PDA

View Full Version : Filming with drones no more legal in sweden



prometheus
10-22-2016, 05:49 AM
The highest administrative court in sweden have just ruled against the use of any camera filming when using drones, previously you could use drones and film freely with the exception on areas that was forbidden to fly on (near airports etc)
the case was about if the cameras was to be considered as fixed camera survailence, which requires special permits from the authorities, and the conclusion from the court was that it is to be considered as fixed camera survailencey.

So no more flying with a drone for private users...at least you need to apply for special permission, it will also make it harder for others using it in some type of work.

Michael

ianr
10-22-2016, 07:09 AM
The highest administrative court in sweden have just ruled against the use of any camera filming when using drones, previously you could use drones and film freely with the exception on areas that was forbidden to fly on (near airports etc)
the case was about if the cameras was to be considered as fixed camera survailence, which requires special permits from the authorities, and the conclusion from the court was that it is to be considered as fixed camera survailencey.

So no more flying with a drone for private users...at least you need to apply for special permission, it will also make it harder for others using it in some type of work.

Michael


Is that just Swedish law?
Or is it a cite-case to roll up
into a E.U. encompassing law?

I really need to know for shot
planning in Other European countrires

Thanks Prom.

prometheus
10-22-2016, 08:00 AM
Is that just Swedish law?
Or is it a cite-case to roll up
into a E.U. encompassing law?

I really need to know for shot
planning in Other European countrires

Thanks Prom.

No...probably not that concerns eu overall, unless specific country has done their own ruling.
That was just a court ruling in the swedish highest administrative court, so it is final in sweden..so the only chance for private users or companies using drones and filming, is to apply for permission to the county authorities..or take the case to the European courts, so Itīs not something that has been on the European table, at least not what I know of, I havenīt read the casefiles through properly yet.

It depends on the person..a private corporation who wanted permit to film buildings to document the buildings, but he didnīt get the permit, it wasnīt good enough to be valid as surveilance, and the integrity aspects weighed in more..so he was denied, but that person could take it to the EU court if he have the means and stamina to do so.
In the court ruling, I couldnīt see any reference to any other EU cases.
So for this company it was bad.

In the same time, another case was allowed, and that is camera that is mounted on bicycle or a car for lifelogging or insurance reasons, in such case the camera is controlled in place, unlike a remote controlled drone, so that is on the other hand established as legal..funny in my opinion, but thatīs how it goes.
So it requires a case in the EU or if swedish politicians brings forth a changed legeslation around this (donīt think they will though) and that would take serious amount of time.

As for other EU contries, I do not know, one would have to look at each individual country, I do not know if there is some legeslation in EU that would govern this, I do not think so..otherwise it should have showed up in these rulings in sweden.

Another question would be..how would the law be enforced to detect those not obeying the law? It must be very difficult to track and cover those who are using drones with a camera anyway, unless someone reveals the filmed material somewhere where someone reports it.
The penalty would be fines or up to 1 year prison time.

hereīs an attempt to google translation of the page of the ruling, the casefiles are attached in two pdf docs at the end of the initial description...
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hogstaforvaltningsdomstolen.se/Om-Hogsta-forvaltningsdomstolen/Nyheter-fran-Hogsta-forvaltningsdomstolen/Tillstand-kravs-for-kamera-pa-en-dronare-men-inte-for-kamera-i-en-bil/&usg=ALkJrhjmeJ9rxQvZvBVecaVdq2T8kiVZJg

or try this direct translation..directed to the pdf directly..
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hogstaforvaltningsdomstolen.se/Domstolar/regeringsratten/Avg%25C3%25B6randen/2016/Oktober/78-16.pdf&usg=ALkJrhhVp9jRjALp3nY_nyR9XlL1fI257A

Anyway..my beach vacation plans is now screwed up, guess thatīs why the laws are there though.
Seriosly, I would like to film landscapes for the pure interest of it, and maybe some 3d work as well, and privately it would be nice to film my granfathers home which my brother recently purchased long after their passing.
What you can do though is to get yourself a hovercraft, chopper ..or some glider or something and actually fly and film yourself.

erikals
10-22-2016, 10:48 AM
had a feeling a law like that would come around, but i do hope that it doesn't get too limited.

artists should be allowed to film with drones, with some, but not too many restrictions, imo.

