taking photos of people houses

[Pilot.Lyons]

Hi all

Wasnt sure how to word the title to make it grab your attention

But here goes..,

I met someone who said a guy knocked on her door asking if she wants to buy a photo of her house from above and showed her them!!!

Surely this is illegal?!

[The Heff]

I don't think it is illegal, because if so Google Earth is in trouble!

[biffo28]

Why would it be illegal?

[BackPacker]

In the Netherlands this would possibly be illegal. There is a never-repealed cold-war-era Koninklijk Besluit (sort of lower level law) that says you're not even allowed to take a camera onboard of an aircraft, let alone take pictures, unless it's a scheduled airline flight. But it's extremely easy (and free) to get a license from the Militaire Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst (MIVD - like MI5) to take aerial pictures. They even provide you with a free map of the military installations you're not allowed to photograph. But as far as I know, the Netherlands is alone in this respect, and in most of Western Europe there are no specific laws preventing you from doing aerial photography.

The other regulations that may be relevant are the ones on aerial work. Depending on what exactly is going on the pilot may need a CPL, the aircraft may need to be maintained to public transport levels, and the company may need an AOC.

But I don't know about any specific privacy laws or similar that would prohibit this. And I guess that's the sort of thing you're looking for, not?

[Set 1013]

In the UK it is not illegal.

[mad_jock]

Well depends on who they are and if they have an AOC to do it.


They can be a right pain in the arse to be honest. You always know when one is in the area because you start getting low flying complaints in the local flying schools.

They usually have a long range tanked Cessna of some form and watching them struggle off the deck with a full fuel load, a pie munching photographer and kit and a pilot is quite amusing.

The single crew ops ones are a bit more of a concern and best stayed clear of because the lookout isn't the best when they are hanging in the air and the pilot is trying to get a photo out of the window with a boot full of rudder in to get the wing out of the way.

Although to be fair years ago we had one plane visit and the pilot came and asked if there was any place he shouldn't go and what the locals were like etc. We didn't have any complaints and the shots that I saw were some of the best I have seen. I have a sneaky suspision though that he was a one man band without an AOC so therefore illegal but was by far the most proffessional operator that had done it in the area.

[TractorBoy]

In the Netherlands this would possibly be illegal. There is a never-repealed cold-war-era Koninklijk Besluit (sort of lower level law) that says you're not even allowed to take a camera onboard of an aircraft, let alone take pictures, unless it's a scheduled airline flight.



As I don't have a 406MHz automatic ELT bolted to the aircraft I'll never ever be able to fly into the Netherlands to take photos anyway!

[A and C]

I am not sure that an AOC is required for Photography as it is Arial work rather than public transport.

The distinction being that no one is being carried for hire and reward, the photographer is considered to be part of the operating crew of the aircraft as without the photographer the flight could not be carried out ( safely ).

[mad_jock]

Depends what your doing them for A and C.

If its not for public consuption and for internal use and its not done for a profit then no you don't need it. So a flying school taking photo's for the web site is fine.

Then you get the gray areas where an estate holder wants to take basically a survey for planning purposes.

If you your going up to the sell the photographs then you do need it.

For example if a natural disaster like flooding etc happens all the press will want a photo for the front page. And you will get freelance photographers chancing there arm to get the photo to sell. They will want to do it as a trial flight because getting an AOC holder to do it will cost double to four times as much.

Which then puts you in a situation when a photo that has been taken on a TF turns ups in a commercial setting.

The only reason I have had to look into this was because we had a reseach GM farm near our school and there was a whole heap of hassle with protesters wanting to get pics of the amount of damage they had done when they had attacked it, and the press boys wanted them as well. Then we had a few floodings, and a few of the estates in the area wanting to do coverage relief checks or some such. PDG with its full AOC was right next door but it cost 6 times as much to get a squirrel to do it.

Not that they ever got arsey the couple of times pics appeared and they were obviously from the school I phoned and said sorry I didn't realise the "student" was a freelancer and nothing more was said.

[2high2fastagain]

It's a well-oiled machine around my way. They come every May. Around here, I believe someone takes the pics, then sells them to someone else, who prints them out and pops each one in a frame before ringing the doorbell. I don't like doorstep callers, but you have to admire the enterprise. I even bought a really nice one a couple of years back, which was better than any I'd managed to take.

[ShyTorque]

I refused to buy from a one man operator who came knocking on my door one evening. He argued long and hard that I really needed to buy his photo of my house. Being "in the aviation trade", as it were, and also into amateur photography, I asked him who took the photo; he said he did. I asked who flew the aircraft, he said he did that too. I asked if it had been taken on finals to the airfield less than a mile away and he said it had been.

