This is the latest Drone Polici issued by CADW the organisation that looks after historical monuments in Wales, cheers Len
CADW Drone Policy
- Thread starter lensimages
- Start date
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
Well I've got big problems with their second paragraph ! Can't upload any imagery of their monuments to any publicly accessible platform ?! My YT channel is not monetised, and therefore any footage I publish there is recreational, but they make no distinction. WTF is that ?! And why should that footage be ANY different from the photos or video anyone is taking from the ground, which presumably are freely sharable anywhere, by anyone, as they should be ?!
Last edited:
Felix le Chat
Well-Known Member
Give them the chance and they'll all take the piss... but compared to Historic England, CADW seems positively reasonable. And then there's the National Trust which is hell-bent on charging YOU £300+ a pop for the right to shoot their assets, even when it is they who will be exclusively benefitting from the process.
I have occasionally worked with H.E providing odd images for their 'forgotten places' project and everything you shoot they automatically claim full copyright on... even the eye-candy stuff you shoot for yourself. That first time remuring turned into the last time as well.
Last edited:
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
They ARE all taking the piss already - National Trust, English Heritage, this lot - that's most of them isn't it ?! And the fact that they will allow it for profit shows that it's not based on any actual concern for the monuments or structures themselves, or any nature that might be doing its thing in the area, as they tend to claim when defending their exclusionary / discriminatory policies. And there doesn't seem to be a single way open to any of us recreational flyers to challenge or question any of it, and that really winds me up too ! It's ******* outrageous, and I will happily take another hit to the swear meter to say so !
You don’t have to challenge it, any images taken belong to you, they have no say in what you do with them. You can now fly over CADW controlled structures without being bothered . I still fly from non CADW land so I can do whatever I like with my images, as long as I’m flying recreational, cheers Len
Felix le Chat
Well-Known Member
There is a way to fly NT/HE/EH/CADW land assets, but (surprise surprise) it entails paying a per-flight fee to roll around in a geocage.
Altitude Angel have got their sales reps schmoozing all of the above to flog their 'Heritage Protection' package - you'll find details if you search "Guardian UTM".
Welsh Water already have this in place around many of 'their' reservoirs.
It turns out to be all about the money... they can't legally lock you out (geozone) and charge you to fly through what they reckon is "their air" but they can lock you in closer to any site or built structure of interest (geocage) and charge you what they can get away with.
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
Then how can they say pretty much the opposite of that in their published policy ?!
Good for you that you can find ways to do it, but there's no denying that the wretched TOAL situation is a massive PITA, less safe than taking off in proximity to what you would like to film and makes us feel like we are making stealth incursions into foreign territory or something by the lengths we have to go to to find weaknesses in their land borders !
We are NOT criminals for wanting to film this sort of stuff, and should not be made to feel like we are ! Nor should it remain the exclusive domain of the privileged few that can afford to pay their outrageous prices for it ! A lot of that land has been donated to them with the express intent that it be made freely available to everyone.
FLDave
Well-Known Member
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
Does anyone know what actually happens if you just ignore all that and TOAL from a discrete spot on the property, particularly if no1 is there to object at the time ?
Are there any test cases anyone knows of where enforcement or punishment action has been taken, and results are known ? If the TOAL on their land was the only infraction (ie pilot wasn't doing anything unsafe in CAA's eyes) presumably it would fall under trespass legislation, which is a non-criminal / civil thing ?
Are there any test cases anyone knows of where enforcement or punishment action has been taken, and results are known ? If the TOAL on their land was the only infraction (ie pilot wasn't doing anything unsafe in CAA's eyes) presumably it would fall under trespass legislation, which is a non-criminal / civil thing ?
Last edited:
In the first paragraph it says a license is needed for under 250g and 250g or more, then again further down for drones under 250g it says no license is needed. What is it, need one or don't need one?
FLDave
Well-Known Member
PHZ
Well-Known Member
I am curious; does a person standing next to any of these assets have to pay a fee using a camera in hand? If not, why the distinction?
