I work in construction and I'm currently on a site just outside of Bristol. In the press today is an aerial photograph of our project which has been taken by a member of the public with a Go-Pro on a drone.
Without the drone, this man would not have been able to see through the boundary into the site.
I'm just wondering what the legality of this is. Anyone have any thoughts? It just seems a bit wrong that someone can do this and publish their photographs in the press. The land belongs to a public authority but is currently under our (private sector) control.
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?
But then 'the blokes' could have seen just the same amount (but closer) if they had simply walked along the beach.
[/devils advocate]
'tis creepy though. Mrs SB and I were on our balcony (clothed) when a quadcopter with camera flew over our house from the house over the road - I think they're pretty cool but it did make me feel uneasy.
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.
So there's a fence there, anyone with access to a higher vantage point is perfectly within their rights to take photos and publish them, so long as they're not trespassing at the time. The OP's client can do bugger-all about it, and the responsibility of the OP's company ends at putting up a fence and making sure it's secure.
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.
Anyone can take a photo of anything they want in a public place, the only restriction comes if the photographer wants to sell the photos.
It's a PUBLIC AREA! How can anyone expect anonymity in a public place? It's public! 🙄
Photographers, including some of the world's most renowned, have specialised in photography in public places, and the people they find there; those photos are now praised as part of our human history. Henri Cartier Bresson was one such, and some of his street photos are now iconic.
So long as there are no children running around stark naked, I fail to to see what issues can arise from any photos taken of loads of anonymous people on a public beach.
Personally, I try to avoid getting people in my landscape photos, but I'm asocial like that.
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
