Unmanned aerial photography determined as illegal in Sweden

eskil23

Wikipedia Photographer
On October 24 2014 the Swedish Data Inspection Board (the regulatory authority for matters of personal privacy) published a statement that camera equiped drones are to be regarded as video surveillance equipment and permission must be sought at the County Administration to operate. Dashcams was pointed out as illegal for the same reason.

Nobody had off course applied for permission for operating aerial surveillance cameras. I would be surprised if anyone ever did, because who whould pay $400 just to get a rejection. Today I was surprised, because a local company did apply for permission at Scania County Administration. The application got rejected. The only vaild reasons to grant such permission is if the purpose of the surveillance is to aviod accidents or crime.

Nobody has yet been been prosecuted for operating video surveillance gear illegaly from a UAV. Until that happens, it is still uncertain if unmanned aerial photography is illegal in Sweden.

The key properties that defines surveillance cameras are:
1) It can be used for monitoring people
2) It can cover public spaces
3) It can be operated autonomously or remotly

This, and not airspace regulations, is the most important obstacle for UAV operations in Sweden.

There are three important doubts regarding this point of view:
1) Can the camera actually be used for monitoring people? Airspace safety regulations says that minimal safety distance to buildings, vehicles and people is 50 meters. Can people be distinguished or identified at that distance with the camera used? With a GoPro with a 170 degree field of view I don't think it is possible.
2) There is a exception on the law for cameras mounted on vehicles if the purpose is to improve the view of the operator (like a reversing camera) to improve safety and working environment.
3) The law does not define the distinction between remote operation and on-site operation. Practice is that a camera on a tripod can be remotly triggered as long as the photographer has both the camera and the subject photographed in sight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


eskil23

Wikipedia Photographer
Today, the County Administration's decision was appealed to the Administrative Court. Finally we can look forward to a precedential court ruling.
 

eskil23

Wikipedia Photographer
Today the Administrative Court in Malmö revealed the verdict for this case.

The Camera Surveillance Act from 2013 says that a camera must be "durably located" to qualify as a surveillance camera. The Administrative Court concluded that with the limited flight times of contemporary multirotors, a UAV camera that can only be used for a limited period of time and does not fulfill the prerequisite of being "durably located".

Senior Judge Ulrika Geijer says "This does not imply a 'carte blance' for unmanned aerial photography. Other permits may be necessary and intrusive photography may qualify as molestation."
 


eskil23

Wikipedia Photographer
Swedish Data Inspection Board appeals the verdict to Administrative courts of appeal

Allowing the possible flight time of a UAS determine whether video surveillance law will apply or not can not lead to serious and unwanted demarcation problems. Therefore it is important that the matter be reviewed by a higher court, says Agneta Runmarker, councellor at the Data Inspection Board.
 

Top