Permission to photograph airplanes in public

This could vary from state to state. I'm in NY, and I think you can use
the pictures of airplanes without permission. You do have to be careful
if there are people in the pix, permission to use the likeness of a
living individual for commercial purposes is required in NY.

There was a case a few years ago that you might be able to find that
might help you with these issues. I don't remember the parties names,
but it concerned aerial photography of the Calif coast, and particularly
the secluded homes of the very well off. One of them (the well off,
not the home) sued the photographer. My recollection is that the
photographer won.

If forced to pick an answer, I would say that as long as there were no
identifiable people in the pictures, you would be OK at least in NY.

This is general information, not legal advice.

Brad



wrote:
Todd wrote:
Do I need permission from an aircraft owner to publish pictures of
their airplane for profit? I want to take pictures of airplanes and
publish them commercially, on the web and in print.

I will be interested in seeing the answers you receive to this
question. In general, exterior photos of public buildings, churches,
courthouses, buildings on national, state or local historic sites do
not need a property release. Private property may require one.

The key difference is "editorial" or "commercial." Just because you
make money or get paid for the photo does NOT make it commercial.
Photos that illustrate the text in a newspaper or magazine are
editorial. Those that illustrate the products being sold in the
advertisements are commercial. (But I expect lawyers can find a
multitude of exceptions to this simple distinction.)

The constitution protects the press and freedom of expression. It is in
the public's interest to protect those rights. On the other hand, the
courts have established a right to privacy.

When a person lands at a public airport, leaves the airplane in plain
sight with the tail number readily visible, does the pilot or owner
have any reasonable expectation to privacy? If not, then my non-lawyer
opinion is that a photo that is used for editorial purposes should not
require a property release.

However, after taking more than 300,000 photos, my wife, a
photographer, always got a model release if the person was
recognizable. Eventually, about ten years ago, she started using a
property release, too.

A short but effective property release: "In consideration of value
received, I assign to photographers name, his successors or assigns,
the absolute right to use images of my property in whole or in part for
any purpose whatsoever."