That letter is over 10 years old and GDPR has come into force since then and since the OP was asking about the drone code and specifically quoting a section that mentions GDPR. In your home boundary is not a public location.
Paparazzi specifically now find themselves in a hard place as photos is their business. So they need to have a policy. Why most of these shots these days are are actually faked and in cohoots with the celebrity.
As the recent court case of a member of the public receiving a hefty fine for their security camera recording outside their boundary and not making efforts to remove or adjust how the footage was recorded, logic would suggest any court case regarding drone footage would follow the same result if you could clearly identify someone in their property boundary and they took protest to your footage. But who knows. Just use some common sense and be polite if you piss someone off.
We’re going off piste. We’re talking about people in their own boundary of the property they live in. Dash cams is irrelevant. Plod will be more than happy to ask you for your footage to help solve a crime. Equally if a neighbour complains your device is pointing into their boundary and capturing their movements in their garden, then they can indeed ask for you to not record, delete footage etc. It’s been to court. The person with the CCTV camera lost. The ICO recommend you have a GDPR policy.
(I can’t figure out how to quote part of a website without quoting the post I’m replying too in as well. So I’ve whacked in a code wrapper)
What must I do if I capture images of people outside my own home and garden?
If you are capturing images beyond your property boundary, you should have a clear and justifiable reason for doing so. In particular, you will need to think why you need these images. If asked by an individual or the ICO, you will need to be able to explain your reasons, so you should write them down now. You should also write down why you think capturing the images is more important than invading the privacy of your neighbours and passers-by.
You will also need to:
Let people know you are using CCTV by putting up signs saying that recording is taking place, and why.
Ensure you don’t capture more footage than you need to achieve your purpose in using the system.
Ensure the security of the footage you capture – in other words, holding it securely and making sure nobody can watch it without good reason.
Only keep the footage for as long as you need it – delete it regularly, and when it is no longer needed.
Ensure the CCTV system is only operated in ways you intend and can’t be misused for other reasons. Anyone you share your property with, such as family members who could use the equipment, needs to know the importance of not misusing it.
You also need to make sure you respect the data protection rights of the people whose images you capture. This includes the following things:
Responding to subject access requests (SARs), if you receive any. Individuals have a right to access the personal data you hold about them, including identifiable images. They can ask you verbally or in writing. You must respond within one month and give them a copy of the data.
Deleting footage of people if they ask you to do so. You should do this within one month. You can refuse to delete it if you specifically need to keep it for a genuine legal dispute – in which case you need to tell them this, and also tell them they can challenge this in court or complain to the ICO.
Consider any objection you get now from particular people about capturing their image in the future. Given the nature of CCTV systems, this may be very difficult to do. However, you should again think whether you need to record images beyond your property boundary – particularly if your system is capturing images from a neighbour’s home or garden.
@difeuk
Have you actually bothered to read the GDPA. I doubt it because if you had you wouldn’t be spouting all this misinformation on a public forum! I am the dedicated GDPR officer of a film company and data protection is NOT just about storing names and addresses. Any image at all where a person can be identified by that image is considered personal data and if you store that image you are storing that personal data. It is totally irrelevant whether there is a corresponding name and address attached to it. GDPR was updated in 2018 and the misinformation you are putting out is several years out of date.
Personally I avoid taking photos of anyone other than my family or I - and if someone wanted to see my footage or photos I’d show them and if they objected i’d delete it. Forgot GDPR its just a respect thing and any photo I take is worth less than someone getting really offended by it and it causing issues for me or the broader drone community. Great believer in people should do whatever they like unless it causes harm to others.
In terms of minimum distance 50m is probably ok for a DJI at that camera’s resolution- the camera on my learner drone is so crap, could probably get away with 10m. Think the rule should be “when your picture has less pixels of a person face needed to make them recognisable, even when you digitally zoom in” your good.
Yep, you are right, I was misinformed, after doing some Googling I have found that my GDPR comment was wrong. To me that makes the problem clearer, do not take images where people may be recognisable without their consent. Or less clear, as regards to car dash cams and CCTV.
The latest updates to GDPA are actually very restrictive when it comes to images. While like most people I am in favour of respecting people’s privacy I do feel that Parliament has reached a point were they enact bills that throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s really starting to become debilitating for people working in photography, film and journalism. A case in point is that it has virtually killed stone dead the old photographic street scene picture post-card trade. Years ago photographers would capture street scenes of towns and villages for calendars and post-cards. Now if you accidentally capture the image of a person within the scene (very hard to avoid if you think about it), it immediately limits what you can legally do with that image because it now contains someone’s personal data. And as drone operators we are subject to precisely the same regulation. I can’t help feeling that in our mad rush to make improvements in society, we sometimes lose sight of the far bigger picture. (pun not intended).
We are now in a position where frankly it’s just too much hassle to keep drone videos and pictures containing people as stored images. If the same people become aware that you are storing their images they have the legal right to ask you to delete them. They do not require a court order if you do not comply. They simply report you to the DP registrar and they will open a case file and the moment that happens you are in very deep (EXPENSIVE) shit with a boat load of legal fees. Honestly, its just not worth the hassle. If you’re out filming and you capture someone’s image and they object just be pleasant and apologise, say it was an accident and delete the footage … AND be VERY vigilent if you are out filming near children …for obvious reasons. We no longer do any filming in areas involving children …too much hassle trying to get parental clearances and permissions. I’d really hate to be a schools photographer nowadays.
“Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.”
Regarding GDPR. I stand to be corrected but - it depends who you are. A film company compliance officer (for example) needs to comply; Johnny Droner putting some snaps on Facebook doesn’t.
“You will not need to comply [with the Act] if you only use the information for your own personal, family or household purposes – eg personal social media activity, …”.
Even photos in schools:
“If photos are taken for personal use they are not covered by the Act.”
Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons , the discussion is focusing on the capturing of an image and the invasion of privacy however the fact that you are simply monitoring the view from the camera may result in an invasion of privacy before you realise, for example people in a hot tub within their garden with a 6 ft high fence come into view while your trying to frame the shot of the church next door , hover there for a few moments and before you know it an angry bloke in speedos will be ranting at you accusing you of snooping ! ….it’s a huge jar of worms …personally I try not to fly in residential areas and I agree with @kvetner consider you or your family were the ones being “ invaded” would you object ? ….I’m sure this may be a long debate
As I understood it, that judgement was made because of the ability to overhear conversations where, with no people nearby, there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the video recording was considered acceptable.