Neither the drone photographer nor land based photographer must pay anything. However, neither photographer is allowed to use the images for commercial purposes. They don't want the photographer to make those images available to the public for use either. I'm sure they can't stop you from displaying them, just be sure you have not made them available to be copied from your website.
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
Not sure if this has been up on the forum already around 5 months ago when it came out, but this is an interesting video on the subject of NT and photography, with some discussion of drone filming too. Depressing, but clarifying, and worthy of further discussion I think, though possibly not in this thread if we're trying to keep it CADW specific...
Felix le Chat
Well-Known Member
From experience, they're all much of a muchness, so what applies with the N.T will also be reflected to one degree or another in the attitudes of E.H: H.E and CADW towards photography, videography etc.
The gist of what was said in the vid you posted seems to be the assumption that any view, landscape or vista is the trademark property of the N.T, which is a massive cheek... Pay-per-view?
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
Following on from this thread, I have just come across the latest PJ Audits video in which he antagonizes the National Trust by safely and lawfully flying over their stuff, but repeatedly telling them he's doing it, and this gave me what I can only describe as 'total cognitive dissonance' !
Previously I have avoided that guys channel(s) like the plague (and certainly not helped share anything he's done), because I know they will wind me up and make me unnecessarily angry, but because I agree so wholeheartedly with his objections to the NT drone rules I did watch that video, and I have to say was pleasantly surprised by his flying and, even though I object to the basic decision to poke the bear at all, by his relatively cordial discussions with the NT manager who was summoned to deal with him.
Given that I am at a loss for what we remote pilots can do to ever try and change these unfair policies I found myself, rather against my will, being almost rather admiring of PJ here, and his willingness to demonstrate the unfairness of the policy to the wider public. And then again, I realise it may have entirely the opposite effect, and as I comment under the video itself, may result in even more public distrust / hatred and worst case NT etc being given lower stratum airspace control over their lands to avoid this sort of 'incursion'.
What do you think ?
Previously I have avoided that guys channel(s) like the plague (and certainly not helped share anything he's done), because I know they will wind me up and make me unnecessarily angry, but because I agree so wholeheartedly with his objections to the NT drone rules I did watch that video, and I have to say was pleasantly surprised by his flying and, even though I object to the basic decision to poke the bear at all, by his relatively cordial discussions with the NT manager who was summoned to deal with him.
Given that I am at a loss for what we remote pilots can do to ever try and change these unfair policies I found myself, rather against my will, being almost rather admiring of PJ here, and his willingness to demonstrate the unfairness of the policy to the wider public. And then again, I realise it may have entirely the opposite effect, and as I comment under the video itself, may result in even more public distrust / hatred and worst case NT etc being given lower stratum airspace control over their lands to avoid this sort of 'incursion'.
What do you think ?
Felix le Chat
Well-Known Member
Trying to reason with people who manage 'heritage assets' is an exercise in futility, the attitude will always be that they're right and you're wrong. The majority of these sites (as opposed to landscape assets) are run by people recruited from academic backgrounds, so if you do engage: expect to be talked down to.
All of the Usual Suspects (N.T/H.E/E.H/CADW) have pet briefs and barristers on retainer, so I'm sure all possible avenues to blocking 'unauthorized' drone fliers has already been explored. This time ANO2016 is on our side, but for how long remains moot. All it will take is for one of these institutions to get one of their sites designated as an official CAA red zone and the domino effect will start.
EASA is much more likely to start this ball rolling - over 12 months ago they asked regional/local government entities throughout all of their member states to submit geographical areas that they wanted to lock off with geozones... and not just on the grounds of 'infrastructure security' either - SSSI's and A.O.N.B' s were on the same list. One thing to thank BODGE-IT for perhaps?
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Air 3 Llyn Crafnant - Vale of the Wild Garlic- Started by AlbionDrones
- Replies: 0
-
Mavic 3 OEM Battery 4 Cycles, K&F Concepts Filter set, CPL, ND2-32, ND2-32 Black Diffusion- Started by Dogpilot
- Replies: 0
-
-
Where is the best place to sell off my DJI Enterprise drone?
- Started by Merlin04
- Replies: 1
Forum statistics
