Universal don't seem to like us

General
1
1 Like
2

I initially thought the same. However, I have a better suggestion. Let’s be constructive. How about making an approach to work with them. Arrange regular authorised flights e.g. monthly where captured footage can be made freely available to people to use. We could ensure different people get access each time. This way, Universal get some control, people who want footage don’t need to keep going to site and everyone is happy.

Whilst at first glance Universal seem unreasonable, their main issue is that they are being subject to multiple flights daily, these flights are often at very low levels and that footage is being released featuring identifiable individuals. Surely a collaborative approach would be good for both sides.

1 Like
3

Their cease-and-desist notice has no legal standing; it’s to scare people with little knowledge out of flying. They may own the land, but they don’t own the airspace.

2 Likes
4

However:

Why Universal can still act even without controlling the airspace
They don’t need to prove you violated airspace rules.
They only need to show:
• the flight was low enough to interfere with the site → trespass
• the drone captured identifiable workers → GDPR breach
• the drone created risk → Article 241
• the flights were repeated → harassment
Any one of these is enough for an injunction.

1 Like
5

I specialise in civil law. None of what you have just said is factually correct, neither is their cease and desist notice. It’s all ‘may’ not ‘will’. If you take off and land off their land there is no trespass. You can’t trespass from the sky. Gdpr applies to organisations not individuals. It doesn’t matter if people can be identified, there is no right of privacy. Repeated flights over non residential property is not harassment.

3 Likes
6

This is the only one there maybe some issue. While the CAA does indeed control the airspace. I had always understood there to be a minimal amount of airspace immediatly over private land, headspace if you like that could be considered under trespass law.

So flying so low as to interfere with the operations of the site could get you into trouble.

1 Like
7

Some useful reference:

The last paragraph is particularly relevent.

1 Like
8

Having read the Blakiston’s reference (for which I thank you). I concur with their assessment. No one should be flying illegally in the first place and no responsible drone flyer would.

2 Likes
9

I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that anything off the ground is considered airspace by the CAA

1 Like
10

The article I posted above may help. There is a very small immediate amount of air space above land which has a use, ie driving vehicles around, livestock etc may be in that space, and could constute an offence to interfere with that use. Any thing above that is rightly controlled by the CAA

1 Like
11

Whilst I agree that currently they do not have much of a case and that their cease and desist isn’t worth the paper it isn’t printed on, I would make the following observations.

GDPR can apply to individuals if they are processing personal data e.g. if you have CCTV cameras on your property that can see outside your property line for example.

ICO Guidance re drones states:

If you are flying as a hobbyist and capturing images purely for personal use — e.g., holiday footage, family events, experimenting in your garden — GDPR generally does not apply. This aligns with the household exemption and is explicitly recognised in ICO guidance, which distinguishes hobbyists from professional or commercial users.

However - GDPR applies when an individual’s drone use becomes public‑facing, organised, or commercial, or when the footage is used beyond personal purposes. Examples include:
• Selling or publishing aerial photos that include identifiable people
• Running a YouTube channel or social media account where drone footage is shared publicly
• Providing drone photography services, even informally
• Using a drone for neighbourhood monitoring, security, or any systematic observation

So anybody flying a drone and publishing the content to Youtube is subject to GDPR even if not getting income for it IF individuals are identifiable from the footage.

Also, there have been legal cases re what is and isn’t trespass by air. The courts have consistently held that trespass by air is limited.

The key case law is Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd (1978) confirmed that landowners do not own all the airspace above their land but only to the extent “necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it”. Additionally Overflights at heights not interfering with the landowner’s use are not trespass and taking a photograph from such an aircraft is not trespass and not an invasion of privacy.

This was effectively enshrined in law by Civil Aviation Act 1982, s.76 — protection for “reasonable” overflight
This reinforces Bernstein by stating that:
• A reasonable overflight of an aircraft cannot be trespass or nuisance.
• But “reasonable” is judged by risk, height, noise, and interference.

A drone hovering low over a construction site is unlikely to be considered “reasonable.” However this as stated comes down to the reasonableness test for “ordinary use and enjoyment”.

What is “ordinary use and enjoyment” can vary. e.g:
A suburban garden: a few metres above roof height.
A farm: perhaps higher, but still limited.
A major construction site: much higher, because cranes, lifting operations, scaffolding, and plant all form part of the “ordinary use.”

Therefore, construction sites can argue that drones flying even tens of metres above the ground are within their protected airspace. However, this is not presently valid for Universal as they do not have cranes etc on site as it is only ground investigations being carried out. However, in the future this will not be the case.

For example, if they have an 80m tall crane on site, you would not be reasonable to be flying below a height that has sufficient clearance above the crane.

This leads to Article 241 ANO 2016 and endangerment.
“A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property"

This is where things like the equipment on site and workings becomes the issue. As mentioned, if It is close enough to cranes, plant or workers to cause distraction or collision risk. Again, currently probably not the case but will be in the future.

I still think the best way forward is for Universal to work with drone users rather than taking a nonsense hard fist approach.

1 Like
13

Starting arguments for no reason with massive corporations that have more money and lobbying power than we could ever dream of. Do you want drones legislated out of existence? Because this is how you get drones legislated out of existence…

(And sure, it’s not right but it is how the world works).

2 Likes
14

This is a forum; it’s just a healthy discussion between like-minded people. I’m not advocating falling out with anyone but I have learnt quite a bit from this discussion already. It’s good to hear other people’s views.

1 Like
15

Be interested to see a link to where that came from ?

All I can see on the ICO guidlines is?

" There is a distinction between those individuals who can be considered as ‘hobbyists’ and are therefore generally using their device for purely personal activities, and those individuals or organisations who use the device for professional or commercial purposes."

17

This phrase also comes from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the United Kingdom.

It is typically found in their “Video surveillance (including CCTV)” guidance, specifically within the FAQ or detailed sections regarding domestic drone use.

The Connection

The ICO uses this specific example to clarify the “hobbyist” distinction we just discussed. Here is how they apply it:

  • The Threshold: While flying a drone for your own private memories is a “personal activity,” the ICO clarifies that running a YouTube channel or social media account where drone footage is shared publicly may move you out of the “domestic purposes” exemption.
  • The Result: Once you share footage publicly—especially if the channel is monetized or used for self-promotion—you are likely to be classified as a data controller . This means you must ensure you aren’t infringing on the privacy rights of people captured in your videos.

(I’ve been personally registered for data protection for about ten years).

18

Seems to me the issue or argument is simple.
Is placing a hobny video on you tube commercial if your making money from it?

Is there any agreement or contract from you tube saying they will pay you x for y?

Or is it you tube thats commercialised the video.

For tax purposes you can make a level of money with out it being commercial, as this considered a hobby, thus not be taxed on that income as its considered a hobby.

Just adding my pennys worth

3 Likes