PPL Monetizing Videos on Youtube?

WakeNCAgent

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
133
Location
Raleigh, NC
Display Name

Display name:
Louis
So I occasionally watch what my wife considers to be boring-a$$ videos on youtube posted by private pilots. I enjoy watching them and I pretty much post the same type of videos. The only difference is that many of these pilots, many clearly newbies, run ads and monetize their videos. If you are a private pilot, wouldn't the FAA have a case against you if you post your videos and elect to monetize them? Without the flight there would be no video, so I don't see how that could be incidental to the flight.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
My guess is intellectual property versus a service.
Even if it were an issue I can't imagine how they would go about determining who was flying and when and where, etc.

I have heard rumors of people blatantly breaking the law and the FAA coming after them but those are just rumors.
 
You're not getting paid to fly, you are getting paid to post videos. Just put up some non-flying videos while you are at it. Let them try to prove you are just getting paid for the flying videos.
 
My guess is intellectual property versus a service.
Even if it were an issue I can't imagine how they would go about determining who was flying and when and where, etc.

You mean other than the typical "This was on my flight to such and such place on such and such date" complete with ATC audio and cameras pointing at the pilot as well as the outside one sees on YouTube flight videos? :rolleyes: :lol:

If one wants to be technical about it, the FAA "could" treat this as an aerial photography business and begin enforcement proceedings since an aerial photography business requires a commercial certificate.
 
If an Inspector presented something like this to management and says "I want to open an EIR on this" the likely first response will be "We need to re-evaluate your work program, obviously you have too much time on your hands"..........:rolleyes:
 
You're not getting paid to fly, you are getting paid to post videos. Just put up some non-flying videos while you are at it. Let them try to prove you are just getting paid for the flying videos.

Curious. Why "just"?

If I am a professional photographer and do weddings, bar mitzvahs and aerial shots, why do you think the FAA need to prove I "just" got paid for the aerial shots?
 
If an Inspector presented something like this to management and says "I want to open an EIR on this" the likely first response will be "We need to re-evaluate your work program, obviously you have too much time on your hands"..........:rolleyes:
I think you are 100% correct. It would probably take a lot more than a few YouTube videos for the FAA to exercise its discretion to do something.

Of course, whether the FAA would care or bother with it wasn't the question.

I was thinking of adding this to my signature block:
since ignorance is not a defense anyway, it's probably best to try to understand a rule before deciding it's ok to break it.
 
Some of those videos they should pay me to watch them ... :nonod:

A common sentiment from those who watched my videos. But, at least for me, even a bad flying video is worth a look.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the FAA should take enforcement action for this activity, we all know there are much bigger fish to fry - like Realtors who use drones (extreme sarcasm), but it does bother me that we sometimes ignore the rules when it's convenient or because it's not really causing anyone any harm. At what point do you draw the line? Either it is allowable or it isn't. Besides, I find it annoying to have to wait for a 4-second spot before watching a bad video!
 
Curious. Why "just"?

If I am a professional photographer and do weddings, bar mitzvahs and aerial shots, why do you think the FAA need to prove I "just" got paid for the aerial shots?

Because that is what they will go after you for. Let them prove that you are getting paid for the flying videos.
 
Because that is what they will go after you for. Let them prove that you are getting paid for the flying videos.
No problem.Remember, we're not talking about casual uploads.

You are being paid based on what videos have ads, what type of ads, who is bypassing them, who is clicking on them. We're talking the No 1 data collector in the world here, you know. The information is there and forms the whole bases of how you get paid.

Keep in mind that practically speaking we're talking about a use significant enough to get the FAA interested. That would mean a significant number of monetized aviation videos with a significant number of views and subscribers. That's publicly available to anyone. So is the type of ads and what the general payment schedules are.

On top of that, looking around at the significant uploaders of aviation-related videos, that's pretty much all they do. So far, anyway, I haven't seen FlightChops or Mr Aviation 101 or any of the many regular uploaders of good quality aviation videos do too many on how to bake a cake.

What, of course isn't public is how many ads on a video are begin skipped or clicked on and how much you are getting paid on each. But that's in AdSense records, which I would expect to be available by administrative subpoena.
 
