Permission to photograph airplanes in public

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:41:06 -0500, John T wrote:

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.

Not very good advice unless your goal in life is to be a papparizo!

You can get away with a lot if you can reasonably argue that you are a
newman performing a public service, even if what you actually are is a
sleazeball making money off the externalities (or even internalities)
of the rich & famous. I don't see how this gent can make that
argument, even if he were willing to try.

So take that witha grain of salt.


-- 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

If the airplane you wish to photgraph is is public space you can click
away, just as you can for cars, boats, people, etc. You can photo the
pilot, the N-number whatever you want. You can't enter private property
(e.g. walk up to the hangar, or trespass on the airport property -- not
that there is anything typically preventing that) to photograph, though.


If you intend to use the photos for commercial purposes, however, you
should obtain the party's written permission.

"Cub Driver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...

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.

Not very good advice unless your goal in life is to be a papparizo!

It depends. The benchmark cases for these rules are complex and gruesome.
But the long and short of it is, if you can see it from public property it's
fair game, which has been deemed a generally good thing. The moral/ethical
particulars of the situation fall upon the photographer to determine whether
it's appropriate to take a photograph.

The scumbag paparazzi have managed to exploit some hard ethical decisions,
but that's not radically different than people who exploit freedom in any
context for their own gain at the expense or embarrassment of others. (Just
because you can sneak a camera onto a beach and take close-up photos of
girls in bikinis doesn't make it right.) They get away with it, though,
just like the hate groups that parade in public can.

-c

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.

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.

As you have figured out by now, it depends on way to many variables --
who, what, where, when, etc. Newsworthy photographs may be published
any time. The courts look very dimly upon any restriction of freedom of
the press, to the point that "the press" may be just about anyone at
any time. A newsletter with a ciculation of 10 gets the same protection
as any of the giant metropolitan dailies.

Use of an image for advertising is another matter. Models and owners of
property that have value because of their unique image are protected.
You cannot take a picture of Barbra Streisand and use it to sell coffee
without her permission. You can take a picture of her estate from the
air and sell it for scientific purposes, however.

Similarly, you could sell pictures of the Red Baron team in a newspaper
without their permission, but if you want to use the pictures to
endorse Shakey's Pizza or even lipstick you are going to need their
permission. I suspect that a calendar photo would also require a
release.

Some states offer special protection for photographing children, and
almost all states recognize certain rights of privacy.

Airliners.net and photo agencies generally do not ask photographers for
model releases. Airliners.net does not pay for photos, anyway (at
least, they never have paid me for one). Photo agencies usually assume
that photographers can produce the required model releases for whatever
use their pictures are put. Their contracts with the photographers
specify that the photographer has obtained all necessary releases. If
Global sells your photo and you don't have the necessary release and
someone comes after Global for it, you can bet that Global is going to
hold you in breach of contract, refuse to pay for your photo, remove
your other photos, never buy photos from you again, and probably sue
the pants off you. They will also pull your photo from the client who
purchased it and refund his money.

A good photo attorney can keep you out of hot water and also help you
protect your very valuable property. This guy seems to work pretty hard
at it:
http://www.krages.com/

"cjcampbell" wrote in
oups.com:

Snipola
Similarly, you could sell pictures of the Red Baron team in a newspaper
without their permission, but if you want to use the pictures to
endorse Shakey's Pizza
snipola

Errr...the Red Baron team endorsing Shakey's Pizza?

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?

Skywise wrote:
"cjcampbell" wrote in
oups.com:

Snipola
Similarly, you could sell pictures of the Red Baron team in a newspaper
without their permission, but if you want to use the pictures to
endorse Shakey's Pizza
snipola

Errr...the Red Baron team endorsing Shakey's Pizza?


My point exactly. Anyone using the Red Baron team to advertise a
product without the permission of Red Baron Pizza would likely hear
from the latter's lawyers. Especially if you tried to give the
impression that they were endorsing Shakey's. It was the worst case I
could think of.

Worst case was a magazine ad for the Beech Aero Club, that
talked about the new Beech Skipper and had a nice picture of
a Piper Tomahawk.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"cjcampbell" wrote in
message
oups.com...
|
| Skywise wrote:
| "cjcampbell" wrote in
|
oups.com:
|
| Snipola
| Similarly, you could sell pictures of the Red Baron
team in a newspaper
| without their permission, but if you want to use the
pictures to
| endorse Shakey's Pizza
| snipola
|
| Errr...the Red Baron team endorsing Shakey's Pizza?
|
|
| My point exactly. Anyone using the Red Baron team to
advertise a
| product without the permission of Red Baron Pizza would
likely hear
| from the latter's lawyers. Especially if you tried to give
the
| impression that they were endorsing Shakey's. It was the
worst case I
| could think of.
|

Boy I remember covering this in business law. I don't recall the answer
but I remember that there were several factors involved one of which I
believe was whether the owner had given up the privacy (just like
celebs give up their right to privacy by entering the public eye).
Airshow aircraft would clearly fall in that category.
However, my concern would be with the TSA. Going around taking
pictures, especially after the recent postings by some groups
concerning blownig up GA aircraftm, would generate interest.

-Robert

If the airplane you wish to photgraph is is public space you can click
away, just as you can for cars, boats, people, etc.

I remember enough from law class to remember that is wrong with regard
to commercial photography. You can photograph "generic people" (like a
bunch of people walking down the street). However, you cannot feature
any given person without getting a release from them. The same would
apply to aircraft. However, certain people (and I assume aircraft) give
up their right to this privacy by doing things like running for public
office or appearing in movies or TV.

-Robert