Not surprisingly, the photo was quite blurred and didn't actually have my house in the middle of the frame.

We both knew he broke airfield rules to fly over the village (I was a flying member of the club there). He was later seen breaking Rule 5 over a large city, by a very considerable margin (he was followed and observed by the CFI, flying at very low level, right over the city centre). He was banned from hiring club aircraft because of that so he simply moved to another airfiled and carried on from there, as before. Not long afterwards he was killed in a 3 person fatal mid-air with an RAF Tornado, while orbitting in a very well known fast jet route, at low level, again over a village.

Edited for factual correction: Four people were killed, not three. Two in each aircraft.

[mad_jock]

Its not suprising if it was in Scotland.

They can't get thier costs back so it becomes a bit of an expensive exercise for them.

[Oldpilot55]

A few years back there was a guy based at Cumbernauld who came to grief taking relatively low level photos from a Cessna. Unfortunately he was taking photos whilst he was flying without a photographer. Stall and spin, he didn't have a chance.

[mad_jock]

It is and it isn't in the UK.

Quite alot of places have not so good relations with the local community and 2-3 days of some fanny low flying over homes circling can cause a major upset and also sorts of political issues.

The AoC boys quite often have a silencer fitted which looks rather weird but is rather effective.

Most places just want them to bugger off as quickly as possible then the phones will stop ringing.

They tend to arrive refuel take the photo's then go somewhere else without landing at the airport again so they can't get collared for noise complaints.

Also with the school instructors they get a bit erked that a PPL is getting free hours when they had to pay for there's.

[Sir George Cayley]

I saw a 150 with the word SURVEY under each wing. Guess they thought it made it look official.

On another note. Bladder range? :eek:

When they knocked on my door I showed them the photo I'd taken the year before. Soon lost interest.

SGC

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm reminded of a friend who had a private strip behind his house. A chap came to the door trying to sell him a photo of the house, which showed the runway quite clearly!


I've done a few photos over the years, solo and with a pax, for the satisfaction of it, at safe heights with careful briefings. If trying to make money on it, I'd want a separate toggie, continuous availability of an escape route, and very careful briefings and planning. I may yet; I can think of worse ways of spending a sunny weekend. (And I do have a CPL.)

G

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Aerial Photography is aerial work and does not require an AOC.

[wigglyamp]

Well I've bought two of these pictures of my house and I'm really pleased -and both from the cold-caller sale man at the doorstep. I thought it was classed as Aerial Work as both pilot and photographer are employed so not carrying passenger for hire and reward.

[mad_jock]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/SummaryOfCATPTAWANO2009May2010.pdf

Covers it.

Passenger
A passenger is defined in the Order as a person other than a member of the crew. Crew means members of the flight crew, cabin attendants and persons authorised to supervise training and carry out tests. It will be appreciated that observers, cameramen and other persons carried to operate particular pieces of equipment on board an aircraft will, if they do not fall within the definition of crew, be passengers. In so far as payment has been made to enable them to be carried it will be a public transport flight.

As a cessna is a single crew aircraft...

The single ops guys are ariel work but as soon as there is a photographer onboard who is being payed its public transport. The photographer is not counted as crew. Freelance photographers who hire aircraft and pilot and gain benefit from the photos also fall foul of public transport.

Companys hiring aircraft plus pilot plus photographer are in the same boat as the police operating with an observer or a helimed flight/airambulance.

An just to add another quote

This public transport definition has been interpreted literally as having a very wide scope. This is intentional. It includes the typical commercial passenger carrying flight, where a customer buys a ticket to fly from A to B on holiday or business. But it also captures a variety of other operations. For example, if an operator is paid to carry a police observer, that observer will be a passenger and it will be a public transport flight. Similarly where a power company pays for its observer to be carried to inspect power lines or where a television company pays for its camera crew to be carried it will be a public transport flight. Where an observer or camera operator is employed by the operator, it is quite likely that the customer will not be paying directly for their carriage so that it will not be public transport.

So it all depends on the set up. If the camera man is employed by the operator your fine. If anything else its public transport requiring an AOC.

[L'aviateur]

Would you circumnavigate the requirement for an AOC if you had two CPL's in a 150 for instance, one photographing and one flying?