The other thing is, unless you have a medical, you can't fly "In furtherance of a business." 61.315 C 3. So, that means you can't buy gas for an airplane because that payment would work towards the furtherance of the business of the FBO. Same for hangar rent, paying an A&P, or buying airplane parts or insurance.
 
What? 12 posts in, and Ron hasn't posted some ruling from 1986 that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, yet?
 
If an Inspector presented something like this to management and says "I want to open an EIR on this" the likely first response will be "We need to re-evaluate your work program, obviously you have too much time on your hands"..........:rolleyes:

THIS!
 
So I occasionally watch what my wife considers to be boring-a$$ videos on youtube posted by private pilots. I enjoy watching them and I pretty much post the same type of videos. The only difference is that many of these pilots, many clearly newbies, run ads and monetize their videos. If you are a private pilot, wouldn't the FAA have a case against you if you post your videos and elect to monetize them? Without the flight there would be no video, so I don't see how that could be incidental to the flight.

What are your thoughts on this?

Nope, the business is entertainment, he's not hauling pax or freight or direct marketing of the product (filming a direct commercial or project under a specified contract), he just has a camera and is filming an entertainment product, flying is incidental. As long as he doesn't video himself busting operating regs, he (or she) is fine.
 
Last edited:

From my 11+ years as a government employee, even I have become jaded to the stupid shyte that higher ups dream up or what gets approved. I would not be surprised at all if someone thought this was a good idea. It's all about the budget. If you can get more money for something, it will be looked at.
 
Remember when some rock star was taking flight lessons and there was all sorts of video shot on that, and he would be getting paid for flying as a Student Pilot. You have to look at the separation between the flight and the pay. If you can separate the two, you are good on a PP.
 
Nope, the business is entertainment, he's not hauling pax or freight or direct marketing of the product (filming a direct commercial or project under a specified contract), he just has a camera and is filming an entertainment product, flying is incidental. As long as he doesn't video himself busting operating regs, he (or she) is fine.
Doesn't matter. Chief Counsel has already said a "hobby type" photo business where the pilot is also the photographer comes under the aerial photography requirement for a commercial pilot certificate. Yeah, we all thought otherwise until it came out. There was even a regional counsel opinion saying it was ok.

How the FAA would look at it today is of course always open but 2010 wasn't that long ago.

2010 Perry interpretation http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../2010/perry - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf
 
Doesn't matter. Chief Counsel has already said a "hobby type" photo business where the pilot is also the photographer comes under the aerial photography requirement for a commercial pilot certificate. Yeah, we all thought otherwise until it came out. There was even a regional counsel opinion saying it was ok.

How the FAA would look at it today is of course always open but 2010 wasn't that long ago.

2010 Perry interpretation http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../2010/perry - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

This is not a photography business, he is not selling a product of the flight. He is getting revenue generated by the product of the flight, you have separation between the flying and money. Besides, the current interpretation is NOT law, and if I went to Court with the FARS and the White interpretation which makes sense and is every bit as valid as the current, the current idiotic interpretation will be dismissed.

CHIEF COUNSEL INTERPRETATIONS ARE NOT LAW.
 
Last edited:
This is not a photography business, he is not selling a product of the flight. He is getting revenue generated by the product of the flight, you have separation between the flying and money. Besides, the current interpretation is NOT law, and if I went to Court with the FARS and the White interpretation which makes sense and is every bit as valid as the current, the current idiotic interpretation will be dismissed.

CHIEF COUNSEL INTERPRETATIONS ARE NOT LAW.

The Chief Counsel opinions are in a group that are usually referred to as "nonlegistlative" rules, meaning that they do not come out of the formal rulemaking process. They have been described as statements that advise the public of an agencies construction of the statutes and regulations it administers.

They do not automatically have the force of law but, when challenged in the courts, they are entitled to various level of deference under principles that have a long history in SCOTUS but still leave the question in any particular case difficult. Deference varies from pretty much none for statutory words (since interpretation of statutes is the whole job of courts) to "Chevron" deference for an agency's interpretation of its own regulations based on the agency's presumed expertise over the administration of a policy field Congress has entrusted to the agency. In the latter case, the agency's interpretation will usually be upheld (pretty much is the law) if it is consistent with the the agency's authority over the subject and "reasonable. The agency will rarely lose in a Chevron analysis.

