[Closed] Drone photography, private property and the law

Completely legal.

What are you trying to hide?

[url= http://droneflight.co.uk/pages/summary-of-uk-legal-requirements ]http://droneflight.co.uk/pages/summary-of-uk-legal-requirements[/url]

I convinced my wife that an aerial photograph of our property that we inherited when we bought it was taken by a very tall person on a step ladder 🙂

I think you have a perhaps strange attitude towards people being able to view their surroundings, why should people not be able to see what is around them?

Are you going to try and stop aeroplane and satellite photography too? Happens all the time without you even realising by a number of satellites and companies. If you have the cash you can even order a plane or satellite to fly over a specific area and time and take photos/LiDAR etc.

The land belongs to a public authority but is currently under our (private sector) control.

Who owns the sunlight bouncing off the land / buildings?

Not you!

Secret pig fitness trail :
[img] [/img]

An odd attitude to have. Several times, when I've explored construction sites (at night without permission) the owners or architects have got in touch asking if they could use my images.

People normally want to show off new construction projects, especially taxpayer-funded ones.

go on link to the piccy?

I like a country where you can take photos freely from public areas.

I think it would depend if the photo were being intrusive. 'Celebs' struggle to stop paps taking pics so not sure what the legalities would be since there is obviously a fence put in place to prevent people being able to see in.

I think a more significant issue would be member of public using a personal drone and then selling (presumably?) the pics. Tut-tut.

Shhh. Don't tell the OP about Google Earth, he'll have a fit.

Gotta be in the bristol post?
Hmmm. Banksy stuff?

[b]S[/b]he'll have a fit.

Were you sunbathing nude on the construction site at the time? Otherwise I don't think you will have much of a case under privacy laws.

He still might have been flying the drone illegally if its in a built up area near people though.

Wowser! I wasn't expecting such a negative response. Personally I couldn't give a shit about it, but our client can sometimes get a bit touchy about press coverage and I was just wondering where we stood should they query it with us. We haven't got anything to hide - we are just a lowly construction company!

I hadn't even thought about Google Earth 😆

Imperial Tobacco then...

No.

An odd attitude to have. Several times, when I've explored construction sites (at night without permission) the owners or architects have got in touch asking if they could use my images.

That's not really the same as the situation I've described.

Are you actually accessing the sites!?

OP, yes perfectly within their rights. If you want to keep it secret you have to erect a cover.

In the "old days" people would overfly your house in say a micro-light aircraft taking photos then try and sell them to you. They are not breaking the law.

Oh, can we guess with letters? 🙂 Does it start with 'A'?

People are right though. You don't own the light and even trespass is hard to do much about if no damage is caused.

Referring back to the legalities, it's an unmanned surveillance craft so there are restrictions on where they can fly it, but they differ depending on the weight of it, distance from property, and if they got paid for it. Some of these requirements don't make it illegal but just mean they'd need various licenses from the CAA and to have filed a flight plan.

Googling some of the above will get you the details, but the link in the second reply above is a good overview.

Uni?

I think I'm not really questioning the right to fly over etc, I was more wondering about the sale of said photos but you have all very kindly and graciously answered my question.

The project is a fire station.

Dammit. I'd never have guessed that 🙁

The control or otherwise of camera equipped drones is an interesting discussion though. Here is another scenario which happened a couple of weeks ago:

My daughter and her friends were at the beach recently for a birthday party. Beach was quite busy and three middle aged guys were flying a drone with a camera on over the beach. Obviously, if some a middle-aged man and his mates went around with a video camera capturing images of kids most of us here would have a word, at the very least. The fact is they were hundreds of yards away on the roof of a building meant that they were more remote physically but I guess the images could be similarly (mis)used.

Probably completely innocent but as there was quite a lot to see going on at the beach that day, but is it not reasonable for people to expect some degree of anonymity in a public area? Never mind people using their private gardens for whatever they want. It just feels a bit creepy.

Could save you a walk out of the site office in the wind and rain to do your valuations - look on the bright side!

if some a middle-aged man and his mates went around with a video camera capturing images of kids most of us here would have a word, at the very least.

why? is it illegal?

