Bronko From United States, joined Jul 2001, 801 posts, RR: 19 Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4854 times:
I received and email yesterday from a legal firm, regarding a photo of a business jet that I took at BFI, from a public place adjacent to the runway. The company is claiming that my photo is in violation of copyright laws as the scheme is copyrighted. However, it is my understanding that since the photo was taken from a public place, no copyright laws have been violated.
The livery in question does not display a company logo or title of any kind, but the email claims the design is copyrighted.
I have been given a deadline approximately one week from today to pull the photo, and destroy the original.
Any advice on how to handle this? I am interested in doing the right thing, if it is indeed in violation I will pull it. However, the ramifications could be huge as any one of our photos probably display a livery that is copyrighted.
Petertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 2774 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4849 times:
Take a 5 seconds look through the database and look at the wide variaty of logos and liveries. It does not seem to be punishable otherwise it would have happened much earlier. As long as you did nothing wrong, and since you where on public territory you most likely did not, they can not do anything.
Hey, you could try to make money from it! Send them a letter asking for administrative costs from answering their mail! That's what they would do to you if you asked them something!
Bronko From United States, joined Jul 2001, 801 posts, RR: 19 Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4836 times:
Yes, I realize the ramifications are huge and endless to our hobby. However, since I am threatened with legal action from this companies legal representative, I need some concrete details as to the legalities of this. I realize this may not be the proper avenue for legal advice, but I am guessing I am not the first ANet photog to experience this either.
Clickhappy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8834 posts, RR: 79 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4817 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Are you offering the photo for sale? Are you somehow profiting from the photo (and in turn the livery)?
If the answer to either of these is no, than I would say they would have a hard time pursuing this in legal channels. They would have to prove any damages...but then again how much trouble do you want?
In the end that is what it comes down to...you are (probably) right, but how far are you willing to go to prove it?
This does lead to a larger issue...one that I think might bring all of us weirdos (Aviation Photogs) together. Maybe we should start up a collection and provide some sort of legal defense. I can kick is some dosh, and I know others would, too.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1394 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4815 times:
Bronko,
This is a load of crap, again by people who either know very little about the law or who are simply trying to intimidate you.
The photo is perfectly legal as the livery isn't the topic of the photo, the aircraft is.
Imagine how many McDonalds boxes or Coke cans have been on the floor in the background of photos. How about someone wearing clothing with a designer label?
Just email them back and tell them firmly that you're not removing it. I doubt they'll further it.
WakeTurbulence From United States, joined Apr 2004, 1163 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4813 times:
Is your photo the only one in the DB or are there more? I would call bull to this firm and see what they do. Just because the scheme is protected does not mean you can't take photos of it from a public area. Good luck.
-Matt
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2147 posts, RR: 57 Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4807 times:
Ask them to prove that you're violating copyright. Let them quote an article from the lawbooks. I think they're full of crap. If I'm wearing a Tommy Hilfiger sweater and I post a picture of me wearing that sweater on the internet, am I breaking copyright? That's a load of bull. You're not commercially using their design in any way.
They're just threatening, but they can't touch you if you ask me.
Ed
PS, I didn't see DC10tim's post Great example Tim!
Bronko From United States, joined Jul 2001, 801 posts, RR: 19 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4799 times:
The photograph is not marked as being for sale. For the sake of argument, let's use the following scenarios and see if they make any difference to this issue:
1) Photo has not been sold.
2) Photo has been sold, but only to a private party for private use.
3) Photo has been sold to a magazine, or other commercial venture.
Royal, thank you for your support, and offer to help. That means a ton.
I want to gather as much info first before deciding what to do. I really don't want to pull the photo just to get them off my back, if I am NOT in violation of any laws.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2147 posts, RR: 57 Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4782 times:
BTW, Did you reply the email? As far as I can tell, they have no clue who you are. Or is there somewhere where your real name is mentioned on the internet linked with Jet City Aviation Photography or Bronko? If it isn't, just don't reply.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4780 times:
Tis true, as long as you have taken the photo from a public place, then the photograph becomes your sole intellectual copyright, no matter what the subject. You aren't profiting from their livery, because you aren't selling their livery to someone to paint on their airplane, you are selling a photo of their livery for use in a magazine. If anything, the company in question should be thanking you for providing free advertising on the net, and, in turn, a magazine, should your photo sell.
