Yes country dependent to a degree. There are differences under the different country tax regimes. What I wrote about was the UK regime. France has a much more complicated system of allowances but none of that affects the need for a CPL for business purposes outside of transporting yourself and possibly others and equipment from A.-B in your own plane.
eg.a cameraman with a PPL can transport himself, crew and equipment from base airport to a location but cannot charge anyone for it.
However he can charge the hours travel as part of his normal crew fees and that might well include a mileage cost. That’s where the tax accountants enter the picture and often agree this with a tax inspector.
In the UK you can’t “pre-agree” stuff with a tax inspector. Not these days. Maybe very off the record…
An accountant will always agree certain things with HMRC beforehand. That does not mean that any tax rules are broken but often, especially in what was my business, clarification on how income will be treated is very necessary.
There are some very grey areas.And it must go on the record, otherwise if the tax inspector you have been dealing with moves on and a new one takes his/her place the new inspector might take a different view. You need proof of what is agreed.
At one tax office in France the go to guy didn’t want to give the allowances that had been agreed between Le Bureau des Impots and the unions. He claimed that the law said something else which made a 20% difference in tax rate on certain work. We had to take the case to his supervisor in the regional head office who agreed we got it right. The 1st tax inspector argued and had to be removed from being able to deal with our business.
Peter wrote:
But maybe some aviation channels don’t carry ads; I pay $50/year to Vimeo and it doesn’t serve adverts to viewers of my videos as a result.
I just checked with YT support, even if it is your content and you pay a lot, your customers will always see ads, that is from YT support:
“If the viewer is not using a YouTube premium, the ads will always appear on the video they will watch on YouTube platforms.”
That’s why I use Vimeo.
Superior quality too. Compare my Vimeo ones with my YT ones.
arj1 wrote:
I just checked with YT support, even if it is your content and you pay a lot,
When do you have to pay YT to show videos there? I thought the whole idea of YT is that uploading stuff to your channel is free?
The question with YT is if you can monetize it or not. They are free to refuse monetizing if they deem you won’t make them enough money. But pay to upload content?
arj1 wrote:
If the viewer is not using a YouTube premium, the ads will always appear on the video they will watch on YouTube platforms.
Yep. That is how YT makes it’s money. Either you pay to use it add free (apart from paid content in the videos) or you see adds.
gallois wrote:
If you are taking photos for yourself or videos for YT but you.do not intend it to be your business then you don’t need a CPL even if you eventually do get some sort of for any.content.
That is how I see it as well.
As long as you declare what you make of it to the tax man, I don’t think anyone will bother you on that regard. The CAA may well be more interested in the content you do, particularly if any possible violation or other stuff that bothers them is shown. Whether you have a CPL or not may become an issue only if the channel is obviously working as your main source of income and fed only by the piloting content. That is hardly ever an issue, as most aviation channels do much more documentary work than the actual flying part.
With Vimeo, the $50 annual payment gives you
Of course if I wanted to make $$$ I would have to use YT and spend my life pumping the channel all over the other social media… Just putting up some flying videos gets you bugger-all followers by itself. You have to get to 10k+ followers to make anything.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
arj1 wrote: I just checked with YT support, even if it is your content and you pay a lot,When do you have to pay YT to show videos there? I thought the whole idea of YT is that uploading stuff to your channel is free?
I meant to say that even if there was a way for the content provider to pay to YT, the viewer will still see the ads.
Coca-Cola content might get an ad by Pepsi. :) There is no way to stop it.
If you are a big brand and happy to pay money for the customers to watch content ad-free, YT is the wrong choice – you cannot do it.
The whole point of asking YT support was to confirm if it is true. It is.
A Coca Cola programme should never carry ads for Pepsi.
YT needs 2 things to exist and survive.
1/ Content – There is a phrase within the industry “Content is King”. Without content YT can not exist. Its the same as any TV or streaming service. The YT model is not to make content and not to pay for it. The content providers therefore need to choose to upload to YT free of charge. How the producers find the money to make the content depends on who they can persuade to hand over money or services or something else in order to finance it.
So if a producer wants Coca Cola to hand over money or even free cans of coke s/he has to make it worth their while.
2/ Once the content is uploaded to YT, it has to be monetized if Google is to pay its staff, make servers available and make enough profit to make it worthwhile doing. In other words it needs money to survive and that, in the case of YT comes in at least 2 ways; subscription or paid advertising ( there may be other ways but for a hoster like YT I think they are limited.)In the case of marketing departments they buy space in chosen adverts (ie the ones that suit there business) and the amount they pay will depend on the number of subscribers/views/clicks a piece of content gets.
It is unlikely that Pepsi marketing department would see any advantage of advertising on a Coca Cola channel or during Coca Cola sponsored content.
If they did see an advantage then Coca Cola might well object and pull the content from YT and placing it elsewhere. Either way it would not be good for YT to upset two of the world’s largest corporations.
3/In order to stop content, especially the most successful providers going elsewhere they have found it necessary to provide them with incentives. Eg they will pay a percentage of the profit they make on a particular piece of content, to the provider.
This is basically the way the television industry works in most countries.
I know nothing of the Vimeo business model. Does it have as large an audience as YT or does it just act as a server for self publication as Amazon does in the book publishing world?
