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."

Thanks for the responses. The verdict seems to be mixed. Since no
people will be in the picture, I can eliminate some of those concerns.
I doubt that my picture will have much indication as to where the
picture is taken, as the focus and framing will be of the airplane.
But I suppose a part of a building could appear in the background that
could identify WHERE the picture was, but certainly not WHEN it was
taken.

If I did get permission, is that permission tranferable to the next
owner? What if I take a picture today and the airplane is sold
tomorrow. Can the new owner object? Or the owner years from now.
What if I use a picture that was taken 2 years ago, or 40 years ago?
By the time I take the picture and get it to print it may be many
months aparts. This is not a peridocial it is a publication of
aircrafts and facts about it.

Do these questions help support your arguments, one way or another?

Todd

("bsalai" wrote)
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.


Babs.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B23F11FFC
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200305%5 CCUL20030530e.html

[From the link]
(CNSNews.com) - Singer/actress Barbra Streisand has filed a $50 million
lawsuit against amateur photographer Kenneth Adelman for posting a
photograph of her Malibu, Calif., estate on his website. The site features
12,000 other photos of the California coastline as part of a project to
document coastal erosion for scientific and other researchers.

Adelman's website also contains photos of other houses along the coastline.
He told CNSNews.com that Streisand was the only one who took legal action
against him.

"Nobody climbed onto her property, nobody's showing her topless sunbathing -
in fact, you don't see any people at all," Richard Kendall, Adelman's
attorney said. "The case has no legal legs to stand on whatsoever."

The lawsuit names Adelman, his web hosting service and Pictopia, a
photography company that distributes his work. It claims the picture of
Streisand's house violates her right of privacy and a state law enacted to
curb paparazzi seeking celebrity photos. The suit seeks to have the photo
removed from the website and $50 million in damages.

"An important civil right of privacy is involved," John Gatti, Streisand's
lawyer, told the Los Angeles Times. "The lawsuit seeks to establish the
extent to which individuals are protected against technologically enhanced
encroachment into their private property."

Yet Kendall said the "anti-paparazzi statute," which is designed to prevent
trespasses on property and stalking of celebrities, has absolutely no
application to the long-range offshore photographs of coastline that
happened to include Barbra Streisand's house and many other houses.

"This is not someone who is focusing on Barbra Streisand, stalking Barbra
Streisand or doing anything other than an environmental study of the coast,"
Kendall said, adding that neither the paparazzi statute nor the U.S.
Constitution "immunize a celebrity mansion that happens to loom over the
coast from being photographed at long distance."

According to the suit, the quality of the photo is "staggering" as a result
of "enhanced technology," which caused Streisand "anxiety" ever since it was
published on the website in November 2002.


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in
:

("bsalai" wrote)
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.


Babs.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B23F11FFC
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp...hive%5C200305%
5CCUL20030530e.html
Snipola

Or go to the California Coastal Records Project webpage documenting
the event...

http://www.californiacoastline.org/s...d/lawsuit.html

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Montblack" wrote in message ...
("bsalai" wrote)
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.


Babs.


Recollection is correct, the judge dismissed the suit...

Montblack wrote:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B23F11FFC
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200305%5 CCUL20030530e.html

[From the link]
(CNSNews.com) - Singer/actress Barbra Streisand has filed a $50 million
lawsuit against amateur photographer Kenneth Adelman for posting a
photograph of her Malibu, Calif., estate on his website. The site features
12,000 other photos of the California coastline as part of a project to
document coastal erosion for scientific and other researchers.

Streisand's lawsuit got nowhere.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:27:29 GMT, bsalai
wrote:

. One of them (the well off,
not the home) sued the photographer. My recollection is that the
photographer won.

I remember the case; it was reported in the Wall Street Journal. The
photographer did win, but of course there was nothing compromising in
the photograph. No people, and no indication of who owned it (as there
is in the case of an airplane with the N number showing).



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com