An evening around Stonehenge, within the CAA rules

[Thwyllo]

@Wellsi

I think you took the most responsible course of action you could. My view is that rules are for "the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men". You not carrying out your flight would not have achieved anything, since there are plenty of herberts out there ready to do the same but much more irresponsibly or annoyingly.

Some interesting guidance here from the Country Landowners Association to their well-heeled members that supports your general perspective. Sorry the link looks so long, it's a PDF download.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https...aAwcQFggfMAc&usg=AOvVaw0-gLZphcjibgvClmQRLOx9

 

[Ian in London]

@Wellsi

I think you took the most responsible course of action you could. My view is that rules are for "the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men". You not carrying out your flight would not have achieved anything, since there are plenty of herberts out there ready to do the same but much more irresponsibly or annoyingly.

Some interesting guidance here from the Country Landowners Association to their well-heeled members that supports your general perspective. Sorry the link looks so long, it's a PDF download.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://www.cla.org.uk/sites/default/files/GN10-17%20Drones%20and%20Private%20Property%202017.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjSudnshNPbAhVpJ8AKHSsaAwcQFggfMAc&usg=AOvVaw0-gLZphcjibgvClmQRLOx9

Thanks for that; I had already read that very article! And today I got confirmation from the CAA about the inability of landowners to restrict drones over their land, so to me it's clear and sorted!
Cheers
Ian

 

[Ian in London]

National Trust Scotland have a fairly pragmatic approach and ban commercial photography only of their managed buildings and gardens whilst allowing the coastline and natural features which to me is fair.
National Trust England and Wales are far far more draconian banning it anywhere on their land, even million year old unmanaged rock features commercial photos are banned.
They spent a while a few years ago trying to get non commercial flickr users to remove pictures of Whitby Abby in the background of coastal shots as its "theirs" so they're unhinged at best.

This is just for land based photography so drone takes them to a new level of hate. Obviously commercial with a drone is simple - you need a PfCO. I would say if you take a drone video and its on youtube on a channel that makes money from advertising review or any youtube programmes then it IS commercial and that video would need a PfCO to be legal. So even vlogs that get advertising revenue would require it so thats a possible avenue for someone to persue a user.

NT bylaws are freely available online and (i) do not ban overflight and (ii) cant legally do it even if they wanted to. Its amusing to email them politely and ask them for the specific bylaws they say does not "allow" it. They cant supply them as they dont have them. They rely on the vaguely worded 1965 laws that ban commercial photography without a permit and thats it. They then try to hide behind the CAA rules of 50m building 150m congested area. Realistically that covers very very very few national trust areas and property. Ultimately, if you're flying non commercially and abiding by the CAA/ANO rules, they cant stop you overflying.

That said, the official fine for using their land is a maximum of £20 and £2 a day thereafter. Thats cheap enough to be worth doing to make a point!

I just got confimrationback today from the CAA that landowners cannot stop you flying over their land at all. I would also argue their right to prohibit commercial use of photos, unless they've specifically copyrighted the image. Think of all the landscape and architecture books in the world.... But I'm not a copyright specialist

One final point on YouTube. The CAA doesn't consider monetised YT channels as commercial:
While every case should be judged on its own merits, some types of arrangements are not generally considered by the CAA to be Commercial Operations such as:

• Advertising revenue received as a result of persons visiting a website or social media page where video or photographic stills shot from a drone are displayed/posted. This is because these types of web-pages may be legitimately used to post recreational video material that was not commissioned by another party, but was conceived and wholly funded by the poster.

Guidance on using small drones for commercial work | UK Civil Aviation Authority
Interestingly, a small firm buying a drone to eb flown by its own staff to take pictures to promote itself is also not considered commercial...

Cheers
Ian

 

[Thwyllo]

The stuff about not owning the copyright of photos of other people's buildings or not being able to photograph them is a complete crock as I've said elsewhere. The person who wrote that nonsense had better let Google know they need to shut Streetview down before the invoices start arriving LMAO!

 

[Thwyllo]

...and for the sake of completeness, yes the owner of a property can ban the use of cameras by visitors, but if you decide to take the risk and do so, there's little they can do except ask you to leave. They won't own the copyright of any pictures you take, even if you're later paid for them, nor can they confiscate equipment.

 

[dannybgoode]

With respect I'm pretty sure that's tosh. Nobody owns the copyright to a photograph except the photographer. Perhaps you have some case law links??

