Except for the military.
Here: Swedish Supreme Administrative Court just killed drown market.
It's getting ugly.
Here: Swedish Supreme Administrative Court just killed drown market.
It's getting ugly.
Sweden court bans all drones with cameras.
- Thread starter GMack
- Start date
That's horrible! That's how you control and take your people's rights.
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
captainmilehigh
Premium Pilot
Wow, that's incredible. Hopefully an appeal to this ruling can be agreed upon by all involved. Got to be a simple solution. Don't give up in Sweden guys. Lobby for a compromise or an understanding. I wish you luck!
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
This is the google translation from Swedish.
Still hard to understand.
The organization of camera on a drone but not for the camera in a car
[2016-10-21] The Supreme Administrative Court
The Supreme Administrative Court has in two judgments found that a camera mounted on a drone requires a permit under camera surveillance law while a camera mounted behind the windscreen of a car or on a bicycle handlebar does not need permission.
-Camera provided a camera which is mounted so that it can be used for personal monitoring. But it also required that it not be operated on the site where it is posted.
If such a camera can be directed at a place to which the public has access must be the provincial government give their permission.
The camera on the drone will be used to take photos of buildings and environments from the air. The camera in the car, and the bicycle will be used to take images during travel inter alia Social Media.
The cameras will not only momentarily without periodic placed in a car, a bicycle or a drone. The Court therefore found that they are set in the legal sense.
The camera in the car and the bike will then be attached to the inside of the windshield or on the bike mount. It is therefore senior in the driver's immediate vicinity and operated by him on the spot. It is therefore not a surveillance camera.
However, when it comes to the camera on the drone, the photograph from the air but managed from the ground. The Court held that it can not be controlled locally. The Court further found that the camera can be used for personal monitoring, although it is not the purpose. The camera is therefore to be regarded as a surveillance camera. Since the camera is additionally directed to a place to which the public has access, the permits.
The target was the camera that should be attached to the drone was sent back to the Administrative Court for consideration of the issue of the permit is granted. The second objective is completely finished.
Still hard to understand.
The organization of camera on a drone but not for the camera in a car
[2016-10-21] The Supreme Administrative Court
The Supreme Administrative Court has in two judgments found that a camera mounted on a drone requires a permit under camera surveillance law while a camera mounted behind the windscreen of a car or on a bicycle handlebar does not need permission.
-Camera provided a camera which is mounted so that it can be used for personal monitoring. But it also required that it not be operated on the site where it is posted.
If such a camera can be directed at a place to which the public has access must be the provincial government give their permission.
The camera on the drone will be used to take photos of buildings and environments from the air. The camera in the car, and the bicycle will be used to take images during travel inter alia Social Media.
The cameras will not only momentarily without periodic placed in a car, a bicycle or a drone. The Court therefore found that they are set in the legal sense.
The camera in the car and the bike will then be attached to the inside of the windshield or on the bike mount. It is therefore senior in the driver's immediate vicinity and operated by him on the spot. It is therefore not a surveillance camera.
However, when it comes to the camera on the drone, the photograph from the air but managed from the ground. The Court held that it can not be controlled locally. The Court further found that the camera can be used for personal monitoring, although it is not the purpose. The camera is therefore to be regarded as a surveillance camera. Since the camera is additionally directed to a place to which the public has access, the permits.
The target was the camera that should be attached to the drone was sent back to the Administrative Court for consideration of the issue of the permit is granted. The second objective is completely finished.
captainmilehigh
Premium Pilot
Yeah, I read through the translation also in the OP's DJI Forums' post. Correct, the translation is a bit vague. Many contradictions leave loopholes for different interpretations. I wonder what their rules are on GoPros on moving objects? Being "controlled locally" doesn't apply to them at all unless within reach of the operator. (Correct me if I'm wrong). They are either off or on, whereas a drone camera IS controlled by the operator, i.e. panning, changing different camera & video settings in flight, etc.
May be worth watching the outcome of this fiasco.
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
May be worth watching the outcome of this fiasco.
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
They have determined that drones with cameras are the same as a surveillance camera and therefore need a permit to operate.
The Supreme Administrative Court has in two judgments found that a camera mounted on a drone requires a permit under camera surveillance law while a camera mounted behind the windscreen of a car or on a bicycle handlebar does not need permission.
You will need to translate the page...
Tillstånd krävs för kamera på en drönare men inte för kamera i en bil - Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen
The Supreme Administrative Court has in two judgments found that a camera mounted on a drone requires a permit under camera surveillance law while a camera mounted behind the windscreen of a car or on a bicycle handlebar does not need permission.
You will need to translate the page...
Tillstånd krävs för kamera på en drönare men inte för kamera i en bil - Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
One of the documents included in the post originally referred to was a judgement on mounting a Gopro on bicycle handlebars.
This had been determined to be illegal and a surveillance camera but after a lot of legal wrangling this was overturned on appeal.
Unfortunately a similar appeal on the camera drone issue was upheld.
captainmilehigh
Premium Pilot
Thanks. I must have read right by that fact. The translation had my brain in a fog.
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
N017RW
Premium Pilot
They will not issue permits for ordinary people, just for the military and police. Flying is ok, filming is not.
I´m from Sweden and if you think the translation is hard to understand we swedes don´t understand the text either. Dash cameras has been banned for years, but now with this it´s ok to have.
Does anyone have a 100 feet selfiestick to sell.
what I read out is the ban is for public places, does this include untouched nature?
If yes did outdoor working scientist/biologists already raise their voices?
If yes did outdoor working scientist/biologists already raise their voices?
This ban is for everything outside your own lawn. So no untouched nature or no agricultural work. This happened friday afternoon and I expect a lot of persons to raise their voices tomorrow on monday. It´s just crazy.It´s ok to take pictures from a mountain, but not fly and film near it.
I really feel very sorry for you guys living in Sweden and I do hope the raised voices will be very, very loud and can be heard clearly in every political corner... good luck !
But I don´t think anyone will care if you fly and film above untouched nature if you don´t publish the footage or crash into someone’s property.
It´s mostly hurting those who have it as a daytime job. The realtors’ presentations will be much less interesting.
It´s mostly hurting those who have it as a daytime job. The realtors’ presentations will be much less interesting.
I've been aware of the relative socialism of the Scandinavian countries, but I find this ban to be pretty shocking. Is there any other country in the world that has such a totalitarian approach to photography?
I am increasingly distressed at the slow creep of the US government into our daily freedoms, but Sweden's approach as illustrated by this court decision is indeed distressing, and, I hope, not precedent-setting.
I am increasingly distressed at the slow creep of the US government into our daily freedoms, but Sweden's approach as illustrated by this court decision is indeed distressing, and, I hope, not precedent-setting.
I assume all readers here will finally agree with you.
Let's indeed hope this will not be the case for other countries , and for Sweden the last words are not yet spoken
Similar threads
P2V+ Firmware
Phantom 2 big brick?
