Rights to Privacy in 360 photos?

Another question has entered my brain (yes it does happen from time to time :joy: )

Or maybe I shouldn’t read Facebook!

A user reported being told by the police to remove his 360 photo of his village or town as it is a violation of privacy?

He was flying at 60m I believe for his 360 and not 120m - but this was following a complaint to the police over the image that he had shared on social media.

As a result the police threatened him with an ASBO if it wasn’t removed.

I can understand if an image was shared showing the complainants bedroom or lounge - but even if he was outside would he be identifiable? And even if he was, what rights does he have?

Where do we stand on 360 images and not necessarily those taken from height?

Could the person caught in the 360 and is identifiable claim his or her privacy is violated if published on a website like this or any other?

Some of us have 360 cameras - what happens there if people are in the shot? Should we be blurring everyone out? After all - at a certain angle they are the subject of the image.

I suspect that the complainant doesn’t like drones being flown near his house - the pilot was flying under Article 16 rules so says his flight was legal.

Are the police correct, or is it a civil matter?

Google Street View blurs faces of people in their images - so it does question as to whether we must do the same.

(I have no idea btw if the complainant was in the photo or if it was just his property - but GSV allows for the removal of property as well upon request)

I love 360 images as I think they give the opportunity to capture the scene in all directions and ‘be there’.

1 Like

I’m not sure of the relevance of it being a 360° picture?

A 360 is just a bunch of “normal” photos stuck together.

1 Like

True - but it is more likely to crop up in a 360 than in a still photo of one location.

Impossible to answer without seeing the offending photo. Could have been at 60m with a zoom lens.

Anyone living in a built-up area can see more from their upper floor windows than a Mini 2 at 60mtr :sweat_smile:

I’d guess 26 times more likely.

But be be actually identifiable from 60m the chances are infinitely less.

It’s interesting that the majority of Facebook selfies from greggs or spoons don’t have the background punters blurred, I’m sure they could easily introduce software that would do this if it was required

I think you might be overthinking the issue 🤷

Maybe I am - but then perhaps I wish to avoid issues.

Although we could just remove everything from photos and have a blank image - would be rather boring…

Personally I think people can make a photo.

I suspect my policy will be blur if anyone complains - but ensure that contact details are easy to find…

I guess my question was a general on on privacy and whether people really had the right to complain and whether the police could slap an ASBO on a drone pilot.

For a drone flown within the code I would say not

People will always hark on about privacy, my job includes overseeing a campus covered by 600 cameras, you would be amazed at the foi requests I get.

There are very few places in the uk where (like rats) you’re never far from a camera

2 Likes

You can go on any local authority website and see live broadcasts of locations as specially holiday resorts and town centers. They all show peoples faces. So I don’t see how you can get an ASBO.

2 Likes

Yeah, those rats are such publicity whores. They love the papa-rats-i. :rofl:

2 Likes

Someone took a picture and I am in the background.

This is a gross invasion of my privacy and I’m going to draw everyone’s attention to me by plastering it over as many social media sites as I can

4 Likes

‘like’

There’s two parts to this: (1) The law and what you are and are not allowed to do with a drone and (2) The instruction from the police.

(2) If the police have instructed this person to do something, they should do it, irrespective of whether this person believes the police may be mistaken. The mistake should, of course, be challenged, but the instruction should be followed first.

According to the BlackBeltBarrister in his videos here and here

(1) Assuming that this person is complying with the ANO in terms of air worthiness, distances, categories etc then the only other area of law would be data privacy and the DPA2018 (incorporating GDPR) has very clear exemptions for ‘household’ and ‘journalistic’ use of photographic/videographic material taken in a public place i.e. it would not be relevant unless the person was specifically photographing or videoing a person or persons with the intent to cause harm.

So my interpretation of the BlackBeltBarirster’s general guidance is that the police had/have no right to make this request nor any right to prosecute this individual.

I personally would: comply with the instruction, formally challenge the instruction and request an apology, then re-upload the video.

2 Likes

Aka the Streisand effect

ZJgEpF.gif

2 Likes

If you take a photo and post it online, but someone in the image doesn’t want it there, the decent thing to do is take it down I suppose.
Not sure if the legalities will stand up in court from the police, but why let it go that far? Just be a nice person.

2 Likes

So does that mean that my car dash cam has to be turned off if there is a possibility of it catching an identyfiable face???

2 Likes

If I am in anyones picture…That is a totally ruined picture… :joy:

2 Likes

Lol not seen that image for a few years!

1 Like

Karl, you’ve changed :wink:

1 Like

I’m nice to people (I try to be). Its just the establishment that I have an issue with. But they are not real people :laughing:

1 Like