taking pictures from the sky

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/

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?

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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).

Mxsmanic wrote:
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).

Wrong again.

I am making the assumption we are talking about the US, but the rules
are similar in most other countries.

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

There are a few exceptions such as reimbursement for actual costs for
charity, sharing actual costs among the passengers under narrowly
defined conditions, etc.

The general test is whether or not the flight is essential to the
business.

Flying to a remote office is not concidered essential as the person
could take a car, bus, train, or airline flight.

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.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
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).

Wrong again.

I am making the assumption we are talking about the US, but the rules
are similar in most other countries.

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

There are a few exceptions such as reimbursement for actual costs for
charity, sharing actual costs among the passengers under narrowly
defined conditions, etc.

The general test is whether or not the flight is essential to the
business.

Flying to a remote office is not concidered essential as the person
could take a car, bus, train, or airline flight.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

On May 15, 10:03*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
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).

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

-Robert

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.