The CAA seem to disagree.
The Drone and Model Aircraft Code Section 20: Respect other people and their privacy
If your drone or model aircraft is fitted with a camera or listening device, you must respect other people’s privacy whenever you use them.
If you use these devices where people can expect privacy, such as inside their home or garden, you’re likely to be breaking data protection laws.
GDPR is about privacy.
The OP said that they cropped the resident(s) from their photos. I think that it is a clear cut case of reasonable complaint from the resident that is backed up by law which directly governs the use of drones. It also appears to be a clear cut case of reasonable pilot did the right thing without hesitation and did so politely.
I don’t mean to pick at you or anybody else in particular but I do feel that there is a prepoderance of expectation of rights backing up the drone operator or more knowledgeable and less scrupulous operators trying to find the loophole that enables their behaviour (clearly neither was the case in this instance, but in follow up on the thread certainly).
Even google who, give them their dues, in this case are not being evil, blur some images by default and others when requested by the land or identity owner.
It’s a shame that the attitude is so prevalent amongst the community or at least the forum membership and it’s not just regarding privacy issues. Errant sanctimony will result in regulation and eventually price prohibitive licencing. Self regulation only works if those doing the regulation have a grasp on the ethics of a situation.
The op checked they were not in the garden prior to even taking off. I had to crop the. ONLY because they came running from the front of the house at the sound of a drone. They ran into the shot.
GDPR laws exist to protect people’s privacy. They do not exist to prevent property being photographed.
Had the residents been out in the garden at the time I would have asked first (and probably been refused) they weren’t.
I’m all for data protection and a right to privacy, but you can’t expect to rent a cottage attached to a lighthouse and npeople not to take photos of it from a public right of way, you also can’t photo bomb someone’s pics and then try to make a case they were deliberately photographing you to invade your privacy.
2 Likes
Looking through the answers here.
Can’t see what drone you have !
Do you have the 249Kg Mavic mini ? Or Mini 2 ?
Wonder if you broken any law from the new CAA laws came to force 31 Dec 2020 ( open Category of the sub category A1 ) flying over uninvolved people but not crowds .
Parrot Anafi (A1 transitional) no minimum distance on how close to uninvolved people but can’t intentionally overfly them.
Edit - also have A2CofC
3 Likes
I’ll bow out after this.
The attitude is ingrained it seems even though you took the path of least resistance on the day.
You are taking photos of a dwelling which even with no local or specific knowledge is clearly such as there are loaded clothes outside of both sides of the building. They are entitled to privacy in their dwelling and can quite reasonably come out of it to raise their complaint, whether they live there or are short letting. The fact that you have an architectural interest in an attached building doesn’t change these facts, but still you are looking for the loophole.
Quad errat demunstrandum.
You don’t seem to grasp that gdpr rules protect people not property.
I understand. There are a couple of issues that I’ve inadvertently conflated.
The CAA are in agreement with the residents that there should be an expectation of privacy in or outside of the dwelling.
They also note that there is a risk of your being foul of the law in the case that you may be storing personally identifiable imagery which would breach GDPR without the relevant risk assessments and permissions from those who’s privacy was being encroached upon.
In this instance the residents had no knowledge of the capability of the equipment or the intention of the operator but understood their right to privacy and expressed it. That the flight ended is commendable.
I live close to Chartley Castle and nearly went to film it but decided against as having done some research about access, NOTAMs and ownership etc I found that it is on private land and there are plenty of examples of people making flights. Not knowing the owner’s location, contact or preference with regard to drones I chose not to fly in case it would cause offence or they were tired of it etc. That is the precautionary approach that all should take. People trying to push the boundaries will cause public (as per this example) and in the end political opinion to make life harder for pilots. It’s a self inflicted bullet in the foot.
If you were being truly responsible rather than acting through purely self interest until responding reasonably but reactively to the complaint you would have knocked on the door and asked the owner/legal occupier’s permission before attempting the flight. Anything besides that is inconsiderate and a shame on a few levels.
I’d like to offer the olive branch of apology as I see this all the time on the fora and this one just got my goat. I don’t intend, even besides my last comment on the previous post, to vilify you as an individual. I don’t know you and shouldn’t presume your disposition but the attitude is rife among vocal pilots and occasionally needs to be called out.