If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Permission to photograph airplanes in public
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Permission to photograph airplanes in public
FWIW, when I took a photo class, such issues were briefly covered.
Generally, if you take the photo from a public place, such as a public sidewalk, the subject has no say. The way it was worded that even if you took a picture of someone in their bedroom, while standing on a public sidewalk, you didn't need the subjects permission. So take that witha grain of salt. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Permission to photograph airplanes in public
("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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Permission to photograph airplanes in public
"Todd" wrote in message oups.com... 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. text deleted The answer I give in my "Photo Tips for Writers" workshop is that if you don't know if a model release is required then it is. Caveat: I am a freelance writer and photographer, not an attorney. I have no qualifications to give legal advice. With that said, here is my understanding of a complex issue. If you have an image that is directly related to a 'news' story, then the 1st Amendment allows you to use the image. But, you do need permission for the commercial use of an image of someone else's private property if the image can be directly related to a person or his or her estate. If for example you took a picture of an accident in which a vehicle (boat, airplane, auto, even house....) could be related to a person (N#, Coast Guard Registration, License plate, address) you can sell it to a newspaper or magazine. BUT, if at some later time you wanted to use that same image to advertise yourself or some product, e.g. in a commercial manner, you MUST then get permission from property owner. I carry a wad of model releases around in my camera bag just for that reason. Go Fly! Casey |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Permission to photograph airplanes in public
"Todd" wrote in message Do I need permission from an aircraft owner to publish pictures of Wouldn't it be smarter, quicker, and less ambiguous to simply ask your attorney? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Permission to photograph airplanes in public
"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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Permission to photograph airplanes in public
"Todd" wrote in message oups.com... Let me clarify my intention: I plan to publish the pictures in print and on the web for the enjoyment of viewing the pictures. Not to help sell or endorse another product. This will be a collection of photos of airplanes. Quite simple. In many cases, the owner may not be around when I take the picture. Or the pilot is not the owner. I may be taking the picture of a jet landing at large airport and cannot approach the pilot because I am not allowed near the aircraft. It may be very difficult to contact the owner, short of sending a postcard to the address in the FAA aircraft registry. It would save me A LOT of time if I don't have to hunt down the owner of each aircraft I take a picture of. Airlines.net has all the info they can muster, published, on their pages... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Permission to photograph airplanes in public
"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... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Permission to photograph airplanes in public
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Humour airplanes and women | Chris | Piloting | 118 | January 20th 06 09:34 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |
God Honest | Naval Aviation | 2 | July 24th 03 04:45 AM |