If you've been following the AirPooler case, the whole petition by AirPooler is designed to deal with this issue; to say that regulating online bulletin boards is both outside the FAA's authority and has nothing to do with the FAA's historical policy control over what is and is not considered a commercial operation. How it will come out is pretty much a guess.

The Perry interpretation? Would a court ultimately say it part and parcel of the FAA's regulatory control of commercial photography operations and the privileges and limits of pilot certification? Would a court say including "hobby-type" sales of photographs taken in flight (or monetized YouTube videos) is or is not a reasonable construction of "aerial photography" in Part 119? In fact, it seems you've unnecessarily conceded a point to the FAA. "Every bit as valid" usually means the agency wins.

I learned long ago that I was not a legal soothsayer.

So, we can start with the fact that the FAA has, for now, interpreted the business of "aerial photography" in a way that includes "hobby type" photography businesses and might well cover YouTube video monetization. And each of us can make our own risk/benefit analysis on everything from whether out YouTube use is significant enough for anyone to care to whether the FAA would stick by the interpretation to out guesses about the ultimate result were we to receive a Letter of Proposed Certificate action.

Or I guess we can yell and scream like you.
 
It's their opinion, only judges make rulings in law. The whole thing is moot anyway nobody is going to go after it, they don't have the manpower.
 
The whole thing is moot anyway nobody is going to go after it, they don't have the manpower.

I wouldn't disagree with you there. That's why it's an academic discussion the reality if which is dependent on doing something to make the FAA interested in one. That's probably also true of videos that show there has been an operational violation
 
Regardless of whether the FAA is likely to come after you or not, does this activity technically violate the spirit of the regulation?

I say yes.

The video was not incidental to the flight. One has to prepare and install cameras, edit, upload and then request compensation. That's a lot of purposeful steps to call it incidental.


So I occasionally watch what my wife considers to be boring-a$$ videos on youtube posted by private pilots. I enjoy watching them and I pretty much post the same type of videos. The only difference is that many of these pilots, many clearly newbies, run ads and monetize their videos. If you are a private pilot, wouldn't the FAA have a case against you if you post your videos and elect to monetize them? Without the flight there would be no video, so I don't see how that could be incidental to the flight.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
Regardless of whether the FAA is likely to come after you or not, does this activity technically violate the spirit of the regulation?

I say yes.

The video was not incidental to the flight. One has to prepare and install cameras, edit, upload and then request compensation. That's a lot of purposeful steps to call it incidental.
"Spirit" is a funny thing. I agree completely with Henning on the "spirit" question.

Looking at the history of the 119.3 "aerial photography" exception to an operating certificate and the 61.113 prohibition on acting as PIC "for compensation or hire" or "of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire," it has pretty much been limited to situations in which the aircraft is being used as a photography platform - a pilot flying the airplane for a professional photographer and receiving some sort of compensation for it.

That's IMO, the "spirit" of the regulation - to prohibit a private pilot from engaging in the commercial pilot activity of acting as a compensated photo platform for someone else.

There's nothing about a pilot sticking a GoPro on an airplane that violates the spirit of those regulations, whether or not he monetizes it. It's "de miniis" - too trivial or minor to merit consideration. We're not talking about Robert Richardson - the Oscar-winning cinematographer for "The Aviatior" - filming scenes for the movie by himself while flying his Cessna 172 withonly a private pilot certificate (I have no idea if he even has a pilot certificate, let alone a 172)

Andrew, I know that you have filmed and edited and distributed sequences in flight. I assume that you had to "prepare and install cameras, edit, upload" but that it was "incidental" to the mountain checkout. If you decide to open up an AdSense account does it suddenly change the "spirit" of what you did?
 
Doesn't matter. Chief Counsel has already said a "hobby type" photo business where the pilot is also the photographer comes under the aerial photography requirement for a commercial pilot certificate. Yeah, we all thought otherwise until it came out. There was even a regional counsel opinion saying it was ok.

How the FAA would look at it today is of course always open but 2010 wasn't that long ago.

2010 Perry interpretation http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../2010/perry - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

The Perry letter doesn't say that at all. It was referring to the process stated in a pamphlet titled "Aerial Photography; From Start to Success", which is a guide on how to start an aerial photography business. A "hobby type aerial photography business" is a business and a commercial license is needed.