[devils advocate]

there was quite a lot to see going on at the beach that day, but is it not reasonable for people to expect some degree of anonymity in a public area?

Could save you a walk out of the site office in the wind and rain to do your valuations - look on the bright side!

Cabins are elevated - I'm just looking out the window for valuations at the mo!

<Rights of way and access geek mode on> there's case law on this from 1978 that says rights of ownership apply only to a height that prevents interference with normal use, and that a plane flying overhead and taking a photo cannot constitute trespass, so unfortunatley youve probably got nothing to stand on here, sorry </geek mode off>

Here you are: [url= http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1977/1.html ]case law[/url]

[i]Applying this test to the facts of this case, his Lordship found that, even though Skyviews' aircraft had flown over Lord Bernstein's property, it did not infringe any of Lord Bernstein's rights to airspace, and thus no trespass was committed. Lord Bernstein had complained, not that the aircraft had interfered with his use of his land, but that a photograph was taken. There was no law against taking a photograph, however, and the taking of a photograph could not turn an act which was not trespass into trespass. Even if Lord Bernstein had succeeded in establishing that the infringement of the airspace above his land constituted a trespass he would only have achieved a sterile remedy. For there would still be nothing he could do to prevent Skyviews taking a virtually identical photograph of his property from adjoining land, provided they took care not to cross his boundary and were taking it for an innocent purpose.[/i]

Wow, this is interesting. From a photography point of view, any picture taken (of anyone, on any land) from public land is the ownership of the photographer to do as what they please.
However as I understand it the airspace is under the control of the CAA and therefore is not public access so does that mean the photographer does not own the images ?

Probably not, because they [i]could[/i] get an identical photo legally if they stuck within CAA rules

I think it would depend if the photo were being intrusive. 'Celebs' struggle to stop paps taking pics so not sure what the legalities would be since there is obviously a fence put in place to prevent people being able to [s]see[/s] get in.

Probably completely innocent but as there was quite a lot to see going on at the beach that day, but is it not reasonable for people to expect some degree of anonymity in a public area? Never mind people using their private gardens for whatever they want. It just feels a bit creepy.

Are you sure its a photo?

[img] [/img]

That's not really the same as the situation I've described.

Are you actually accessing the sites?!

Yes.

Similar because it's photography without permission.

My understanding is that most of the CAA rules only apply to commercial operations.

If that's right then I guess the legality may hinge on whether the drone pilot took the images with the intention of selling them.

It's all very interesting though. Drones and quads are getting very cheap (you can get a basic quadcopter with an HD camera on-board for forty-odd quid). They're becoming increasingly common.

Probably completely innocent but as there was quite a lot to see going on at the beach that day, but is it not reasonable for people to expect some degree of anonymity in a public area?

Not really. Not in this day and age. It's interesting that you pick these guys out as a threat though, when there's probably dozens of people using camera phones on the beach itself.

The wider discussion of the use of drones is an interesting one though. In fact not even just drones, but the widespread use of media devices of all kinds. There is barely any privacy anywhere anymore. And it's not in the hands of the government like we once believed with CCTV cameras. It's in the hands of every one of us. It's a strange world we're entering. But then our grandfathers probably said the same thing...

Yes.

Similar because it's photography without permission.

I'm talking about the commercial use of the photography really, more so than the actual taking of the photos.

And members of the general public accessing building sites is a contractor's worst nightmare. It's not about trespassing, it's about safety.

Check out the BMFA website they have all the info you need, they look after model aircraft flying in the UK under the CAA who are the regulators. If the person sold the PIC and isn't licenced then they are breaking the law same as if they are haven't got the landowners permission to fly from their land.

The guys flying over a busy beach (assuming the drone went over people)were also breaking the law. Lots of people are flying drones all over the place with no idea of the regulations or safety issues which is OK till it goes wrong as I bet they don't have valid insurance.

As the Principle Contractor the OP isn't going to permit overflight by a random with a UAV they just bought from eBay or dealextreme

Pics from adjacent airspace could probably be prevented under relevant legislation if it associated with national security, civil defence etc.