No. They own the copyright of the actual building (or the trademark/image rights).

As I say this has been through the courts. I personally think it’s bonkers too but people have been stung by it so worth flagging.

When I get chance I will try and dig out the ruling. It was only recently from memory.

As per my above post-I am with the op on this one that they were perfectly reasonable however it is not the case that they were necessarily in compliance with *all* laws. Our civil system is particularly opaque and catches people out for the most stupid of things.

 

[Thwyllo]

No. They own the copyright of the actual building (or the trademark/image rights).

As I say this has been through the courts. I personally think it’s bonkers too but people have been stung by it so worth flagging.

When I get chance I will try and dig out the ruling. It was only recently from memory.

As per my above post-I am with the op on this one that they were perfectly reasonable however it is not the case that they were necessarily in compliance with *all* laws. Our civil system is particularly opaque and catches people out for the most stupid of things.

Sorry but that's complete bollocks. You can't own the "copyright" of a building - I don't know what "ruling" you read but I very much doubt it was relevant. If what you say were true there would be endless examples of case law online - there are none whatsoever.

And I'll mention Google Streetview for the third time shall I? Again if what you said were true, every householder in the country could slap an invoice on them, but they can't. And don't confuse being able to ask them to have minor stuff pixelated for privacy reasons.

Your assertion is nonsense, in the UK at least.

 

[Thwyllo]

And if you'd studied law you'd know that our civil law is not "opaque" but fairly black and white. Case decisions are based on statute and legal precedent and it's very rare for a case to be breaking new uncharted ground. It's also usually eminently sensible too. If you took the trouble to read that CLA document their legal advice is clearly that, for example, taking a photo of a house from a reasonable distance (not peering through the bathroom window) cannot be deemed an invasion of privacy. Oh and NOWHERE is the (non-existent) issue of copyright mentioned, as one would expect if there were any veracity to it.

But feel free to carry on your own sweet way while the rest of us use our rights appropriately.

PS. Still waiting for links to legal precedent....but I'm not holding my breath here.

 

[Ian in London]

Sorry but that's complete bollocks. You can't own the "copyright" of a building - I don't know what "ruling" you read but I very much doubt it was relevant. If what you say were true there would be endless examples of case law online - there are none whatsoever.

And I'll mention Google Streetview for the third time shall I? Again if what you said were true, every householder in the country could slap an invoice on them, but they can't. And don't confuse being able to ask them to have minor stuff pixelated for privacy reasons.

Your assertion is nonsense, in the UK at least.

Well, this is the good thing about forums We get plenty of points of view.
I know there are always special cases, like the image of Princess Diana is a copyright, that happened after her death. But under UK law, any building in the open cannot be copyrighted according to the UK Government website:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...tachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf

Specifically Page 5 states:

I want to take photos of sculptures and buildings located in public spaces


You do not need permission to photograph buildings, sculptures and similar works on public display in public spaces. The photographs you take are afforded full copyright protection. This means you, as the photographer, are able to commercially use your work.

There is some basis for buildings on private land that require admission, but as Stonehenge is widely viewable from public land, this shouldn't be an issue, despite their hefty £22 admission fee to see a 5,000 year old monument gifted to the people of the UK by the last landowners

 

[Ian in London]

No. They own the copyright of the actual building (or the trademark/image rights).

As I say this has been through the courts. I personally think it’s bonkers too but people have been stung by it so worth flagging.

When I get chance I will try and dig out the ruling. It was only recently from memory.

As per my above post-I am with the op on this one that they were perfectly reasonable however it is not the case that they were necessarily in compliance with *all* laws. Our civil system is particularly opaque and catches people out for the most stupid of things.

I can understand trademark rights, but as I mentioned in my previous post, the UK Gov's position on this is very clear. If it's in public, you can snap it and use it commercially.
And as mentioned before also, I always like getting wide and varied points of view on this. All discussion is good, as it makes us check up on what we say and be armed for the time someone challenges us in real life. This topic and your inputs have definitely helped me here.
Cheers
Ian

 

[Thwyllo]

1) You can't trademark a building in a way that stops anyone photographing it for their own benefit.

2) Same goes on private land or paid attractions. They can try and stop you using a camera but it's not legally enforceable so the worst they can do is ask you politely to leave, the images are yours as is the copyright.

