I am not a lawyer, so do not regard the following as legal advice, it is a suggestion only. Particularly since your Pilots Licence is involved, talk to a real lawyer.
As a friend who has a private pilots licence, PPL, you are indeed not allowed to charge for your services as a pilot; you are not a qualified commercial pilot, so cannot charge a commercial fee. It is then up to your friend to make the decision as to whether they want to take the risk of flying with a less qualified pilot. If they do, you can ask your friends to pay their share of the flight costs. Put this contribution request on its own in an email from your personal email address - such as [email protected] - to your friend so that there is a written, timestamped record.
Separately, as a professional Videographer, you are perfectly within your rights to charge a commercial fee for the rental of your equipment and for your professional services such as video editing. This too comes with its own risks, as you are telling your client that you are qualified to do the job on a commercial basis; if you mess it up, they have every right to sue you for damages. Send your client (who in this case also (by sheer "coincidence") happens to be your friend), an itemised invoice by email from your professional email address - such as [email protected] - to request that fee. This ensures that there is, again, a timestamped record of communication, and doing so from your separate, professional email address mitigates the risk of ambiguity.
Let's take a look at a look at a fictional example to further explain why I feel that you would be allowed to charge for your Videography services. I have used £ to represent any currency.
One day, three legally unconnected people called A, B and C, decided to go for a flight in a Cessna 172. A was the aviator; they had worked hard to get their PPL and were happy to take friends flying. B was the brave one; today they would be jumping out of a perfectly viable aircraft in the name of YouTube views. C was the camera person, so as a professional Videographer, film making was their job. They had been doing it for many years and, having developed some expertise, deserved the respect of being paid at least the going rate that other Videographers were charging. B had met A and C on the street, so the three separate people had no prior relationship of any kind.
Before the flight, they took some time to get to know each-other in the airfield cafe (it was a posh airfield) and discuss the flight arrangements. A told B and C that the total price of the flight was going to cost £x and asked if they would each be happy to contribute £x/3 of that cost. B and C were both happy to do so.
C then turned to B. C said that their company, "C Movies Inc", charges £x/hour for film making, which consists of £y/hour for equipment hire and £z/hour for professional services such as camera operation and video editing. B agreed to pay this fee.
After the flight, A sent B and C an email to remind them that they had agreed to contribute £x/3 toward the cost of the flight. Both B and C sent their share to A, thanking A for a great day.
"C Movies Inc" also sent their invoice to B for services rendered. As discussed, this professional invoice showed how much "C Movies Inc" was charging for equipment hire, as well as for the professional services that C provided as a consultant of "C Movies Inc". B paid this invoice quickly and without question (clearly fictitious!)
B was then able to obtain many more likes, shares and subs. All their viewers were impressed that B had done something so crazy as to jump out of a plane that was not even about to crash at all.
What you are doing here is "wearing the hat" of both A and C, which legally is doable. They are clearly distinct hats, but you can wear them simultaneously. We all wear many figurative hats throughout our lives, so the law recognises that distinction.
In this example, though it was C who physically sent the invoice, legally they did so for and on behalf of "C Movies Inc", so it was actually "C Movies Inc" that sent the invoice. The formation of a company (LLC, LTD etc) creates a legal person in its own right, thereby creating another level of separation which further removes ambiguity. This means that while Sahmad (the natural person) cannot personally cannot charge for your pilot services, "Sahmad Videography Services Inc" (the company) can charge for its professional videography services.
My other point with this example is that if it were another person in the aircraft doing the Videography, then there would be no question. They would be able to charge for their services; end of discussion. The fact that you are that person should not cause any confusion if you communicate as described.
In Britain, you are not allowed to sell alcohol in a building that does not have an alcohol licence. You are, however allowed to give alcohol away for free. Separately, you can ask your visitors for donations, or to buy something non-alcoholic. For example, I have heard of some organisations charging their event attendees £5 for a raffle ticket, and each ticket comes with a free beer.
As long as you ensure clear separation and agree everything ahead of time, you should be fine.
But trust me on the lawyer.