I would just report to the CAA and make the client aware as they may pursue and you have the responsibility to inform of safety issues under CDM

The photo is irrelevant, it's more the fact of should they be flying an RC chopper over a building site

I can see the point. No one has any right to see whats in my garden unless they can prove I am committing a crime. The general public doesn't. Not a reason to question what I might be hiding. Its mine. Sod off!
A classic example where the law is an ass. No logical reason to allow it anymore than peering through the curtains. Doubt I'll win that but equally is there anything to stop me mistaking a drone for a pigeon when the 12 bore is handy? 😆

I can see the point. No one has any right to see whats in my garden unless they can prove I am committing a crime. The general public doesn't. Not a reason to question what I might be hiding. Its mine. Sod off!

If I'm tall enough to see over your fence from the queens highway there's sod all you can do about it.
If I was your neighbour and the kids on their trampoline can see over your fence or me standing on a stepladder while pruning the begonias there's also nothing legally you can do to stop us casting a gaze upon your garden.

[quote=wallop ]The project is a fire station.

Ohhh pics please, from a professional pov

is there anything to stop me mistaking a drone for a pigeon when the 12 bore is handy?

I'm pretty sure Criminal Damage and Reckless Discharge of a Firearm would be of more interest to the judiciary than your supposed right to privacy in a garden that is presumably viewable from a public area.

The photo is irrelevant, it's more the fact of should they be flying an RC chopper over a building site

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]flying drones is legal

Providing you're following the rules - you can't just fly one wherever you like as most people seem to assume. Mikeypies up there may well know more than me, but there's stuff about how close you're supposed to fly to people etc.

To the OP, just paint this on the roof

[img] [/img]

Providing you're following the rules - you can't just fly one wherever you like as most people seem to assume.

As I understand it, you can as an amateur (within reason) because the CAA restrictions apply to commercial operations only. (But IANAL)

[quote=GrahamS ]As I understand it, you can as an amateur, because the CAA restrictions apply to commercial operations only. (But IANAL)

Nope. There are extra rules if you're doing stuff commercially (you have to apply for a licence). The following applies to any flight taking pictures:

1. The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.

2. The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:

a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;

b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;

c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or

d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=16012

I reckon that makes 99+% of flights of drones with cameras illegal 😉

wallop » The project is a fire station.
Ohhh pics please, from a professional pov

We haven't built it yet! We're still in the ground atm.

Yep, fair enough, but as you say those rules are ridiculously unworkable and seem very out of date.
I could fly a mini quad with a camera in my own home and break every single rule there without endangering anything but my light fittings. There doesn't seem to be any recognition that a little plastic quad that fits in your hand is a very different thing from a large heavy drone that can do some real damage.

The wording seems pretty wooly too. What exactly are we including in " [i]a structure[/i] which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft"? A house? A shed? A wall? A fence? Any man-made object?
And how congested is a "congested area"? Are we talking Central London at rush hour or at the village park on a quiet Wednesday?

I suspect you'll find the woolly wording means what they think it means rather than what you think it means 😉

Clearly those rules only apply in airspace, hence not inside your house. However they do clearly apply if you're flying in any public place outdoors. The issue to some extent here is that a lot of people don't realise quite how much damage even a relatively small thing can do given sufficient kinetic energy. It comes down to common sense to some extent - which is what I try and use when flying my planes and helicopters (no cameras, so those rules don't apply, but I have to avoid endangering people, hence wouldn't fly at a busy park).

a lot of people don't realise quite how much damage even a relatively small thing can do given sufficient kinetic energy.

http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-controlled-toy-helicopter/

here doesn't seem to be any recognition that a little plastic quad that fits in your hand is a very different thing from a large heavy drone that can do some real damage.

No, there is recognition if you go and read up on the law. Rules are different under and over 7Kg, and with or without cameras. Some of the rules protect privacy, some safety.

Also, what do you consider "real damage"? Is that only death of 5 of more people? One person's death? A child? Light maiming? Blindness? Knocked over?

village park on a quiet Wednesday?

It would depend how far you are from buildings etc, probably would count. There are guidelines etc. on the CAA site IIRC.

