Nice video. I have a few landmarks I want to image.
I am interested in your interpretation of the regs though. Having read your post initially I agreed and was about to let loose in the Peak Districts.
But, having done some research (including the reading the relevant sections of the Civil Aviation Act 1982) it would seem that private land owners do ‘own’ the airspace up to somewhere between 500-1000’ and can certainly prohibit people using it.
It falls under trespass and nuisance though so is strictly tort law and a civil offence so no powers of arrest etc but they could sue you through the civil courts.
To investigate further I asked my friend who works for the Peak National Park who also prohibit drones over their land and again he suggested they do have rights up to a certain height and again this height, whilst fluid, is greater than the 400’ we are now allowed.
Again though it is very much a civil matter but that said with the greater powers the police will have under the new regs there is a greater risk of arrest perhaps.
Note also that the National Trust and English Heritage have both successfully sued people who have sold images of their properties for commercial gain without permission.
It is somewhat a grey area but I do not agree that control of airspace is solely a CAA matter. Landowners do absolutely have legal rights and it the enforcement of these rights where there is room for interpretation.
That said my take is fly sensibly, be polite and generally ask forgiveness rather than permission but always be prepared to apologise, pack up and move on if asked.
Thanks Danny.
Really appreciate the detailed and considered view here. As I said on here, and the video, I'm really interested in all points of view here as I am increasingly annoyed by the groundless prohibition of flying by landowners and managers, whilst at the same time, fully understand the need to not annoy or harras people.
Given the grey area of the law, I think people on either side of this will find information backing up their point of view. However, I did read this highly relevant article from the CLA (the Country Land and Business Association) which actually has a dedicated and highly detailed document on the rights of land owners versus the rights of people to fly over it.
In that, they quote various legal cases but summarise with the basis that whilst there is a general acceptance of the requirement of being at least 50 metres above private property, this could possibly be challenged. Quoting a previous judgement: "
But if the circumstances were such that a plaintiff was subjected to the harassment of constant surveillance of his house from the air, accompanied by the photographing of his every activity, I am far from saying that the court would not regard such a monstrous invasion of his privacy as an actionable nuisance for which they would give relief."
A grey area indeed.
I would argue I am not constantly surveying the area. I flew high enough to ensure no privacy concerns. I waited until around closing time to ensure visitors weren't in any way annoyed by the flight (leaving aside the main road some 50 metres away with trucks and cars roaring past all day) and, or course, I complied with all relevant CAA and Air Traffic Control instructions.
So perhaps a test case is needed. I'm defo not volunteering to be that test case
and thankfully I'm far from the first person to post a YouTube video circling the stones. That said, if English Heritage, the National Trust or the CAA come knocking, I would hope the points and regulations I've abided by would put an end to the matter.
On a final note, I am intrigued by the idea of prosecution of an image. When I think of all the landmarks around the country, often managed (as oposed to owned) by English Heritage or the National Trust, being photographed by thousands of visitors each month, I wonder how that would actually stand up in court? Every situation is different and I guess it boils down to whether you're taking images for commercial gain or private use. That said, the CAA view YouTube as non commercial, even when the channel is monetised and shows adverts. Either way, for now, I'll put my future best selling book "Stonehenge from the air" on hold for a bit
Thanks agaan for the input. At this point in time, I'm still happy with my video and its legitimacy... Hoping that doesn't change....
CLA Link:
https://www.cla.org.uk/sites/default/files/GN10-17 Drones and Private Property 2017.pdf
Ian