Norway being EU's third wheel, it wouldn't surprise me if we get the same law pushed over here.

prometheus
10-22-2016, 11:50 AM
had a feeling a law like that would come around, but i do hope that it doesn't get too limited.

artists should be allowed to film with drones, with some, but not too many restrictions, imo.

Norway being EU's third wheel, it wouldn't surprise me if we get the same law pushed over here.

Unfortunatly ..this new ruling Is to limiting in my opinion, not even the press will be excluded, tv stations will have to dump their precious expensive drones and find other ways.. ..they are not allowed either, only policeforce to prevent crime.
In the news here there is a lot of complaining that whole branches will shut down and loss of tax money as well because of it.

The thing is that the court doesnīt take in considerations about what is reasonable or making sense, it takes in account what the law says, and possibly what is written it the propositions in the laws and the intentions behind it.
So you would have to go back and look at when the law was written (probably before the entrance of drones) and how our politicians reasoned about itīs intent, and then forward complaints that the laws needs a new proposition.

Personally I would think itīs reasonable that a surveillance camera that is fixed and constantly monitoring a certain public area is what should be considered as surveillance cams that needs special authorised permission, while a camera moving temporarely over a certain area should be allowed, as long as this event isnīt regulary and frequently occouring.
As it is now, it would be allowed to fly over areas and film ..with exception for certain protectional objects like military facilities etc, and it is allowed to film with a cellular phone, and with car cams and bicycles, the fact that you cover larger areas and by overview and that it remotely control isnīt something that should be related to the integrity question.

I suspect there are many companies and institutions that will object to this new case, and lobby towards some politicians to make a proposition change in the legislation... for allowing this to fit with a more suitable reference to the modern times and drones.

That said, I wouldnīt like to have a hovering drone over my apartment..looking in to my window, but that is something that can be incorporated in to new laws without making it so vague to just refer to a not personal controlled device in place etc.
If I were to go outside in public, bathing etc..I really wouldnīt care about a flying drone, if I have some privat parts to protect, I should do so with my clothes, or simply not bother about it.
Though itīs most likely not so easy to narrow it down to just a few situations, and especially not just the ones I am quoting, and a lot of other people would probably have a lot of objections to drones with cameras, itīs especially sensitive when a drone is over a private property.

I wonder if the organization called "missing people" will have to drop their drones? ..if you take it to the extremes, swedish satellites covering areas with satellite photos?
and google in sweden? wonder what happens there?

erikals
10-22-2016, 12:09 PM
That said, I wouldnīt like to have a hovering drone over my apartment..looking in to my window, but that is something that can be incorporated in to new laws without making it so vague to just refer to a not personal controlled device in place etc.
in Norway this is not allowed anyway, though not sure how closely that law is being monitored.


I wonder if the organization called "missing people" will have to drop their drones?
i very much doubt it, that just wouldn't make common sense. it might however be that they will have to ask for permission later on.

people are very much concerned with their privacy, but forget that that a PC can be easily hacked. (ironic)
today (yes, today) i read that the the national TeleVision advised people to turn off their web-cameras, because of the recent internet attack.
norwegian article > https://www.nrk.no/urix/hackere-lammet-internett-i-gar-_-anbefaler-a-dekke-til-webkameraer-1.13190974

it's a quite heavy attack... > http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/10/21/cyber-attack-takes-down-east-coast-netflix-spotify-twitter/92507806

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/e0b4aab8a29866fee581a270259559335e35f724/c=32-0-616-439&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2016/10/21/USATODAY/USATODAY/636126567092125766-Screen-Shot-2016-10-21-at-11.23.09-AM.jpg

Markc
10-22-2016, 12:15 PM
I wonder how this affects a drone that isn't recording.
If you have a parrot drone with sky controller you can fly for a couple of miles using the camera for navigation.
There was a tv show on in the U.K. A while back of drone footage from places you can't get to i.e. Disused nuclear sites etc.

prometheus
10-22-2016, 12:21 PM
in Norway this is not allowed anyway, though not sure how closely that law is being monitored.


i very much doubt it, that just wouldn't make common sense. it might however be that they will have to ask for permission later on.



common sense has little to do with how the court is ruling in sweden, if the laws are not making sense, it doesnīt matter..they would have to be rewritten, the court must follow what is written in the laws even if it really doesnīt make sense..but that depends on how well written the law is regarding itīs intentional description.
So I would suspect that not even missing people will have the right to use the drones..not just like that, but as you say..they may have to seek special permission.