It's also to some extent a risk/mitigation/insurance issue. A trained and certified operator with well maintained equipment, proper backup (separate camera operator, people to watch out for unexpected people etc) is a bit different from someone who's built something themselves and is having a go on their own.

Clearly those rules only apply in airspace, hence not inside your house.

I'm pretty sure I have air inside my house. Unless...

[img] [/img]

Oh.

The issue to some extent here is that a lot of people don't realise quite how much damage even a relatively small thing can do given sufficient kinetic energy.

I agree that's an issue, but that doesn't seem to be what these regulations are about since they would restrict someone flying a "harmless" tiny quad with a camera:

[img] [/img]

But anything up to 20kg(!!) is fine provided it doesn't have a camera (or the ultra-woolly "data acquisition").

Also I'm pretty sure that a kite, frisbee or football could do a lot more damage to people and property than my wee toy quad, but no one enforces a 50 metre exclusion zone around them!

From my reading of it. it's ok ish perhaps. Flying in a public area is dubious due to the lack of control over the people vehicles around you. Using it to make money is against the CAA's guidelines specifically. Air Charter is the law which forbids the use of them for money without completing several exams and qualifications. If you give the images away for free and it was considered safe to fly I doubt there is much you could do.

The was once a letter in the Malvern Gazette from one of the many local blue-rinse grumpies complaining about the paragliders looking down on to their garden whilst flying off the eastern face of the hills. It was, apparently, "akin to putting a ladder up against my fence and looking over".

arf.

My understanding is that most of the CAA rules only apply to commercial operations.

Correct. There is guidance but all of the 'rules' that there are around UAVs / USCs cover commercial applications, not much you can do about private usage yet.

(I'm sitting my BNUC-S theory next week, as I have to fly one commercially. It's really sucked the fun out of it)

EDIT: CAP 722 is the guidance you'll want to read. As stated above it varies between under 20Kg and under 7kg MTOM and whether or not you carry a payload.

No, there is recognition if you go and read up on the law. Rules are different under and over 7Kg

I doubt many amateur non-commercial hobbyists are flying drones or quads heavier than 7kg at the moment. The popular [url= http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-2/spec ]DJI Phantom 2 is 1kg[/url] for example.

But that could do "real damage", whereas a plastic toy quad might weigh less than 100 grams and have small blades with very weak motors that can easily be stopped by hand.

Also, what do you consider "real damage"? Is that only death of 5 of more people? One person's death? A child? Light maiming? Blindness? Knocked over?

Think of the children! 😀

My point is that a plastic toy-grade mini quad, like the Hubsan X4 in my picture, is less "damaging" than a frisbee, a kite or a football. You'd really have to try pretty hard to hurt anyone with it. You might manage a light graze if you really went for it.

But, by those regulations, it seems to be subject to the same 50 metre exclusion zone as a 7kg commercial filming drone. Bizarre.

As aracer says, they appear to outlaw 99% of camera quad flights.

Brass let us know how that goes as it's an interesting subject. I've never heard of someone doing it.

My point is that a plastic toy-grade mini quad, like the Hubsan X4 in my picture, is less "damaging" than a frisbee, a kite or a football. You'd really have to try pretty hard to hurt anyone with it. You might manage a light graze if you really went for it.

But, by those regulations, it seems to be subject to the same 50 metre exclusion zone as a 7kg commercial filming drone. Bizarre.

As aracer says, they appear to outlaw 99% of camera quad flights.

True, but it then comes down to policing it and likelihood of prosecution. We would all probably be happy to fly a small toy one around, but the Phantom are not especially light and crashing one of them into someone through being a berk needs to have some chance to ensure appropriate response from in law.

We would all probably be happy to fly a small toy one around

But it would still apparently be illegal?

I don't think it's ever a good thing to have laws are routinely ignored and broken on the basis that they aren't well policed.

but the Phantom are not especially light and crashing one of them into someone through being a berk needs to have some chance to ensure appropriate response from in law.

Indeed - but those 50m regulations only apply to camera-equipped drones.

