From Freedom to Permission: What Changed ? -Things got worse

---

Update, 11 June 2026. Since this case became public, the Nature Conservation Agency has issued a statement acknowledging the role of professional photographers and saying it will sit down with the Icelandic Professional Photographers Association, which has published its own statement, to discuss how drone photography is handled going forward. As a member of the association, I have been invited to take part in that meeting on Monday 15 June. I genuinely welcome this, talking it through together is exactly what I have been asking for, and I hope it leads to a fair, workable outcome for everyone. What follows is the background to that conversation.

---

I started flying drones in Iceland in 2015. This is what changed.

The back story.

Back in 2014 or 2015 I bought my first drone, right around the time consumer drones with a camera attached hit the market. This was also when I was starting my business running photography tours and workshops. I saw it as a big marketing tool, which it absolutely was. The first video I made and put on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN8_eb3l0mw&t=191s proved that.

But I also realised something else: I could now create images I'd never been able to make before. That mattered to me, mainly because I don't come from money, and flying helicopters for photography is an expensive hobby. Seeing the world from above is, let's say, a kind of freedom.

I've spent years photographing Iceland, and after visiting the same place hundreds of times, you start craving a new creative take on it. That's where a drone comes in, as a new creative outlet. Drones did not make Iceland more beautiful. Iceland was already beautiful. They simply let us understand the landscape differently: the rivers, the patterns, the colours, the scale, the fragile geometry of the highlands.

I never saw drone photography as a toy or a shortcut.

For me it became part of how I taught people to see Iceland. Slowly. Carefully. With respect.

Since then, Iceland has changed. Tourism has grown enormously.

More people have come, more pressure has been placed on the land, more rules have followed. Some of that was necessary. Icelandic nature is fragile, and freedom without responsibility is not freedom at all.

But today I find myself asking a question I never expected to ask:

Have I become a victim of the very tourism industry I helped serve?

Before we go any further......

It is important to make one thing clear: drones have not been banned in Iceland.

In many parts of the country, it is still perfectly legal to fly under the usual EASA and Samgöngustofa regulations, provided you follow the rules.

The change I am writing about is much more specific. The Nature Conservation Agency has changed how it handles drone permits in more than 25 protected areas. In those places, recreational and educational drone use is now being refused, while permits may still be granted for purposes such as film production, advertising, television, and news.

So this is not a blog about a nationwide drone ban. It is about a selective restriction in some of Iceland’s protected areas and about why I believe responsible, educational drone use should not be treated as part of the problem.

From freedom to suspicion

I ask this because the change I feel is not only about rules. It is about trust.

When I started flying drones in Iceland, I felt trusted to use my judgement. I knew the land. I knew the weather. I knew when a place was too crowded, too quiet, too sensitive, or simply not appropriate.

Like most serious photographers, I didn't need a long list of restrictions to understand that nature deserves respect.

The new approach, and what it really means

In 2026, the Nature Conservation Agency of Iceland announced a new administrative practice for drone applications in certain protected areas. The Agency states that the change was introduced because of increased demand, disturbances, and incidents involving drones in protected areas where drone use is either prohibited or subject to a permit. The new practice entered into force on May 17, 2026.

Under it, permits in the listed protected areas are issued only for specific purposes: research, monitoring, supervision, construction work, film-making projects, advertising, television programmes, news reporting, and permitted events.

The Agency also states that it does not issue permits for drone use for any other purpose.

That last sentence is the problem.

If the system removes responsible guides, it does not remove drones. It removes education.

A question of fairness

What also makes this difficult to accept is the feeling of unfairness.

In the Icelandic highlands, silence is often mentioned as something that must be protected and I agree with that. The silence of the highlands is rare, powerful, and part of what makes the experience so special.

But then I look around and see many other activities that are still accepted, even though they can create far more noise and disturbance than a few carefully planned drone flights, such as Helicopter, planes, buggy cars, ATV's big busses and the list goes on.

All of these can affect the feeling of wilderness. All of these can break the silence.

And yet, responsible drone education is treated as if it is one of the greatest threats.

That does not feel balanced to me.

I am not saying that drones should be free from restrictions. They should not.

But if the argument is really about protecting silence and the wilderness experience, then the rules should be based on real impact, not on which activity is easiest to dislike.

A small drone flown for a few minutes by an experienced guide, far from people and wildlife, should not automatically be treated as more harmful than other activities that create far more disturbance.

-That is the unfairness I struggle with.

Seeking a fair outcome

Together with my friend and colleague Jeroen and others who have been affected by these changes, we are now looking for ways to defend our right to be treated fairly and I have filed a formal appeal to the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate under Article 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act. This is not about refusing responsibility, and it is not about demanding the right to fly everywhere. It is about asking that experienced and responsible operators are assessed on facts, evidence and actual behaviour, not on assumptions or a general dislike of drones.

I hope something positive can come from this. Perhaps the discussion will lead to a better system: one that protects Icelandic nature, but also recognises the value of education, local knowledge and responsible guiding. That would be better for photographers, better for visitors and, in the long run, better for the places we all want to protect.

I'm not going to go through every detail of the new policy here. My point is personal: what it feels like to watch a freedom disappear, and to see responsible education treated as part of the problem.

For a detailed breakdown of the new rules, the permit process, and the contradictions in how drone applications are now handled, I recommend reading Jeroen Van Nieuwenhove's article here: https://jvn.photo/iceland-nvs-drone-2026/

My hope for the future freedom.

I have no idea where this ends or what the time and money I'm putting into it will cost me in the end. And the irony isn't lost on me: I'm fighting for fair, reasonable treatment from an agency I already support ... by paying my taxes.

Maybe nothing will change. Maybe the system will continue to treat responsible drone education as a problem rather than a solution.

But I still believe there is room for common sense, dialogue, and fairness.

My hope is not to return to a time without rules. My hope is for rules that recognise responsibility, experience, and respect for nature.

Because the freedom I miss was never about flying everywhere.

It was about being trusted to do the right thing.