- - - Updated - - -


I wonder how this affects a drone that isn't recording.
If you have a parrot drone with sky controller you can fly for a couple of miles using the camera for navigation.

I donīt think that matters, it would most likely still be regarded as surveillance even if itīs not recording, I have to check these cases and see if something is revealed about that.

erikals
10-22-2016, 12:22 PM
https://www.solidrop.net/photo/100pcs-lot-46-46cm-parrot-classic-toys-birds-foil-balloons-with-stick-and-cup-party-decoration-kids-toys-cartoon-balloons.jpg   ...Parrot Drone

prometheus
10-22-2016, 12:26 PM
Taking it further, the whole thing will probably have an impact on robotīs as well.

erikals
10-22-2016, 12:27 PM
yes, Drones, Robots, same-same...

Markc
10-22-2016, 12:31 PM
https://www.solidrop.net/photo/100pcs-lot-46-46cm-parrot-classic-toys-birds-foil-balloons-with-stick-and-cup-party-decoration-kids-toys-cartoon-balloons.jpg   ...Parrot Drone

Very good :D

prometheus
10-23-2016, 08:40 AM
I just read a bit more on this in the swedish newspapers, the branch organization UAS (unmanned arial system Sweden) has protested strongly, and have stated that an estimated number of 3000 people may loose their jobs.
Several politicians in various parties have also reacted stongly with statements that the government needs to change the law.. as soon as possible.
The article also states that Sweden is the only country in the world where itīs not allowed to film with drones (I guess they may not count in north korea and maybe a few more)

One member of the parlament did file an interpellation to the government this saturday, so I am sure they will bring this up for debate and probably voting for a new legislation quite soon, the laws that govern this was actually
written in the 70īs and doesnīt really keep up with the modern society development.


Next up for debate in the parlament, it may be the selfie sticks :)

erikals
10-23-2016, 08:49 AM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/07/article-2598873-1CE852C200000578-855_634x369.jpg



Next up for debate in the parlament, it may be the selfie sticks  :)

yes, i've heard it's set to be a half-meter limit, made of soft rubber.

spherical
10-23-2016, 01:28 PM
Personally I would think itīs reasonable that a surveillance camera that is fixed and constantly monitoring a certain public area is what should be considered as surveillance cams that needs special authorised permission, while a camera moving temporarely over a certain area should be allowed, as long as this event isnīt regulary and frequently occouring.

Apparently, the Court doesn't quite grok the meaning of "fixed". A drone-mounted camera is quite the opposite. So, following how the law is written or not, it seems that their decision is basically flawed.

prometheus
10-23-2016, 04:41 PM
Apparently, the Court doesn't quite grok the meaning of "fixed". A drone-mounted camera is quite the opposite. So, following how the law is written or not, it seems that their decision is basically flawed.

Actually ...My translation may have been fawlty, I think the correct term is rigged, and not fixed..and the question is about rigged cameras, a camera device that no one in the immediate near space can control, such as sitting in a car, bicycle or flying a chopper with a camera where all that is allowed, while rigged cameras sitting on a building or a remote drone is considered surveilance cameras, I really donīt think the ruling was wrong in regards to the law,it may be wrong in terms of what makes sense..but thatīs the way it goes, a court can only rule on how a law is written, regardless if it makes sense or not, if the law is flawed, the ruling will be questionable, but per praxis not actually wrong, a court can not make up their own standards for interpreting the law as they would like to see fit, that would be a danger to justice if they arbitrary could do that, even though You may would have wanted a different ruling in this case.

