In cases involving drone candid photography, if you try to defend on the grounds of “exploring new media art”, you need to combine the balance of freedom of artistic expression, technical characteristics and privacy rights within the legal framework to make an argument. The following are possible defense ideas and precautions： --- ### **1. Legal basis and Freedom of artistic expression** -**Constitutional or legal basis**: Citing the provisions on artistic freedom and freedom of expression in national/regional laws (such as the First Amendment ment of the U.S. Constitution, the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, etc.), emphasizing that artistic creation is a protected form of cultural expression. - **Case reference**: Citing precedents where similar artistic creations are recognized as legal expressions (such as photography in public places and street art cases), it shows that drones as emerging creative tools should enjoy the same protection. --- ### **2. Proof of artistic intent** -**Purpose of creation**: To provide background evidence of the defendant as an artist (such as past works, exhibition records, and creative plans) to prove that drone shooting is part of a systematic art project. -**Attributes of the work**: The content of the display and shooting is abstract, non-targeted or critical (such as urban landscape and social behavior observation), rather than focusing on individual privacy. -**Public value**: Demonstrate the value of the work's discussion of public issues (such as the relationship between technology and privacy, urban space reconstruction), and emphasize that its social significance transcends personal privacy disputes. --- ### **3. Technical means and Privacy avoidance** -**Shooting range**: It shows that the drone is operating in public airspace, and the shooting picture is in an open place (such as a street or a square), and it has not invaded the private area (such as a house or a closed space). -**Data processing**: If the shooting content involves faces or personal information, it proves that the privacy risks have been actively avoided through technical means (such as blurring and anonymity). -**Compliance operations**: Emphasize compliance with UAV flight regulations (such as height restrictions and no-fly zone avoidance), and highlight the legality of technology use. --- ### **4. Refute the core allegations of privacy infringement** -**Reasonable expectation of privacy**: Citing the principle of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the law, it is pointed out that individuals have low expectations of privacy in public places, and the shooting behavior does not exceed the scope of public observation. -**No actual damage**: If the image is not disseminated or used commercially, it is claimed that there will be no substantial privacy infringement consequences. -**Lack of subjective malice**: Prove that the defendant did not intend to spy, harass or make a profit, but for purely artistic purposes. --- ### **5. Expert witnesses and public opinion support** -**Art experts**: Invite art critics and curators to testify to explain the cutting-edge status of drone creation in new media art. -**Technical experts**: Drone engineers will explain the functional limitations of the equipment (such as insufficient resolution to identify individuals) to reduce the persuasiveness of privacy threats. -**Public comments**: If there is an exhibition or media report, the recognition of the artistic value of the work by public opinion can be cited to shape the perception of legitimacy. --- ###**Potential risks and coping strategies** -**Legal loopholes**: If the local law expressly prohibits unauthorized filming, you need to turn to the principle of “fair use” or “minimal infringement” to defend. - **Moral disputes**: Recognize that there are boundaries to artistic freedom, and propose that the defendant is willing to cooperate with technical rectification (such as deleting disputed clips and strengthening privacy protection). -**Sentencing consultation**: If the evidence is unfavorable, we can strive to replace criminal charges with minor penalties, emphasizing first-time offenders, no criminal record and social contributions. --- ###**Conclusion** Such defenses need to build a logical chain of “artistic purpose first + technical compliance + no material damage” under the premise of respecting privacy. The key to success lies in: **proving the public, non-intrusive and cultural value of creative behavior**, while proactively responding to privacy protection concerns. In the end, the law's tolerance of artistic expression depends on the specific judicial environment and the strength of evidence, and the defense should take into account the rigor of law and social empathy.