Pilot of a small aircraft reported flying through a TFR after being advised by a weather briefer and electronic flight app that the TFR applied only to UAS and not to fixed wing aircraft. The pilot stated the NOTAM verbiage wasn't clear and may have led to the airspace incursion.

Narrative

On Date; XB:30am I was scheduled to depart PNE airport and fly to the special flight rules area over Hudson river for the tour of Manhattan; fly through it once and then return back to PNE airport. I was the PIC (Pilot in Command). Before departing I called 1-800-WxBrief at XA:42am to get the latest information about weather in-flight and possible TFRs. The briefer responded with the weather (all VMC) and informed me about TFR over Manhattan and Hudson river that does NOT apply to me. TFR was only concerning usage of drones due to [event] and only restricted usage of drones in that area; did not apply to aircraft.Having received that information; I departed PNE per plan and flew through the Hudson River SFRA as planned on 1100 ft. altitude and provided calls as instructed by the training on SFRA. I noticed that one airplane made a 180 turn before that TFR and did not fly into the area through Hudson river. I flew through that area having been informed that there is no active TFR for manned aircraft.I'm reporting this event because I want to make sure that I have not accidentally flown through the aircraft TFR that was active not only for drones; but was active for aircraft as well at the time. ForeFlight did not show anything except UAS restriction; neither did the briefer told me about any restrictions. That airplane making a 180 turn and avoiding the area made me think that there might have been another active TFR that briefer or ForeFlight did not inform me of.As a recommendation; may I suggest that FAA publishes TFRs with a bit more clear language of who they apply and do not apply to: e.g.; stating clearly 'Following TFR applies only to UAS' or 'TFR applies to all manned and unmanned aircraft'.