Swedish Supreme Administrative Court ruled today that it is illegal to fly drowns with camera attached. This means no flying for anyone exept the military.
People having drones when they work or similar wont have any jobbs on monday. Reciational flyers like my self is robbed from a hobby.
The cameras are considered to be surveilance cameras and thus illegal in Sweden without a specific warrant.
The big question in Sweden is how they will enforce this law. And it will be appealed, though successful appeal is uncertain and it will take some time.
I read nothing stating that drones with cameras in stores can no longer be sold. Probably more on that next week.
It is OK to fly a multi rotor or any other RC aircraft, but not one with a controllable camera onboard.
It is not a perfect translation but you can get the idea of the new ruling and some feedback from Swedish editors...
The first document shows the legal wrangling over whether it is legal to mount a gopro on your bicycle handlebars.
It&apos;s a huge surprise to find the Sweden is so backward in this respect when they otherwise seem to be a very progressive society.
AA applied to the provincial government for permission to conduct surveillance with a camera that could be mounted on a drone, ie an unmanned aircraft. The camera would be used for still photography in his individual firm whose business was on behalf of customers to document buildings and areas from the air. Via video link, he could see what the camera saw and control it from the ground with radio transmitters. His customers wanted that there would not be with the people in the pictures.
County Board found that the camera was a permit and dismissed the application on the grounds that the need for surveillance is not outweighed this privacy interest.
AA appealed to the administrative court, which annulled it. The Administrative Court held that the camera was not a surveillance camera in the legal sense. The court found that the camera was not set up and that it could be controlled locally.
Data Inspection Board appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal, which held that the camera was a surveillance camera that required permits. Appeal found that the camera&apos;s permanent location on the drone meant that it had considered ranking the law. The camera was considered also to be managed from a location other than where it was located and could therefore not be considered to be operated at the site. Based on the specified camera use would in many cases be directed to places where the public has access. The camera therefore fulfilled all the conditions for a permit surveillance camera. Administrative up-lifted the Administrative Court&apos;s ruling and sent the case back to the Administrative Court for further consideration of the issue of permission for surveillance.
The camera is attached to the drone with a rubber band and picked off between flights. It is therefore not permanently posted. The camera is operated continuously at the site, he takes the example each photograph. He has permission from the Transport Agency to fly the drone. The condition means eg a maximum altitude of 120 meters and that the drone all the time to be easily visible without optical aid, which means that the maximum distance between the drone and the operator is about 150 meters. Flight time amounts to 6-10 minutes. The purpose is not to monitor people. The camera can not be used for personal monitoring. Transport Agency has prescribed the minimum safety distance between the drone and persons is 50 meters. The camera has a pixel density that does not allow the people identified at that distance. In any case, the camera is exempted from licensing under § 10 first paragraph 1 camera surveillance law.
These are recurring shooting in professional activities that would be conducted over time. The camera is set up in the legal sense. A camera equipped drones are separated from the maneuvering equipment and can not be equated with a handheld camera.
The purpose of surveillance teams are under § 1 that meet the need of video surveillance for legitimate purposes while individuals are protected from undue intrusion into personal privacy.
In § 2 provides that the surveillance referred to television cameras, other optical-electronic instruments and similar devices that are set so that, without being controlled locally, can be used for personal monitoring.
According to § 8 required permission for video surveillance to a surveillance camera should have to be set up so that it can be targeted at a place to which the public has access.
In § 10 first paragraph 1 provides for the exemption from the permit requirement when monitoring related to traffic safety or the working environment.
A camera is a surveillance camera if it is set so that, without being controlled locally, can be used for personal monitoring. This definition has been essentially unchanged since the provisions on surveillance cameras were introduced in 1977.
A surveillance camera is usually more permanently attached to eg a wall or a pole to monitor a specific geographical area. The provision does not aim only at those fixed devices (cf. Prop. 1975/76: 194 p. 21). Even a camera attached to a moving object, according to the Supreme Administrative Court&apos;s opinion, be as camera Act. A camera as completely temporarily assembled in this manner can hardly be considered as ranking. It should be required that the placement has a specific duration for the camera to be covered by the scope of the Act (see Prop. 2012/13: 115 p. 26).
A camera mounted on a drone can thus be set up and this applies even if it is mounted away after each flight. Of the AA data shows that, the camera recurring will be attached to the drone. The camera must therefore be regarded as ranking in the legal sense.
The next question is then whether the camera can be used "without controlled locally". This refers to the ongoing managed from a place that is clearly separate from that camera is set up. This means that the law does not apply to hand-held cameras (cf. Prop. 1975/76: 194 p. 21 and Prop. 2012/13: 115 p. 26).
The camera on the drone will photograph from the air but can be controlled and otherwise handled from the ground. The management will therefore be from a place that is clearly separate from that camera is set up. It is operated thus not at the scene.
Finally, it must be determined whether the camera is mounted so that it "can be used for personal monitoring." In this assessment, it is immaterial what is the purpose of use, and if the camera is actually used for the supervision; the key is whether it can be used for such monitoring. With personal supervision means that the camera allows the identification of individuals (Prop. 2012/13: 115 p. 27).
