violates the "anti-paparazzi" statute,
seeks to profit from her name, and threatens her security. Other
defendants in the case are the Project's Internet Service
Provider, Layer42.NET, and Pictopia.COM, who provides finished
prints of the photographs.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since shortly after our web site "went live", Barbra Streisand has
been complaining about a photograph on our web site, 3% of which
covers her home. In February 2003, we received a threatening
letter from her attorney, John Gatti of Alschuler Grossman Stein &
Kahan LLP, demanding that we "immediately cease and desist from
photographing and displaying and identifying photographs of Ms.
Streisand's home on the website www.californiacoastline.org
[...]".


The photo Barbra Streisand is complaining about
We refuse to be intimidated by these tactics, which would
undermine our constitutional protection of free speech and which
would compromise the integrity of this historical and scientific
database. As a result of which, we received a second threatening
letter.

Our goal is to create a complete record of the California
coastline. This record has been used by a number of government,
university, press, and environmental groups (partial list) free of
charge. It is not possible to provide the public with a complete
record without the photographs of the coast that happen to include
Ms. Streisand's estate. We do not believe in giving special
treatment to wealthy coastal land owners.

Ms. Streisand, who purports to espouse the First Amendment right
of freedom of speech (See "My Thoughts On Freedom of Speech"
(scroll down to "My Thoughts"), at www.barbrastreisand.com)
apparently feels differently when the publication of a photograph
shows her backyard.

Here is a copy of the Complaint that Ms. Streisand filed against
us in Superior Court in Los Angeles. Here is a complete set of
court documents. All of her claims are frivolous and will be
vigorously defended.

Read our full press release here HTML:
http://www.californiacoastline.org/s...e-lawsuit.html
or PDF.
http://www.californiacoastline.org/s...se-lawsuit.pdf

Or read some of the rants we've been receiving.

In article
,
says...


On May 15, 8:37*pm, wrote:
Can a person take pictures of properties from a private airplane and
charge for doing it?
What kind of license or permits do they need to do this?

Its very FSDO dependant. Our local FSDO approved a guy to do just this
as long as it wasn't the primary purpose of his business. In his
description it didn't sound like his business did much else. In
anycase, in the end it will be up to the FSDO to decide if they think
you are doing something wrong.


The OP said "charge for doing it (taking pictures)".
This is not the same as selling a picture one took while flying on a
pleasure or business trip, and could very well be interpreted as "holding
out" or offering for hire services as a pilot, which would definitely
require a CPL. Not to mention the fact that the private or recreational
pilot's insurance company would certainly take a very dim view of his
sollicitation to take pictures for hire when he's supposed to be devoting
all his attention to flying the airplane.

It would indeen be interesting to see that list of "opinions" as that's
about as close as we seem to be able to get to hard facts with the
FAA.The case mentioned certainly does not satisfy the "would have gone
anyway" criterion, and my guess is that it's probably a CPL required
activity.

The OP wrote

Can a person take pictures of properties from a private airplane and
charge for doing it?
What kind of license or permits do they need to do this?

That is a commercial operation that depends on an airplane -- he said
so!




On May 16, 1:51 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:
Passengers and cargo have little to do with it. You're probably
confusing commercial with 135.

I'm making a distinction between flying for hire and flying for one's own
business purposes. Just as a private pilot can fly between his offices in
different cities for business purposes, he can fly for the purpose of taking
pictures. If he transports someone _else_ who acts as photographer, though,
the situation may change.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Generally, the pilot needs a commercial license if the pictures are
for sale.

A CPL? No, I don't think so--not if he is flying in the pursuit of
his own business (not carrying passengers or cargo).

You're worng and you are an idiot.

As usual.


Bertie