Service page: Invasion of privacy and harm to reputation: defamation and reputation lawyer.
What to do now
- Document it. Photograph the drone (color, identifying marks), write down the date and time, and note what it filmed: a yard, a window, a garden. Anyone who saw it can testify.
- Try to identify the operator. A neighbor, a contractor or a company. Keep every message or conversation with them.
- Ask in writing for the filming to stop and the footage to be deleted. A short message, with dates. An outline: warning letter before legal action. (The civil wrong and the compensation: sections 4 and 29A of the Protection of Privacy Law)
- If it continues, or the footage was published: a civil claim for compensation and an injunction. If the invasion was deliberate, a police complaint as well. (section 5)
Were you filmed, or was a photo or video of you published without consent? I also handle privacy cases of private individuals. Examples are a neighbor’s drone or camera aimed at your yard or window, and a photo or video uploaded to the internet. Together we will check what was filmed and what was published. Then we will see what you can demand: that the filming stop, that the publication be removed, or compensation. Privacy and defamation: the service page
Someone flew a drone with a camera at you: is that legal?
A neighbor flies a drone over your garden. Another neighbor films your roof. An insurance company sends a drone to document damage to a property without asking. In each of these cases the same question comes up: may someone film me on my own private property without my consent?
As a rule, no. The Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 does not distinguish between means of filming, and a drone is included. Photographing a person in a private domain without their consent is an invasion of privacy (section 2(3)). This is so even if the person filming is outside the boundaries of the property.
What exactly does the Protection of Privacy Law say?
The Protection of Privacy Law defines invasion of privacy as a civil wrong and also as a criminal offense. The criminal offense requires a deliberate invasion (section 5). Section 2 lists the ways privacy can be invaded. They include spying on or trailing a person in a way that is likely to harass them (2(1)), and eavesdropping that is prohibited by law (2(2)). They also include photographing a person while they are in a private domain (2(3)).
In such a claim it is important to show three things:
- The filming itself: the drone actually filmed.
- A private space: the filming was of a place where privacy can reasonably be expected (a yard, a garden, a room through a window).
- A real invasion: not just a flight over the property; there is no cause of action for an invasion that is trivial (section 6).
As a rule, a private garden that cannot be seen from the street is a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
What may be filmed, and what not?
Usually allowed: filming buildings, landscape and streets from the air, if it is not meant to film specific people on their private property. Real estate photographers, surveying companies and government authorities usually work with permits.
Not allowed: filming people in their yard, in their garden or through a window, without their consent. Commercial use of such footage (advertising, sale) also adds a separate invasion of privacy. That is use of a person’s image for profit (section 2(6) of the Protection of Privacy Law).
Even legitimate “business” uses (inspecting a roof, documenting damage) can raise the issue. If the drone films neighbors or other properties on its way, this may be a violation.
Do you operate a drone or cameras as part of a business? The digital commerce and artificial intelligence page explains the duties of businesses under the Protection of Privacy Law.
Is a drone filming your yard, your garden or your window?In a first call I will find out what was filmed, when and how many times, and what you have already documented. I will check whether there is a legal issue here and how you can proceed: with a warning letter to the drone’s owner and, if needed, with a civil claim. I will get back to you within one business day.
Calls and replies in English or Hebrew
What happens after you write to me
- You write what happened and with whom. No documents.
- I get back to you within one business day for a short call of a few minutes.
- If it is a matter I handle: after the call you will receive, in writing, what will be done and what the next step is. Work starts only after you approve.
At the end of the call you will know one of three things: it is a matter I handle, and what the next step is; you can manage without a lawyer, and which guide fits; or it is outside my field, and where to turn.
What the case law shows in such cases
- What was filmed, not only the fact that it was filmed. In the judgment on the neighbors’ camera, the court distinguished between the private property and the sidewalk next to the entrance. Most of the claim was dismissed, and what remained was an order to change the camera’s angle.
