Woman snapped sunbaking by real estate drone


In one hot off the press...

A BOARD showing a G-string-clad woman has been removed after she became the accidental attraction in a real estate advertising campaign for a house sale in Victoria, Australia.

An ambitious agent enlisted a drone to take an aerial photograph of the property, which includes a sweeping image of the beach.

“I heard a noise and then I saw this odd thing flying around and thought it was a kid’s toy. It hovered around and luckily I was face down at the time,” Ms Lingard said.

But Steve Walsh of Eview real estate defended the use of drones for aerial photography and says he did not realise Ms Lingard had ended up on the sale board.

“It’s something that Google does and people use that everyday,” Mr Walsh said.

More here:

Mod notes: Privacy concerns aside, this touches on the use of drones by uncertified operators and flouting the regulations that genuine operators must abide by.  In all the reporting on the incident, none of the media has focused on this.  Also, this follows on from a recent television program that flouted the rules and let one of the presenters fly in an area where it shouldn't have happened.  CASA are investigating this as well, with one could only imagine, some serious repercussions for the operator.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • @David

    First of all she clearly posed for the sign, so its not the medias fault, its hers. WIthout her cooperation they wouldnt have the story.

  • Moderator

    Well yes, that's just the media for you...  I don't agree with the way the media have portrayed it, but it's best to just let that slip and focus on what matters to us.  This isn't

  • If she wants privacy why is she showing her face in front of a sign with her address ? She has now published to the world she likes to sunbake in a g-string, i cant help but wonder if that might attract others to have a look.

  • Moderator

    I don't think that point was missed.  In subsequent media, the real estate agent went to the woman's house and apologised.  He just said it was a mistake that the picture was included.  The point the media was playing up on was the privacy concern.  The follow up comments from the media (and general public) were around, why aren't these things regulated.  That's my point.  They are regulated.  But you have situations like this that damage the reputation of the industry.  Australia was the first country to introduce UAV regulations back in 2002.  It's been known for a while that you must do the right thing.  Surely we're not saying that it's ok to operate commercially without a licence or without the safety checks performed by CASA? Would you want unlicensed drivers on the road?

    The other point on privacy should probably be stated for the record.  CASA make a point of highlighting privacy matters (in their limited way without stepping on another departments toes).  From the CASA website:

    Privacy concerns and CASA's role

    One thing you will not find in the list of advisory circular topics is the effect of RPA on privacy. Privacy and RPA is a real issue, but as the aviation safety regulator, CASA's task is restricted to aviation safety.

    However, CASA recommends if you are applying for an unmanned operators certificate (UOC), that you make yourself familiar with privacy matters and how this affects your use of an RPA. The UOC application process includes a reading list about privacy matters.

    The principal area of the Australian Government concerned with privacy is the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner:

  • I think the point missed here is that the capture of this person on film was incidental not intentional.

    Also, whether the crew were registered or not, the fact is, they fulfilled their brief. Did they do it safely? Yes, probably - regardless of whether they have the bit of paper or not. You can't tell from one photo obviously, but they're hardly in the clouds, or over crowded public areas.

    The cock up happened when everybody in the studio failed to notice or just didn't care about the person lying in their own backyard. They could have shot this with a professional helicopter crew, and the cock up would still have happened.

  • Moderator

    It is certainly unfortunate that the first few comments and subsequent comments were made on her appearance.  Which has actually nothing to do with the problem.  In Australia, there is still a sense of my backyard is safe and I should be able to do what I feel like.  I do support that.  What makes me irate is when you get 'cowboys' that operate commercially when they have no right to do so.  CASA are actually quite nice to deal with.  They support the UAV community so when idiots like this come around, it's not a good thing.

    There are five rules to operate a UAV in Australia:

    1. Cannot fly above 120 metres (400 feet) above ground level.
    2. Must be flown in line of sight of the operator in daylight.
    3. Cannot be flown within 30 metres of people not involved in the operation of the UAV, or within 30 metres of any vehicle, boats or buildings.
    4. Cannot fly over an populous area such as beaches and populated parks.
    5. Cannot fly within 5.5 km of an airfield or within controlled airspace.

    These estate agents clearly breached at least two of the rules.  Let alone the fact that they weren't actually registered. 

    In my view, slam the real estate agents "eview", not the woman in the picture.

  • I'm with Rob.  Lay off this girl's appearance.  That's not part of this conversation.  If someone is smoking hot, then that would give them no more and no less right to privacy than this woman has.  Keep the circle-jerking on 4chan.

  • This would have never happened with helicopter/airplane photography..... We really are on a precipice of personal privacy. Either as a whole we will agree everyone does things like this and there is no reason to be ashamed, or we will lock everything down and continue to pretend we have personal privacy.

  • Also quadcopter, real helicopter or airplane. On the day it was taken would have been the same result. It's being fussed about because it was a quad. Sorry her 15 minutes of fame is a half hour too late. She just looked at it and thought ou thats me.

  • Her inclusion in the poster is obviousely unintentional. Removing the poster wasn't required, just a cover up grass sticker would be enough. The cameras mostly use cant do anything else but take wide angle images unless its 10 feet from anything. 

This reply was deleted.