No power to the drone

The overflight of a remote-controlled drone over another person's property whilst taking images in real-time transmission infringes the personality rights of the property owner. The Local Court (AG) Potsdam so decided in a legal dispute between two neighbours.

The complainant was a property owner whose property was protected from view from neighbouring properties by a high hedge.

His partner, who on a summer morning had been reading a book in the garden on a sun lounger, noticed an engine noise and subsequently a flying drone which hovered just a few metres above her sun lounger. She then went out onto the street, where she met the "pilot" of the drone and further neighbours. When she asked, the drone operator confirmed that the drone was equipped with a camera.

The property owner's request that the neighbouring property owner cease overflying his property with a flying drone and taking images of the property and the persons on it remained without success. The person causing the infringement refused to issue a corresponding declaration of cessation.

Court decision on recordings with a drone

The AG Potsdam decided withjudgment of 16.04.2015 – AZ 37 C 454/13in favour of the property owner. The drone flight whilst taking images in real-time transmission constituted an infringement of the personality rights of the property owner. The infringement was also not justified. The freedom of action of the drone enthusiast to let his drone fly about as a hobby had to give way to the protected private sphere of third parties, especially since there were plenty of areas and spaces in which he could pursue his hobby without disturbing third parties.taking images

The court did not see an exception to this in the application of the Air Traffic Act. Drones, unlike the aircraft mentioned in the law, were equipped with cameras. However, if a property is visibly shielded against outside views, the freedom of action with regard to the pursuit of such a hobby had to give way to the private sphere.

This was not about a flight ban or the prohibition of a childlike-innocent leisure activity such as flying a kite or operating a model aircraft by remote control, but rather about the cessation of ainfringement of personality rightsthrough spying with a camera-equipped drone.

Conclusion

Flying drones are currently enjoying great popularity not only because of their flight characteristics. The camera function in particular is not insignificant. When pursuing one's hobby, care should be taken as to where one flies the drone. In particular, the private sphere of others must be respected. In the event of an infringement of the private sphere and thus of general personality rights – as in the present case – claims for cessation can be asserted.