Exactly, tell NT and the councils that.
As has been said before. GDPR gets banded around far to often in an attempt by the ignorant to subvert someones rights. It has always been down to the individual or private company to create the privacy. If I was to walk past an estate agents window and film what’s on the screen on the computer facing the window absolutely no law is being broken. In fact it could be argued that the estate agents themselves were in breach of client confidentiality regulations. Just have a look next time your down the hight street (post lockdown) You’ll be shocked how many don’t have a clue.
Anyway, back on topic … 
4 Likes
Lots of street photographers do target ‘interesting’ people in their photos. The point is, when you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy.
If you photograph someone who is in their front garden, behind a 3 foot high wall, that’s perfectly legal, for the same reason. However, the same would not be true if you had to climb onto something in order to see over a 6 foot garden wall or if you are not taking the picture from a place with public access.
6 Likes
I think your front garden example is wrong, there is an expectation of privacy on your own property. We shouldn’t have to be building 8’ walls to get that privacy.
Report someone taking photographs in a public place | Avon and Somerset Police.
That website is just trying to use simple language. You have no expectation of privacy in a front garden that can be seen from the street. It’s nothing to do with photography, it’s simply that you’re visible to anyone who walks past!
This is all massively off-topic and it may be good if the admins split a lot of this into a new thread.
1 Like
Playing devils advocate, all they said is they cannot give formal permission, they didn’t say you can/must not fly from council land?
2 Likes
“If the person you’re photographing is on private land, they could claim a right to privacy”
That really does all depend on what provisions are in place already in order to provide that privacy and what the photographer has done to bypass them.
I thought exactly the same way. I asked, they said no. However, unless they have signs displayed prohibiting the use of drones there is nothing they can do. Also, since I have a Mini 2, my restrictions are minimal. The Drone Code says I can fly in residential and recreational areas. Obviously it doesn’t state I can TOAL in these areas which highlights the confusion.
And this applies to NT too. OK, you can’t take off on their property but you can fly over it. The air space belongs to the CAA, not to NT or councils.
Certain areas and buildings have obtained NFZ’s through the CAA, airports, government buildings and so on. I do not believe NT has but I’m not certain.
1 Like
It’s called private property for a good reason. No provisions required, it’s private. No bypasses. It’s the same law that stops you photographing someone on concealed property with a drone. They are on private property.
There is only one place I have flown from and shouldn’t, that was Stanley Park in Blackpool, apparently the signs on the entrance prohibit drone use (I didn’t look so didn’t see them) If a council offical had approached me i would have stopped), that’s the view I take in most places after checking restrictions on airspace.
If we could keep this thread largely on the subject of NT please.
2 Likes
NT have Bylaws. Which are law. Having been passed through Parliament. National Trust Acts 1907 - 1971 and Act 1965. And are enforceable. Refusing to abide by these Bylaws then becomes a criminal act.
I’ve read their Bylaws and there is nothing stated prohibiting the use of drones and / or photography. I have the pdfs if anyone is interested. If anyone has found copies of NT’s Bylaws that state photography and drones are in breach of said Bylaws then it might be an idea to share with other drone users.
Most buildings and interiors (and designs for gardens) are the subject of copyright protection. The copyright will usually belong to the Architect or Designer rather than the owner. You will seldom be obtaining permission from the Architect so the Property Release is unlikely to help you if there is a claim for copyright infringement by an Architect.
However, this is not a serious worry because in this country, by virtue of Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998; it is not an infringement of copyright to take a photograph, draw or film a building (including the interior) or a sculpture, model for building or work of artistic craftsmanship permanently sited in a public place or in premises open to the public. There is an argument that an Architect could still make a claim for copyright infringement if such use infringed the original plans for the building but this seems unlikely.
The position is slightly different in the United States. Many US buildings and architectural works have copyright, particularly architectural works created after 1 March 1989. There is an exception but it is not as wide as the UK exception set out above; it is permitted to photograph of buildings or properties in a public place but permission is needed to photograph and reproduce images of a building protected by copyright and not visible from a public place ( which would obviously include interiors).
The position is also different in France, where an Architect (of whatever nationality) is entitled to fees when buildings in France designed by that architect are photographed. The French collecting society ADAGP (website is www.adagp.fr) can provide authorisations for some architects. Unfortunately it only represents less than one hundred architects in France and otherwise you would need to get the authorisation direct from the architect (this is for example the case for the Géode in Paris and for the Pyramide du Louvre.)
Note that photographs of the contents of a building (including furniture, works of art etc.) may themselves have separate copyright which, again, is unlikely to belong to the owner of the building. Photographing such items may itself be an infringement of copyright. There is an exemption in relation to items which are only incidentally appear in the finished work; however very often the placement of an item is not incidental and permission for its use should be obtained from the copyright owner.
2.
Contract
In order to obtain access to most private properties (or indeed Museums etc or galleries) you need to enter into a contract with the owner; one of the terms of this contract is often that you cannot make commercial use of any photographs taken. The law of copyright relating to architects must not be confused with contract law. If you do take photographs in a private property and use them without consent, you still own the copyright in the photograph and cannot be sued for infringement of copyright in the building if it comes within the exemption outlined above. However, you could be sued for breach of contract and would have to pay any foreseeable damages which flow from that. The main usefulness of a property release in this country is to avoid any such claims in contract.
3 Likes
Just to clarify - there are different laws that can restrict drone flying.
As you say, in terms of airspace the CAA regulations apply (eg NFZs around airports, prisons, other restricted areas eg central London). These are relatively easy to follow by using the NATS app or dronescene website.
Then there are bylaws that restrict activity on land. Certain bodies including councils can pass laws the prohibit use of drones. That’s the case with the NT where they have byelaws that they believe apply to drone use.
Then there are PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Orders) that can restrict “anti-social” activities for a limited period of time. I’ve started another thread about those:
Can anyone think of any others?
If none of these apply then there is no law stopping you from operating.
I guess a separate question is whether you need explicit permission. I would say on public land is no.
Public land is land where you can go and do whatever you want as long as you’re not breaking laws. You don’t need specific permission for every thing you do.
That’s why asking for permission is the wrong way to go about it.
It’s arguable different if you’re on privately owned land. The grey area is things like foot-paths where there is public access but you may be on private land. That’s for another thread!
(I wrote this at the same time as your answer above hence the overlap. Looks like we’re on the same page)
Might want to check this thread out
1 Like
Excellent letter Phil, but I think they will keep making excuses until they can get earnings from it!! like everything else.
Rab
1 Like
If the wall is low, or a low hedge or fence, there can be no expectation of privacy. That’s been tested in court.
I have worked as a photographer for over 10 years and, for a while, as a photojournalist and have had to make sure I understand where I stand in law.
2 Likes
Just the other side of the low wall ;o)
4 Likes
I like many others have kept tabs on this NT issue…its very interesting.
so just side tracking slightly…reference local councils
SHDC permissions enquiry kept to a minimum…reply from SHDC employee
Sorry I must admit to not knowing much about it, and I’m not surprised that you have had little success. I would keep you email enquiries and fly it where you believe safe. If you are challenged at least you can prove you tried to engage and abide by the regulations.
3 Likes
1 Like