Peter Lee, an attorney specializing in commercial and technology law with Taylor Vinters LLP, is one of Europe?s leading legal experts on drones. Lee took some time with Robotics Business Review’s Emmet Cole this week to talk about the recent ban on commercial drones in Spain, as well as drone law in Europe and the U.S., and why technology such as drones might force a global reexamination of privacy laws.

RBR: What is your reaction to the ban on commercial drones in Spain?

Lee: On the face of it this ban [Spain] seems disappointingly heavy handed and quite confusing. Despite the legal and regulatory restrictions, some of the world?s most innovative organizations are using drone technology successfully. Google?s acquisition of high altitude drone manufacturing company Titan Aerospace for an undisclosed sum has only fueled business and investor appetite in this sector.

Spain enjoys near perfect weather conditions for flying drones and should really be positioning itself to benefit from an industry that is forecast to experience huge growth ? particularly because in general the nation is badly suffering economically.

Confusingly, it seems to me as though this hype is probably no more than an affirmation of the current legal position in Spain. The country has been slow to implement any regulations at all for commercial drone use; indeed, according to the Spanish aviation authority Spain has ?never permitted the use of aircraft piloted remotely for commercial or business purposes for activities considered to be aerial work?.

Spain?s lackadaisical approach to introducing new regulations in this area has allowed a boom of so called ?pirate flyers? in recent months ? these are drone operators pushing (or flagrantly ignoring) the boundaries of safety and professional acceptability.

These drone operators? antics, often posted online, have attracted concerned interest internationally especially on social media sites.

I believe this has led Spain?s aviation authority to make this statement, effectively seeking to stop the rogue activity and at the same time taking the opportunity to explicitly state that using drones commercially in Spain without permission is both illegal and subject to various sanctions.

However, there are rumors that in June [2014] Spain could issue its first set of UAV regulations for its airspace. I hope that for serious professional drone operators and related businesses the ?ban? will hopefully be short lived.

RBR: Different countries seem to be at different stages when it comes to regulating drones. In your view, which countries are leading the way and which are lagging behind?

Lee: There are a few countries where regulations for commercial drone use are now in place. These are: UK, Australia, Canada, Czech Rep., France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands and Sweden.

Regulations for drones are in preparation the following countries: USA, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Russian Fed., South Africa, Spain and Turkey. Also Argentina, Chile, Denmark, Hong Kong, Latvia, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland and U.A.E. have been granting (experimental) flight authorizations.

In my view Sweden, France and the UK are at the cutting edge of this field. The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is a good example – it differentiates and strikes a pragmatic balance between model aircraft hobbyists who have been flying safely for years and professional drone operators who conduct ?aerial work?.

All non-military aircraft registered in the UK must generally have a certificate of airworthiness or a permit to fly issued by the CAA. Although there are special conditions for small drones (under 44lbs (20kg), in order to use them for ?aerial work purposes? CAA permission and minimum levels of third-party accident insurance is required as well as compliance with certain safety constraints.

Generally, the rules prohibit unmanned aircraft from flying in congested areas, close to people or property, for aerial work purposes or beyond visual line of sight. For certain tasks qualified operators may obtain special dispensation from the CAA to operate within the standard flight restrictions.

The CAA has been actively engaged with the unmanned system community for a number of years. This approach has led to a safe, reasonably flexible and evolving regulatory framework which continues to develop as the technology improves and makes more sophisticated automation and beyond line of sight sorties possible.

Many other countries in the world are either not engaging with the drone industry or are approaching the process from a rigid bureaucratic and dictatorial position.

RBR: Beyond individual country regulations, isn’t the EU developing regulations governing the use of drones? How does that fit together with national regulations and when are the EU regulations expected to be released (and what are they expected to allow/prohibit)?

Lee: Pan European coordination for drone regulation is fragmented. Basic national safety rules apply, but the rules differ across the EU and a number of key safeguards are not addressed in a coherent way. Currently in Europe drones under 330lbs (150 kg) in weight come under the regulation of the relevant national aviation authority.

Above that weight European regulations apply. A more complex matrix of laws governs flights between and across different states which include the Chicago Convention provisions and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules.

There are many efforts to move a coordinated European approach forward; for instance there is now a Remotely Piloted Air Systems (RPAS) Roadmap that proposes a series of actions to be taken for achieving drone integration into the European air system from 2016.

In a press release, the European Commission proposed to set tough new standards to regulate the operations of civil/commercial drones. The new standards will cover safety, security, privacy, data protection, insurance and liability. The aim is to allow European industry to become a global leader in the market for this emerging technology, while at the same time ensuring that all the necessary safeguards are in place.

Vice-President Siim Kallas, Commissioner for mobility and transport, said: “Civil drones can check for damage on road and rail bridges, monitor natural disasters such as flooding and spray crops with pinpoint accuracy. They [drones] come in all shapes and sizes. In the future they may even deliver books from your favorite online retailer. But many people, including myself, have concerns about the safety, security and privacy issues relating to these devices.”

Is enough being done to regulate commercial drones use? Or do you see problems coming down the line (and if so, what sort of problems)?

I think the most successful approach to regulating commercial drone use will be by incremental steps rather than a ?big bang?. The US announced its plans for civil drone integration with fanfare and with a tight deadline; this seems to have caught the public imagination and has been fueled by social media excitement.

In contrast, the UK and some European countries began the incremental integration of drones several years ago. There is no doubt that a more coordinated global approach would be beneficial.

I also think that the ability to get hold of drones may need to be controlled in some way. It is possible to buy a drone online for a few hundred pounds and the risk for the industry is that the actions of a few reckless or untrained individuals could ruin it for the many professional drone-based businesses out there.

RBR: In your view is Europe better placed than the U.S. to get the regulatory situation sorted out first?

Lee: I am not sure how this will play out. Both Europe and the US can be considered somewhat unwieldy legislators ? Europe must juggle the law makers in its member states and the US its different state legislators.

I think both will develop their laws in a piecemeal fashion in response to political, media, and business interest as well as the inevitable accidents. I also suspect the regulatory landscape for drones in the US will be shaped heavily by industry lobbyists and privacy protection activists.

RBR: Do you have any other comment on any of the topics raised?

Lee: It?s important to note that there are a huge number of applications for the technology ? including in precision agriculture and offshore work ? so it may not be appropriate to have a blanket set of legislation in the future.

Also, like with many technologies, the law touches drones in many different ways. This includes privacy, airspace regulation, negligence and intellectual property matters. It is no more fragmented than, say, the law of the internet or telephones. I have a feeling that, along with other disruptive technologies like Google Glass, drones could be a catalyst for an update of privacy laws around the world.

Privacy violations and the effect of drone use on a citizen?s right to ?respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence? will be an interesting area over the next few years.

The Stanford Law Review has suggested that ?[UAV] may help restore our mental model of a privacy violation. They [drones] could be just the visceral jolt society needs to drag privacy law into the twenty first century?.

I think there are likely to be fascinating legal challenges against drone use by saboteurs or rioters and from human rights and privacy pressure groups.