Generic link on airspace property rights (not specific to drones): Airspace rights FAQs | Upspace
You’re 100% right that a landowner has very little real recourse: you are not magically protected by the law at 80m height or any other specific height, but even if the landowner did take you to court, what would they get out of it? Unless you’ve disturbed them repeatedly, or caused privacy issues, they’ll get very little from a court.
Sorry forum police, I was trying to maintain a smile on my face while pursuing the point, I’ll insert more smileys if the discussion extends 
The rule of thumb is usually 50m (although there is no defined limit) which would be the airspace that a landowner could reasonably claim that they could use in connection with the surface of the land that they own. It is of course a grey area. A shooting club could reasonably claim a height of 100m above their land so that they can maintain safe space for example.
Anything above what is ‘reasonable’ for that particular landowner though is most definitely not owned by the landowner and he has very little say in it.
Anyone fighting this point in a court of law would have the full weight of the CAA to battle!
Me too! No malice here 
Coming late to the discussion but around the time of the Bernstein versus Skyviews decision I was working for a company called Views which had been setup by an ex-employee of Skyviews.
Both firms worked on the basis of taking unsolicited pictures of properties from around 500 feet. Aircraft used tended to be Cessna 152 or 172 so at the height at which they were flown they were fairly noisy and noticeable. The main problem would have been the requirement to photograph each individual property in a village or at the edge of a town - if you can imagine a simple villagee with a cross roads in the centre it took several passes of the aircraft to photograph one side of a street, then one side of the perpendicular street and so on.
That behaviour tended to draw far more atention than a simple overflight and, at the height flown, the aircraft registrationwas discernible for those with goog eyesight or a pair of binoculars. We were occasionally on the receiving end of police or CAA investigations.
So, if you are going to be overflying somewhere sensitive do it at height and in one pass!
You do sometimes see figures mentioned for a reasonable height, but I’ve not seen any sign that any of them have been tested in court. The test of reasonableness will be whether flying at that height was necessary for a legitimate purpose. If you took photos at that height which invaded privacy, that would count against you, or if the photos you wanted could have been obtained from higher, that would too.
I doubt that. Trespass is a legal matter between a landowner and a trespasser. I doubt the CAA would do anything other than watch to see what a court concludes. Getting involved in a civil case with no aviation safety implications doesn’t feel like a good use of their time.
Reading back through these discussions, a lot of what any of us say can only be speculation. Some day we may get some case law to clarify it. I’m not volunteering to create a test case though 
I’d be tempted to ask each council for a copy of the byelaw as passed under law. Many councils put on their websites or signs that ‘such and such’ is banned under bylaw but without the relevant specific legislation, they can’t stop you.
Although this bunch are trying to change that
I have been trying for a while now to talk to someone from Derby City Council via email & phone calls & it seems no one really knows which department deals with this issue. They all refer me to their website which states the following;
The use of drones for filming purposes is currently not allowed over Derby City Council land, including respective parks and city centre spaces. To register to fly your drone, visit this page: Unmanned aircraft and drones | UK Civil Aviation Authority
This means to me that you can reasonably fly over their land as long as you are not filming.
Now maybe it would be good to hear where “The Bill” stands on the matter. What they will act on/enforce & what they class as permissible flights.
I worked for sky view many moons ago selling photos of properties ( temporary )
I could never understand why it wasn’t illegal to do what they did as the only way anyone could see what they had taken was to buy the pictures and you could buy them for anyone’s property 
After I left Views and moved south I took pictures for sale by myself and others.
It used to surprise me at times as to what people would buy. Pictures of their mansions with the garden in full bloom would leave some people cold while photos of scruffy looking properties would often sell. I sold a picture of a field with a shed in a corner while shining a torch on it and standing in two inches of water. The owner loved it - it was HIS field.
I also had a very keen buyer who took one look and demanded to know which day the photo was taken. As I had taken it I knew day and time. The guy wanted to buy the 6" x 4" print. When I explained that he could only buy an enlargement, minimum 14x11 in a frame he said he would pay me the price for that but only wanted the 6" x 4". I found out why. He had been away on business on the day the picture was taken but his wife was home. The car in the driveway wasn’t hers but belonged to a man he had long suspected …
Awkward lol
Air space and this link in particular is nothing but a parasitic company trying to bamboozle money out of unsuspecting morons with too much money to spend in the first place, this is total twaddle… there is no such ruling and nothing has never been tested in any court in the land and very unlikely to be… only someone very gullible would take any note of this… total crap, so don’t even go there…
Thanks
There is no rule of thumb… take my word… I know… there is no rule… the CAA control airspace, 1" or 1mile… end of…
Ta
Trespass into airspace has been tested in court on many occasions.
A couple of key cases are cited here with regard to oversailing cranes, to take one example. The whole reason the Civil Aviation Act creates a defense against aerial trespass is because by default it is a trespass.
OK, well when I swap my Drone for my next crane I will take heed, 
I understand what you are saying but I thought we were talking drones… so I guess any info is useful but from-what I can see the CAA are interested in safety and the council or whatever are interest in intrusion, quite rightly… I guess we fall in the middle…
Thinks for info
Hi all I’m new to this discussion. I have been flying drones for 4 years and am passionate about the beautiful aerial views/photos/videos that can be obtained with this technology and the joy of flying drones.
I’ve just been wondering what members thoughts are on flying over farming land? I live in a rural area near Derby with beautiful surrounding countryside.
If I take off from a lay-by on a country lane and fly over a field to get a good sunset view etc in a rural area keeping to the drone code can the landowning farmer insist that I have his permission to fly over his land? Or is the courtesy to find the farmer and ask permission virtually a necessity albeit a difficult task if you have no idea who owns the land? What has been members’ experience.
And what about flying for a few minutes when stopping on a right of way when walking in farmland?
I would appreciate people’s thoughts and experiences.
Thanks
Murray
No.
No, unless you want to take off from his land, then he’s 50/50 to say no ;o(
As long as you are at a reasonable height - which isn’t a defined and specific height but left up to the courts to decide in each case. If the cows were spooked by you flying five feet above them I think the legal view would be markedly different from you flying over at 350 feet and still upsetting Buttercup and her friends.
I’m not sure what they would do you for - disturbing the peace, creating a public nuisance?