3) The Diana thing is a complete red herring. All existing images of her are owned by someone so of course they are copyrighted. New ones would NOT be, but then short of a miracle there won't be any will there. There doesn't need to be any retrospective judgement on that issue.

I don't mind a bit of discussion; I just get fed up with people repeating nonsense with no supporting evidence whatsoever that just winds up or worries younger, less experienced or knowledgeable folk. Find me some case law that works against a photographer, commercial or private, when they take photos of any buildings (save the odd sensitive military site potentially) and I'll shut up.

 

[Thwyllo]

There is some basis for buildings on private land that require admission, but as Stonehenge is widely viewable from public land, this shouldn't be an issue, despite their hefty £22 admission fee to see a 5,000 year old monument gifted to the people of the UK by the last landowners

You're in luck. Get your old hippy clobber out and barrel on down next Thursday and it's a freebie for one night only (Our American cousins will need to Google "summer solstice Stonehenge" to get that joke).

 

[Ian in London]

You're in luck. Get your old hippy clobber out and barrel on down next Thursday and it's a freebie for one night only (Our American cousins will need to Google "summer solstice Stonehenge" to get that joke).

Isn't it still a special ticket-only affair? Albeit it free, I thought they limited the numbers).
Either way, not quite the peace and solitude I'd want... And for flyers, a temporary NOTAM is in place prohibiting all flying until after the solstice..

 

[Thwyllo]

Not according to the EH website, that would be very un-pagan.

 

[gnirtS]

Q) EGTT/QRTCA/IV/BO/AW/000/030/5111N00150W003
A) EGDM B) FROM: 18/06/20 17:00C) TO: 18/06/21 11:00
E) RESTRICTED AREA (TEMPORARY) AT STONEHENGE. AIC M026/2018 WILL
REFER. RESTRICTION OF FLYING REGULATIONS MADE UNDER ARTICLE 239 OF
THE AIR NAVIGATION ORDER 2016. NO ACFT IS TO FLY WITHIN AREA BOUNDED
BY CIRCLE RADIUS 3NM CENTRED AT 511044N 0014934W (STONEHENGE) EXCEPT
ACFT FLYING WITH PERMISSION OF THE CHIEF OFFICER OF WILTSHIRE POLICE
WHO MAY BE CONTACTED ON TELEPHONE 01380 734047, OR FLYING IN THE
SERVICE OF THE NATIONAL POLICE AIR SERVICE OR HELICOPTER EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICE, OR FLYING IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CLEARANCE FROM ATC
BOSCOMBE DOWN, OR ACFT OPERATING WITHIN THE AIRSPACE NOTIFIED AS THE
SALISBURY PLAIN DANGER AREAS IF IT DOES SO WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE
SENIOR AIR OPERATIONS OFFICER AT SALISBURY PLAIN AIR OPERATIONS WHO
MAY BE CONTACTED ON TELEPHONE 01980 674710. THESE RESTRICTIONS ALSO
APPLY TO THE OPERATION OF ALL SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, ANY
KITE, ANY SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT AND ANY PARACHUTE INCLUDING A
PARASCENDING PARACHUTE. 2018-06-0005/AS6
LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 3000FT AMSL

Then again, 3nm away you'll probably still be able to see the traffic jams and smell the hippies.

 

[Thwyllo]

@gnirtS

PMSL! Poor hippies

By the way, it wasn't the NOTAM I was referring to it was the question of charging the hippies. Apparently it's a "bring your hungry, your huddled masses" etc.. event. Well apart from parking at £15 a pop that is...

 

[gnirtS]

I'd rather they spent the money on soap. But im sure they wont!

 

[Ping^Spike]

Sorry but that's complete bollocks.

Amen to that my brother

 

[SkyFlight]

Interesting thread, what did the app indicate with regard to Stonehenge standing in a permanent Danger Area?

D125 Larkhill (Salisbury Ranges)
Danger Area
Surface to 50,000 Feet

 

[SkyFlight]

Then again, 3nm away you'll probably still be able to see the traffic jams and smell the hippies.

This is an interesting thread, the info you provided looks like a temporary implementation of restricted airspace from 20th June 2018 to 21st 2018 or have I got that wrong? What about the permanent Danger Area status that Stonehenge is within? Always good to get other peoples interpretations on some of the regulations that might be described as unclear or open to interpretation.

D125 Larkhill (Salisbury Ranges)
Danger Area
Surface to 50,000 Feet