It's different on YouTube. Almost no one who makes videos in flight and posts them to YouTube is getting paid for it. Very few people do because you have to consistently hit a pretty high view threshold before they pay anything. They are sharing their flight experience. But even if they reach that threshold and start getting a small cut of what YouTube makes off their video does not automatically transform the hobby into a business.

I'm not going to get into when the line fine line is crossed. Clearly someone who makes a hobby video and posts it to YouTube, then receives incidental ad revenue generated by the video is OK and someone who produces videos with the intent of making ad money from YouTube is out of bounds. One is clearly a hobbyist, the other is clearly a business. Somewhere in between is a border with a very slippery slope in front of it.

You have to be reasonable with 61.113 because if you take it to the ultimate level, you cannot fly with a passenger because you're receiving their friendship as payment, you cannot post anything about flying because you're receiving public recognition and you cannot even tell anyone you're a pilot because you're receiving prestige.
 
Last edited:
The Perry letter doesn't say that at all. It was referring to the process stated in a pamphlet titled "Aerial Photography; From Start to Success", which is a guide on how to start an aerial photography business. A "hobby type aerial photography business" is a business and a commercial license is needed.

It's different on YouTube. Almost no one who makes videos in flight and posts them to YouTube is getting paid for it. Very few people do because you have to consistently hit a pretty high view threshold before they pay anything. They are sharing their flight experience. But even if they reach that threshold and start getting a small cut of what YouTube makes off their video does not automatically transform the hobby into a business.

I'm not going to get into when the line fine line is crossed. Clearly someone who makes a hobby video and posts it to YouTube, then receives incidental ad revenue generated by the video is OK and someone who produces videos with the intent of making ad money from YouTube is out of bounds. One is clearly a hobbyist, the other is clearly a business. Somewhere in between is a border with a very slippery slope in front of it.

You have to be reasonable with 61.113 because if you take it to the ultimate level, you cannot fly with a passenger because you're receiving their friendship as payment, you cannot post anything about flying because you're receiving public recognition and you cannot even tell anyone you're a pilot because you're receiving prestige.

:yeahthat::thumbsup:
 
Andrew, I know that you have filmed and edited and distributed sequences in flight. I assume that you had to "prepare and install cameras, edit, upload" but that it was "incidental" to the mountain checkout. If you decide to open up an AdSense account does it suddenly change the "spirit" of what you did?

Ah, yes. I completely forgot about that. That was before the days of youtube, but you make a very good point.
 
I think you are 100% correct. It would probably take a lot more than a few YouTube videos for the FAA to exercise its discretion to do something.

Not to mention, they don't want to scare people away from posting YouTube videos that show them obviously breaking other FARs. :D
 
The other thing is, unless you have a medical, you can't fly "In furtherance of a business." 61.315 C 3. So, that means you can't buy gas for an airplane because that payment would work towards the furtherance of the business of the FBO. Same for hangar rent, paying an A&P, or buying airplane parts or insurance.

I think that means in furtherance of your own business (or one of a friend/family member/etc), not furtherance of any business on the planet, particularly an FBO. We're all furthering the business of FBO's...
 
The whole topic is insanely hilarious that people think this is something to concern themselves with. If you think that the inspectors at the FAA give one rat's ass about any of this, or are out to get you, you medical is what is really at risk. I just went through a 6 month, I hate to even call it an ordeal, with the FAA after I bellied in my plane and dealt directly with 5 inspectors and a supervisor across 4 different FSDOs in Milwakee, Philly, Long Beach, and finally So Florida where I finally got my 709 ride done in .6 with 2 T&Gs and a full stop. I also met with the entire FSDO and NTSB contingent at OSH trying to figure out how to make this all fit into my schedule without having to issue a suspension in a month when I wouldn't have it done, since they couldn't schedule an inspector to do it that week (I offered to rent a plane and do it that evening, and to the initial guy's credit, he made some calls to try to get it done). We came up with putting my ticket on deposit, and when the Philly inspector cancelled on me, he sent it back to me, "It wouldn't be fair to you for us to hang onto it." Those were his words, think about that the next you think the FAA inspectors are out to screw you. Heck, when I finally got the ride scheduled, the Seminole I reserved had been sent out,it was the only retract I could find on the field. The inspector made some phone calls to his contacts and found a plane for me to use.