AA argues that because of the Transport Agency&apos;s regulations is required to keep a safe distance of at least 50 meters between the drone and the nearest person and that the camera does not allow individuals to be identified at that distance. As mentioned, it is not how the camera actually used as it is crucial. Because the camera is mounted on a moving object, and thus not continuously positioned in such a location that the person identification is made impossible, can be used for personal monitoring.
The camera will be directed to places where the public has access. It is thus permit according to § 8 camera surveillance law. Exception regulation in § 10 first paragraph 1 shall not apply.
The Supreme Administrative Court therefore finds, like the appeal, that the case should be remitted to the Administrative Court for further consideration of the issue of permission for surveillance. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.
Sweden today isn&apos;t was it was 20 years ago, I think the reputation Sweden has if from that era.
It&apos;s okey to film and take phone from lets say a hill or a TV-mast or similar but not from drones. It&apos;s also okey to mount a dashcam in your car that can film solid for hours. But they think that drones counts as a fixed installation even though drones have a flight time from 10-25 min. With a bike mounted with a GoPro I can follow people for hours and they wouldn&apos;t even see my GoPro Session.
Also if you go upp in a hot air balloon it&apos;s legal since you are holding the camera in your hand.
This ruling make no sense, the people on the court must have been drunk or something. No reference to real life.
What a crazy situation , what about paparazzi hiding up trees, selfie sticks etc, unbelievable, I go to Sweden 3/4 times a year, never brought my P4 just to awkward, so I&apos;ve recently purchase a Mavic thinking I would be able to bring it with me on my trips, well that&apos;s no good now, next thing they will all be dying there hair black..
I am not surprised to hear about such a ruling given Sweden&apos;s 100% top-down society controlling every aspect of each citizen&apos;s life where individual freedom is curbed to the extreme. Unfortunately we are seeing such trends throughout the western civilizations. I seriously wonder how much further and longer this can and will be tolerated by the public.
Thanks for supplying the translation. That really is a shame, hopefully this can be rectified in the future.
I do not read Swedish so I have tried to follow the decision text as translated. I have been promoting the use of drones by the news media for journaliism (aka "dronalism") and newsgathering.
My question is: has the Court taken into account that its conclusion cannot be absolute and that at the very least might end up being challenged by news/media organisations as an infringement of their (non absolute) right to use drones for dronalism, which I would contend comes under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights?
Well this is very short sighted and ill conceived. I presume this would effectively ban drone racing as well?
I cannot believe the way governments are clamping down on drone use, everyone seems fixated on only the negatives and yet drone tech has got so much potential to do good. Except these idiots in authority seem hell bent on imposing all sorts of draconian rules and completely discouraging people to take an interest and seeing for themselves that drones are simply NOT &apos;death-from-above&apos;!!
Well this is very short sighted and ill conceived. I presume this would effectively ban drone racin ...
Drone racing is also included, as soon as a camera is mounted even if its not turned on its illegal.
I do not read Swedish so I have tried to follow the decision text as translated. I have been promoti ...
I think this law precedes the EU laws. No one is allowed to uses camera on drones no matter if they use it for rescuing people (missing person), journalism, and so on. Only thing that deviates is if you want to have a survaillance camera against crimes, then you can apply for it. The cost is 370 Euro or something, it also is just for a specific place so I don&apos;t think it will apply for drones.
That means EU citizens will be able to fly legally in Sweden. Talk a about pissing on our on people.
When&apos;s your next election? Go see the opposition and get him out with you, he&apos;ll take note and definitely remember(unless he&apos;s a lefty too!). Makes me sick how dictatorial Europe has become.
The correct interpretation is that If you have a registered company i.e. outside Sweden you can legally fly in Sweden if you have an "assignment" here. So that is really horrible for the persons/companies that have invested money and now are grounded cause of this. This is based on that the laws are based on the law you have in your "home" country.
That&apos;s not how I interpretate the law, you are right that it says that if the company/person conducts surveillance in Sweden/Third Country(outside EU) need are forbidden to use drones without clearance. What I know they don&apos;t state anything about EU persons at all therefore the law doesn&apos;t apply and they use there countrys law. So that would mean no matter if you are a EU citizen or company you are fine to use your drone in Sweden.
When&apos;s your next election? Go see the opposition and get him out with you, he&apos;ll take note and defin ...
This is a Swedish court ruling, nothing to do with any other country. It is possible that this is just a natural evolution of the surveillance laws in Sweden. And given time hopefully it will evolve into something better than they have at present.
I would think if you are within a country then you would be bound by their rules, regulations & laws.
That&apos;s not how I interpretate the law, you are right that it says that if the company/person condu ...
Except for the SVT staff, Swedish Public Service news broadcasting company which claims that "Freedom of speech" is valid here and they are willing to take it to court if necessary. They have been showing materiel during the weekend filmed by a drone.
Dash cams are illegal in Austria and I believe Spain or Switzerland for the same reason as remote aircrafts with cameras are illegal in Svenka.
But the Swedish government did a vote the 20 of June, where they ruled that drones would not be restricted. So its back to flying in Sweden from 1 August, but in march next year there will be a new ruling that is set by the EU that probably will overrule this one.