So that is why it is essential this law is going through scrutiny and if our politicians reasons that way, we will have a changed law..I think it will happen soon considering so many objections and itīs already in motion for debate and change and the interpellation will be met in the parlament as well, there is of course a risc of some members being obtous and not going with a more modern consideration on this, but I think those will be in minority.
Itīs a question though meanwhile on how well the industry using drones will cope with this, fastout is a company providing a lot of 360 degree drone imagery..which we can see in our swedish map services where we can check many areas in big cities and look around with the views from the drones, fastout may drop huge in the stock market on monday.

The law was written in the 70īs so itīs no wonder it doesnīt play well with the more modern developed tools and uses, itīs not unique..things like this happens all the time, laws regarding rape victims being too drunk and they have themself to blame sort of, such things has been changed due to court rulings that was setting rapists free, because that is how the law was written, but it didnīt make sense to let rapist take use of the state of a persons incapability , so later the laws have changed around that...just one example.

so even if I do not like it, the court may have ruled right in terms of following how the laws are written, though the result is bad in common sense, it is there to protect our integrity..but I would frankly feel more uncomfortable when police will have flocks of drones with the intent to survey and track and record, rather than private persons flying around for fun or for working tasks or study landscape etc.

Michael

spherical
10-24-2016, 09:48 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Michael. Yes, the intent of the ruling is more clear, however basically flawed it may be within today's context. Let's hope that they get it sorted and not let things go further awry by spreading to other venues.

prometheus
10-25-2016, 10:34 AM
It was the Data inspection authorities who won this case over a single person company, the data inspection is there to look out for integrity rights for us citizens, it has rules on what is allowed to be registered on web sites, a company registry list, or other authorities registrations of individual personal information.

The data inspection also just recently criticized our swedish defense signal surveillance (FRA) they havenīt implemented a control system that should be in place to ensure the surveillance over us citizens (partly internet traffic for instance)...Is taking place in such way that it is consistent with the laws, because as individual citizens, we have very little control to gain access of what is concerning ourself and how we are being tracked etc, so those issues may borders to topics that Snowden revealed about surveillance in the united states.

The critics from the data inspection towards the FRA, concerns the fact that they should have implemented this 6 years ago, but only recently have started to work on it..the FRA has until may next year to fix this lack of control system.
This is a bit out of topic regarding drones, but I find these questions about surveillance very interesting.

Michael

prometheus
10-28-2016, 08:04 AM
Some more surveillance court rulings, a bit related...

Only swedish rulings..
the Datainspection just lost a case in the lower courts regarding a case about our swedish insurance authorites, and wether or not their webcam customer service is to be considered as illegal camera survellaince, the two authorities was fighting over this, but the lower court recently ruled that a web cam should not be regarded as illegal, since you could control it in place, though a bit more complex since they may also control another camera not in place.
I havent read the casefiles though, just the headers, I suspect this will not end here but an appeal with most likely be brought forward to then next highest court (the court of chambers) It will most likely also end up to the highest administrive court after that.

ianr
11-03-2016, 11:47 AM
Thanks Prom for all the Research, top banana!

cove
11-11-2016, 05:57 AM
On the subject of drones and by pure coinsidence.
I watch a documentary last night that was a reall eye opener as it showed life of prisoners inside there cells using mobile phones. Some of the
footage taken by inmates was used to show you how life is inside.
The videos showed inmates drugged up to the eyeballs and others making complaints about conditions etc.
The subject of how drugs get into the prison was delt with.
Believe it or not betweeen some of the prisoners inside and there mates on the outside they had found a new way to get drugs into there prison.
By using drones to drop drugs late at night into the prison grounds were somone would be waiting to collect the package of drugs.
Yet again they find a way to get stuff in.
The evidence for this was shown as local residence had been complaining about the noise late at night. One resident living close to the prison
managed to film late one night a drone hovering over the prison.
This footage was also shown in the documentary.

With the ammount of money that can be made in prison selling drugs no wonder they take risks.

This unusaul use of drones also shows that there is a need for restrictive use of drones with or without cameras , not that criminals will respect any laws, as our personal
privacy must be respected and licences only given to those who can show a legitemate need/use for temporary use of a drone.