[Pace]

Suppose you could give the pictures for free and charge a fortune for the picture frame it comes in?
Otherwise you take the picture while having a safety pilot to hold the controls while you take the Photo?
Best time midday as less shadow cast or overcast days and not to much turbulence.
Say that as someone who has taken shots for personal consumption only (frame and picture ;)

Pace

[750XL]

We've had it before, photos were taken about a week earlier from a hot air balloon

[abgd]

The other possibility these days is radio controlled aircraft with an SLR or high-end point and shoot attached. Arguably the heights at which you can legally and practically fly r/c aircraft make for better photos anyway.

The difference between doing this today, or in 1980, is that these days you can either use an onboard video transmitter to send footage to a photographer, who controls the camera whilst the pilot flies, or you can simply set the camera to take a stream of still photographs that you crop and filter after landing. It's not particularly expensive, and there's some stunning work out there. e.g. some of the work on this thread: It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood! - Page 326 - RunRyder RC Helicopter (http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t32252p326/) The limiting factor seems to be that rather few r/c mavens have any aesthetic sensibility.

I used to know someone who did this in the days before it was regulated. Personally I would have safety concerns about flying in built-up-areas, but he managed by flying at 6.00 am in the summer and taking off and landing a STOL fixed wing from roads. Ouch. But probably still safer than low-level antics over built-up areas in a full-size aircraft.

[mad_jock]

Would you circumnavigate the requirement for an AOC if you had two CPL's in a 150 for instance, one photographing and one flying?

Still a single crew aircraft so unless you are training then thats the only time you can have two crew.

I am sure you could find a way round it Pace. But if you were getting done in England they would find some other techinicallity to get you on, you would end up with several thousands of pounds of costs so you might not get a record for it but its going to sting.


I have seen the RC's at work and to be honest it looks way more difficult than wazzing around in a C150. Alot more fannying around as well.

[abgd]

Well, yes and no. Flying r/c is more challenging in terms of stick'n rudder skills and because of the possibility of disorientation, and because the pilot usually does the aircraft maintenance as well as the flying.

But it can cost a few orders of magnitude less and you don't need a CPL to be legal. Just pointing out that it's another possibility as to how the OP's suspect got their pictures.

[bingofuel]

Provided the photographer is the aircraft operator, and he employs a commercial pilot independant of the photographic operation or aircraft owner, then it is deemed aerial work and no AOC is required.

[mad_jock]

Provided the photographer is the aircraft operator,

Have you got a defintion of that?

Its not having a go at what you have posted its just that I have never found the definition.

We could never work out if a freelancer could hire the aircraft then employ one of the instructors to fly it and then go and take photo's and the photographer was deemed the operator or if the school was still deemed to be the operator and the freelance was deemed pax.

[Pace]

Mad Jock

CAA definition of operator below hmmm very vague

‘aircraft operator' means the person or entity, not being an air carrier, who has continual effective disposal of the use or operation of the aircraft; the natural or legal person in whose name the aircraft is registered shall be presumed to be the operator, unless that person can prove that another person is the operator;

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

Provided the photographer is the aircraft operator, and he employs a commercial pilot independant of the photographic operation or aircraft owner, then it is deemed aerial work and no AOC is required.

Anybody have an opinion about whether the commercial pilot is the operator, and the photographer is their collaborator or employee in some way? It seems to me to be straightforward aerial work again, but not utterly clear.

G

[mad_jock]

I wouldn't say they were G.

The case of a flying club renting the aircraft out and the photographer paying for a pilot.

The flying club still sorts all the maint out, keeps the log books and controls the usage of the aircraft. So I can't really see how you could argue that the operator changes for the period of the rental.

I believe you can makes some quite serious money if you are good at it and know how or are willing to get round the public transport issue.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah, you misunderstand me Jock. I meant that the CPL in question actually is the operator. They own and manage it.

I didn't mean that they temporarily become the operator.

G

[mad_jock]

Bigger things you have to actually tell the CAA that your the operator that why you see on G info owner and then with some aircraft its then leased to....

Nothing to stop a CPL owning an aircraft and operating it, then employing a photographer to take the pics then selling said photographs. But I would suspect that if the CPL doesn't own the copyright of said photographs it would be deemed public transport.

The daft things is even if you get told the photo's are for personal use and then you in good faith go up if they then turn out to be commercial its your fault not the photographer.

Pro photographers can be very funny individuals and some are quite mercenary when it comes to getting what they want. The only group that in my experence are more willing to lie and coerce you into doing public transport are bird spotters wanting to go and see some poor sod of a bird before it dies.

[chopd95]

Some time past took a friend with the objective of him getting a pic of his cottage in the lakes. "S**t that was a Hawk"....."There's usually two"....."there's the other".
Result - fuzzy pic of cottage, close-up of Hawk pilot, objective abandoned , 180 and chastened RTB.
ILAFFT