Crank From Canada, joined May 2001, 1556 posts, RR: 3 Posted (8 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 2414 times:
I'm posting this on behalf of a friend of mine who's an a.net photog:
During my last trip, I took, of course, a lot of shots and sent some to a.net. One of this shot was a cabin shot taken in-flight on a BA Triple-7. It was rejected for “badpeople”. Here’s the shot:
I then appealed the rejection because I honestly thought the picture met a.net standards. Hours later, the picture was being screened by the Editor-in-
Chief of Airliners.net. The appeal was rejected. Of course I was unhappy with the decision but I thought next time I would wait a different situation to take a cabin picture.
What really get me angry was the following. Some little hours later, this shot was accepted in the database (and got a few hits eh?):
I was wondering what was the reason for those decisions was. Not that those pictures aren’t nice. In fact, I like them a lot as it shows how it was in the cabin during the flight. The point is that it is personally really frustrating to see my work rejected while something very similar got accepted.
Now I would like to quote something I got in the appeal rejection e-mail:
You need permission from the people pictured on the photo to be
allowed to publish it. Generally we do not accept photos with
people on them as our database is primarily for airliners. There
are some exceptions though. The rule essentially is that the
primary subject of the photo must be the aircraft, not the
person. If the person is clearly recognizable (facing the camera,
clear mention that permission was given by that person must be
stated in your remarks.
Regarding my picture, I do not see anyone facing my lense. The only person I see is the woman in the left-hand aisle with the man searching for something in the overhead bin. Correct me if I’m wrong , but the lady is far for being the primary subject of the picture. The primary subject was the overall cabin, showing the PTVs in the dark cabin atmosphere, plus showing you how nice the BA 777 cabin., .Plus, I personally think she’s isn’t clearly recognizable as some passengers are in some a.net cabin pictures in the database.
Now I know that screening can’t be perfectly regular. I know screeners are doing a hard job and that the decisions may be difficult from time to time. I’m just a honest photographer who gave his best to bring you something nice (plus there are not loads of BA 777 cabin pictures in the database).
Any comments/feedback/help/explanations would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Qantas744 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 246 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2269 times:
If permission is required from the people in the picture for it to be published on Anet how come it is ok for MyAviation? The law applies equally to both sites I would have thought.
Matt
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 15 Reply 4, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2263 times:
@Vafi88: Anyway - I think all of the shots that have tops of people's heads in them are horrible. Can't you be the last person out and then take the shot???
Just thought the same... in my eyes for cabin shots, any people are "badpeople". But guess that this is just a matter of taste...
FL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2214 times:
Maybe an effective and clear rule should be issued on that matter, so nobody would be confused when uploading photography showing people.
Something like: No faces should appear anytime (front, side) on the pic unless permission is given.
Picture showing head from the back is ok till it doesn't become primary subject of the shot and the person portrayed is not recognisable.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 11, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2162 times:
I think this shot, combined with the previous discussion, illustrates appropriate use of badpeople. On a commercial flight you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy - you could be flying for many reasons and you may not wish the fact to be public knowledge. In cabin shots I don't think there should be a possibility of recognising any passenger.
Aside from any individual problems this may cause, I can't imaging the airlines would be too happy - pax may complain to them about allowing cabin photography - next thing know all onboard photography gets banned.
If, however, if you turn up in an aircraft at a public airshow, then yes, it is not unreasonable to assume your photograph will be taken.
AviatorTJ From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1838 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2132 times:
Well if it is any consolation, I would have dumped it for badscan instead. The bottoms of the bins are grainy and there are oversharpened parts. It doesn't help to have any clearly identifiable people either. I, personally, prefer shots of empty planes.
FSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 14 Reply 13, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2100 times:
N317AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2075 times:
"If the person is clearly recognizable (facing the camera,
clear mention that permission was given by that person must be
stated in your remarks."
I think the rule is clear. Unfortunately on a.net it is not adhered to. All three of those examples have recognizable people in them. Take the 3rd one for instance. The lady in red on the right side. Maybe she's getting away from her abusive ex-husband and thinks she has made it without him knowing where she is. It works up until he's looking at a.net photos. Damn he says, she's in Australia. It's a reach, but it could happen.
The best way to screw up a good photo is put a person in it. The best way to screw up a used airplane cabin shot, is to take it.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined May 2001, 1556 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