People need a serious reality check when it comes to this stuff. They have no concern with this minutia, they have enough keeping their current, 90% 135/121, files cleared. They could really give a **** less about the chief counsel's interpretations, they use the FARs and interpret them for themselves.

Way back when when I was a pretty fresh PP and had been making at least part of my living as a photographer since high school and had a full studio, I asked at the Long Beach FSDO which was right next door about this very thing, "Hey, I have a photography business, is it ok if I shoot aerials out of a 152?" "That's fine" Simple as that. These are the people you are concerned with, not Chief Counsel, you'll never get there. There is not an inspector who cares, and besides, the worst that would happen if the gates of hell burst open and the Furies descended upon you with all the legal might FAA possesses, you would be told to please stop doing that.

Remember, inspectors are pilots and mechanics, not lawyers and cops.
 
Last edited:
I think that means in furtherance of your own business (or one of a friend/family member/etc), not furtherance of any business on the planet, particularly an FBO. We're all furthering the business of FBO's...
Do you have a chief counsel ruling stating that "a" means "your"? What if the guy who owns the FBO is a buddy? You can only buy gas from someone you hate?

I hope you enjoy my videos even if they are boring.
 
Wait!! What's this??! You can actually make money posting up boring flying videos??! I had no idea. How long before my GoPros are paid off? What's the return on investment?
 
Do you have a chief counsel ruling stating that "a" means "your"? What if the guy who owns the FBO is a buddy? You can only buy gas from someone you hate?

I hope you enjoy my videos even if they are boring.
Although I'm pretty sure this part of the thread is mean in jest, you never know what kinds of questions get asked and answered by the Chief Counsel's Office.

==============================
This responds to your letter dated January 26, 2012, to Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations in which you requested a definition of the term "furtherance of [a] business"
***
==============================
2012 Allen Interpretation

There are a few earlier ones as well with pretty much the same thrust.

(I have to admit my all time favorite question to the Chief Counsel - that they actually take time to answer - is the one suggesting that the 45° traffic patter entry is illegal because it involves a right turn in a left-hand traffic pattern, and vice versa)
 
Last edited:
Wait!! What's this??! You can actually make money posting up boring flying videos??! I had no idea. How long before my GoPros are paid off? What's the return on investment?
Tons of money. You should be able to pay off the GoPro in a few hundred years or so given the view rate of typical boring flying videos.
 
Wait!! What's this??! You can actually make money posting up boring flying videos??! I had no idea. How long before my GoPros are paid off? What's the return on investment?

I have a handful of videos (mostly not about flying). I set up an Adsense account just for a kick. My very small sample yielded about $1-$2 for every 1,000 views. Since most of mine are boring and getting few hits, it just wasn't worth it. I removed ads so the few people who do look won't have to endure the ads. If my videos start getting 100,000 views per month or so, I'll think about putting them back on.

Note that if you have any copyrighted music in your video, YouTube will recognize it and automatically put ads on that video. And you get none of the revenues.
 
Tons of money. You should be able to pay off the GoPro in a few hundred years or so given the view rate of typical boring flying videos.

I have a handful of videos (mostly not about flying). I set up an Adsense account just for a kick. My very small sample yielded about $1-$2 for every 1,000 views. Since most of mine are boring and getting few hits, it just wasn't worth it. I removed ads so the few people who do look won't have to endure the ads. If my videos start getting 100,000 views per month or so, I'll think about putting them back on.

Note that if you have any copyrighted music in your video, YouTube will recognize it and automatically put ads on that video. And you get none of the revenues.

Oh you guys suck! You're raining all over my new business venture! I thought I could fly all over the place and get paid for my artistic endeavor! Crap!! :mad2: I think I'd better pursue cat videos. I've got three lazy bastards around here that need to start pulling their weight... now where's that goldfish bowl and my laser pointer??
 
I think I'd better pursue cat videos. I've got three lazy bastards around here that need to start pulling their weight... now where's that goldfish bowl and my laser pointer??

Great plan! You only have a couple million other cat videos to compete with. I bet you could get dozens of views by Christmas. :wink2:

Someone's getting rich off YouTube videos, but (with a handful of exceptions) it's not the video creators.
 
Back
Top