- Filming in the street is allowed as a rule. Publication becomes an invasion when it is likely to humiliate, for example with a mocking caption (section 2(4) of the Protection of Privacy Law).
- An exaggerated amount works against the plaintiff. In the camera case, the court noted that because of the exaggerated amount, there would have been grounds to order the plaintiffs to pay costs.
- A written request is also evidence that the operator knew they were being asked to stop.
CC 49012-07-20 Langer et al. v. Pasternak et al.
Tel Aviv-Yafo Magistrates’ Court, 13 March 2022Neighbors claimed that a camera in the house next door was recording their home, their yard and the entrance to it. They sued for orders and compensation of NIS 270,000. The court appointed an expert who examined the camera. Most of the claim was dismissed. The defendants were ordered to change the camera’s angle so that it would not record the sidewalk next to the entrance. There was no compensation, and each side bore its own costs. The text of the judgment (gov.il, PDF, in Hebrew)
Expedited civil case (תאד״מ) 31460-12-24 Rozner v. Hershko
Haifa Magistrates’ Court, 8 June 2026An argument at the entrance to a residential building was filmed on a phone and uploaded to TikTok with the caption “a bitter man”. The filming took place at the front of the building, in a public place, so the filming itself was not considered an invasion of privacy. The court treated the publication on TikTok as an invasion under section 2(4) of the Protection of Privacy Law. That section covers “publication of a person’s photograph in public under circumstances in which the publication is likely to humiliate them”. The defenses in section 18 were rejected: there was no public interest in the publication (section 18(3)), and it was not proportionate (section 18(2)(c)). NIS 10,000 was awarded without proof of damage. The text of the judgment (law.co.il, PDF, in Hebrew)
These are judgments that were published to the public. They are not drone cases, but the same rules of the Protection of Privacy Law apply to filming from the air. See also the Privacy Protection Authority’s recommendations on drones (29 March 2020, PDF, in Hebrew).
Is this relevant to you?
Three short questions. Your answers stay with you, and are sent only if you send them yourself.
What remedies can you get?
Someone who invaded your privacy may be exposed to:
- Monetary compensation: in a claim for a civil wrong under section 4, you can ask for compensation of up to NIS 50,000 without proof of damage. This is under section 29A(b)(1); the amount is updated according to the index.
- An injunction: to prevent any future filming.
- Deletion of the footage: the court may order the destruction of information obtained unlawfully, or prohibit its use (section 29(a)(4)).
- Criminal proceedings: a complaint to the police, when the invasion was deliberate (section 5).
It is important to understand the difference. A single, chance flight may be considered a trivial invasion (section 6). But a drone that comes back over the property again and again may be considered “spying or trailing” that is likely to harass (section 2(1)). This justifies considering an injunction as well.
What about the aviation and licensing laws?
Beyond privacy law, drones in Israel are subject to Ministry of Transport regulations. These include limits on flight altitude, a ban on flying near airports and security zones, and the pilot’s responsibility to maintain safety. Breaching these regulations is a separate offense that can be reported to the Civil Aviation Authority.
Sources
Show the sources (1)
The links lead to the original legislation (in Hebrew). The binding text is the one published in Sefer HaHukim (the official gazette of statutes).
Has something similar happened to you?You can write to me what happened and with whom, without documents.
Calls and replies in English or Hebrew
Checklist
- Practical tip: in privacy claims against drone operators, a well-organized warning letter is a common first step. It makes clear to the drone’s owner their exposure under sections 4 and 29A, and sometimes saves proceedings.
- Common mistake: going straight to the police before trying to identify the owner yourself. Early identification saves time and lets you act on the civil track, which is faster.
- Tactical point: in a claim over commercial use of footage (advertising, marketing), consider also claiming an invasion under section 2(6). That is use of an image for profit, as a separate cause of action. And if it is proved that the invasion was committed with intent to harm, the ceiling for compensation without proof of damage is doubled (section 29A(b)(2)).