Charging for pictures.

[mattyp]

Here's a good one. My local Sheriff's Office flies a helicopter. As far as I can tell, they don't have any kind of commercial operating certificate. They do, however, have photos taken from the helicopter offered for sale on their really awesome propaganda website. Bell 407 Sonoma County Sheriff Rescue Helicopter So the question is, can I take a photographer up with my private plane and then participate in selling the pictures?

[mugaliens]

Here's a good one. My local Sheriff's Office flies a helicopter. As far as I can tell, they don't have any kind of commercial operating certificate.

Oops! FAA's coming hard down on them!

They do, however, have photos taken from the helicopter offered for sale on their really awesome propaganda website. Bell 407 Sonoma County Sheriff Rescue Helicopter So the question is, can I take a photographer up with my private plane and then participate in selling the pictures?

At this point, I'd turn over 100% of all photographs to the FAA as "forensic evidence" and just let the Sonoma Co Sheriff and his "rescue pilot" rot where they are.

[Denny of Oakland]

I happen to know Henry 1 and the Sonoma Sheriff operation pretty. Keep in mind the Sonoma helicopter is a public use aircraft so they don’t have to hold a part 135 certificate with the Oakland FSDO.

“So the question is, can I take a photographer up with my private plane and then participate in selling the pictures?”

Since you are not a pubic use aircraft you can not take people up in your private aircraft take pictures and sale them unless you have a commerical certificate and meet the requirenets for the operation. I would recommend you contact the Oakland FSDO at (510)748-0122 and ask to talk with the Operations supervisor who can provide you with the proper guidance on how to be a commerical opeator.

[Instrumental]

It would be interesting to find out if "public use" includes the taking and selling of photographs.

[Denny of Oakland]

The following web site will answer some of your questions concerning public use aircraft.

Section by Section Analysis

The current definition of public aircraft (49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(37)) presents interpretive difficulties to many in the aviation community. These difficulties are due in part to repetition of the "commercial purposes" restriction throughout the text and the use of an undesignated sentence at the end. However, the complexities of the current definition are due primarily to the fact that the status of an aircraft (whether it is a civil aircraft (and therefore subject to the full range of aviation safety requirements) or a public aircraft) is determined by the conditions of specific operations. Public aircraft status is not dependent so much on the aircraft itself, as it is upon the operation of the aircraft. For example, within the United States, it is possible for the same aircraft to operate as a civil aircraft for one flight in the morning of a given day, and then operate as a public aircraft in the afternoon of the same day. The distinctions in the conditions of civil or public operations are often intricate and nuanced, leading to the interpretive difficulties.

[chkyr6]

seems like an abuse of authority to me....

[Wells]

seems like an abuse of authority to me....

+1.

Give someone a uniform, and they usually abuse it.

[Denny of Oakland]

The latest is Henry 1 may be ground in the near future due to budget cuts in the sheriffs department. I hope you never have to call our use emergency service because it may not be there when you need it. By the way the money made off the pictures goes back into keeping Henry 1 operational, but it wasn’t enough.

[mugaliens]

It would be interesting to find out if "public use" includes the taking and selling of photographs.

I sincerely doubt it.

Sorry to hear of Henry 1's budget woes, Denny, but as the rules state, it's the operation of the aircraft which determines whether it's civil or public use.

Given the fact fixed wing is far cheaper to own and operate than a helo, I haven't a clue as to why law enforcement will only employ helos and not fixed wing aircraft. It's so bad they'd rather be grounded if they can no longer afford a helo! Case in point: El Paso County/Colorado Springs.

As for employment, turns about a point aren't exactly a "dicey" maneuver, and unlike a helo, if you want stealth, just retard the throttle and glide. It's very quiet.

[steve340]

Any pictures you take, whether on the ground or in the air, ( except ) those that violate peoples privacy are your property and may be sold. Unless you specially outfit your aircraft for photography and get a DBA etc.etc.etc, then I do not know,, but your pics are your pics, as far as the cops, if its supporting the police department, and the observer took them, why not sell them, as long as its not pics of women tanning nude on their decks.
Attached is one of my long exposure shots, and I own it
I have donated 2 of these, and sold about 50

Steve

[patrac]

Oops! FAA's coming hard down on them!



At this point, I'd turn over 100% of all photographs to the FAA as "forensic evidence" and just let the Sonoma Co Sheriff and his "rescue pilot" rot where they are.

What have you got against the Sonoma Co Sheriff rescue pilot???

[Instrumental]

I'll preface this post by stating that my interest in this thread is purely academic and that I take notice when regulations get difficult to interpret.

Certainly police helicopters are allowed to take photo/video images for a number of reasons, particularly in the nature of enforcement. The problem here seems to be that the photographs taken were for the purpose of fund raising; if that were done by a private entity, it would very likely be deemed that the flight was commercial by nature.

To complicate it further, we have the rules that specifically govern a "public use" aircraft and without knowing the exact wording, we're just having a discussion in the dark. There may very well be a provision for them to conduct certain activities with the aircraft that raise funds and/or foster good will in the community. On the other hand, they may have violated a number of provision in part 119 by exceeding the scope of their operation.

At this point I think it would take an aviation attorney (Or OP) in full possession of the facts to give a reasonable interpretation.