So if the berk didn't have the camera mounted on the Phantom then they wouldn't apply and it would fall back to the (much more sensible) catch-all regulation that "operation must not endanger anyone or anything".

All seems a bit odd. The law, as always, is a donkey.

Shhh. Don't tell the OP about Google Earth, he'll have a fit.

Brass let us know how that goes as it's an interesting subject. I've never heard of someone doing it.

Will do. Got the handbook, which is 80% common sense, 10% GCSE Science, 10% which maps to check. But they've yet to tell me where the course is actually running other than 'Exeter' .. I hear it's quite a big place 🙂
It's also mightily expensive, but negligible to a corporate vs. operating without ticking as many compliance boxes as possible.

BTW, it's Phantom2 with ZenMuse gimbal and Go Pro4 Black Hero Edition payload. The results are pretty spectacular really. Have a live video feed with telemetry too, not the 'full immersion' goggles as I need to talk & share with colleagues. At around 1.3Kg laden, a 7Kg item must be a beast.

At around 1.3Kg laden, a 7Kg item must be a beast.

Serious kit will carry 7kg+ as payload... 😉

Check out Aerocine for some nice rigs, dual 5K RED cameras for 3D anyone?

not the 'full immersion' goggles

Also, you can't legally fly FPV at all IIRC. You can use it, but not the pilot.

[quote=IA ]Also, you can't legally fly FPV at all IIRC. You can use it, but not the pilot.

Not the primary pilot. It's OK as long as you're on a buddy box with somebody who has normal visual contact and can take over from you.

Around the 1 kilo is what I've got flying right now. I would not want to be below it if it fell. The full immersion goggles. You could argue stop the line of sight rules the caa require for vfr flying.
Keep us posted as its a subject with lots of questions and few definitive answers.

The issue I have is with thefts and drones being used for surveilance. Have seen some of the gypo camps with drones buzzing around. I don't want them flying about my secured yard planning how best to steal my stuff. It is built to be shielded from public sight and with an open sided shed which without a drone can't be seen without going right through the yard.
I don't like it. If I see one over my property then I'll shoot it down.

If I see one over my property then I'll shoot it down.

So, as per the previous poster, you will commit Criminal Damage and possibly Reckless Discharge of a Firearm because you are worried someone might possibly be planning to break the law? 😯

There was a good article in The Times today about it, listed the various laws that could apply.

It concluded by saying that the laws on drone flights would increase exponentially, they reckoned Amazon had sold 20,000 of them this year alone.

It concluded by saying that the laws on drone flights would increase exponentially

If that's true we could approach an infinite number of laws within a decade 😉

Should keep the lawyers busy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32626718

A man alleged to have illegally flown a camera drone over packed football stadiums and London tourist attractions has appeared in court.
Nigel Wilson, 42, from Bingham, near Nottingham, appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court accused of 17 breaches of the Air Navigation Order.
It is the first prosecution of its kind in England to follow a police-led investigation.

wouldn't shoot one down, most all of the cheaper ready to fly models are very very easy to hack the wireless on and do a denial of service on the operator. and 9/10 its failure mode would be to return to ground and deactivate itself.

the "proper" multi rotor kits are somewhat more well designed, and don't use unsecured wifi as the communication protocol.

have seen an unintentional denial of service on the 5.8GHz used for the FPV goggles though when flying the "proper" models.

...flown a camera drone over packed football stadiums...

Funny how quick the law is to act when the revenue streams of large media corporations are threatened.

I heard the US Superbowl had large "No Fly Zone" imposed around it for similar reasons.

Edit: yep [url= http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankbi/2015/01/28/faa-declares-super-bowl-xlix-a-no-drone-zone/ ]here we go[/url] a 10 mile no fly zone around the Super Bowl. Y'know for safety. And terrorists.

I wouldn't bother with a shotgun, a well aimed garden hose would have most of the cheaper ones plummeting groundwards!

I've been learning to quad fly for about 5 months, it's great fun and very addictive. A healthy dose of common sense is required and should mean no laws are broken.
Unlike my fingernail which is only just starting to grow back, they are definately not toy!

they are definately not toy!

Apart from the ones that definitely are.