Somewhere there's a .pdf file with photographers rights and it does include copyright issues.
On a government site I found this tidbit:
"You don't need to request permission (under copyright law) to take an original photograph of a piece of equipment or an aircraft that is owned or leased by a US government agency. Again, the alternative is to request permission from the copyright owner."
I'm not sure if that applies to civilian aircraft.
Lindy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4739 times:
Bronko,
Don't remove it. They have nothing on you. Even if you sold it to a magazine they have noting on you. You took it from the public place, and you own the copyright to the photo. They might have copyrights to the design but not to your picture.
Tell them to repaint that aircraft if they don't want to see anymore pictures of their great design.
BTW - Tell them to stop harrasing you or else you will file legal action against them.
JFKTOWERFAN From United States, joined Sep 2001, 1099 posts, RR: 22 Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4733 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Why don't you send your question to US Copyright Office and see what they have to say, could be helpful to all of us. http://www.copyright.gov/help/
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1337 posts, RR: 69 Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4714 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I had something similar over one of mine of an American aircraft taken in England sometime ago. The airfield in question is one that is very secure, very, but I had managed to get permission to be on there.
They wanted to know who had given permission for me to take the photograph, where I had kept the disclaimer and demanding its removal from the site.
I ignored it.
The photo is still on here and I heard nothing more from them and that was about nine months ago.
These requests are bullsh*t and simply trying to frighten or intimidate us.
Ignore it, do not reply !
Mick Bajcar
TS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4714 times:
Even if you make profit from selling the photo it appears utterly unlogical how this can be a copyright violation. Every day scores of aviation photos are published & distributed by newspapers & wire services around the world. If United or AMR post financial results often an illustrative photo is printed along the article. Photographers don't pay any fees to them & still make profit (or their news organizations).
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1337 posts, RR: 69 Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4704 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
As a PS
Can we see what they are objecting too please
Mick Bajcar
Andrewuber From United States, joined Jul 2003, 2398 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4642 times:
It's true - if you photograph something from a public place - it's YOUR copyright now - NOT THEIRS. One such case where these rules were not followed is the guy who was fired from his job for taking photos of FedEx aircraft - FROM THE FEDEX RAMP. That is a violation, and while still well into the gray area of copyright law, FedEx did have a leg to stand on.
Your photo taken at BFI is YOUR property. You have the constitutional right to take photos - and even to sell them - if you're in a public place.
Yours must be the first shot of that aircraft in the database? If not - are they trying this BS on anyone else?
They're clearly bluffing, and trying to intimidate you. If they sent you something with your image in it - I'd counter-sue their asses for copyright infringement (ala Larry Flynt). If they haven't sent you some copy of your image - play dumb and ask them to. THEN sue them for copyright infringement.
GNBpix From United States, joined Feb 2005, 32 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4528 times:
Here are my $0.02...and I've said it before, I'm not a lawyer...
You make a photograph from a public place, great, no problem. You own the copyright to that image (unless you are working with some other agreement, for say a newspaper who might own the copyright instead of you). This assumes you weren't aren't a public sidewalk photographing into someone's house--that's not acceptable.
Now, what you do with that image is where things can get interesting. If it soley for PERSONAL use, you are pretty much free to do whatever you want.
If you use it for EDITORIAL (newspaper,magazines, books), you are still pretty much free to do whatever you want--as long as the image doesn't misrepresent someone/thing. There was a case years ago where a man was photographed walking across the street by a newspaper photographer. The image was used with a story on the struggle of African-American men or drug use among inner-city males, or something along those lines. The subject sued and won. So in the case of this thread, as long as the image is being used in the correct context (private jets at BFI, generic corporate aviation, or a specific article on the company in question), I don't see any problems.
If you use it for a COMMERCIAL purpose (advertising, brochure, etc.) you have to tread carefully. Granted newspapers, magazines, and books are commercial ventures, but when you get into the realm of paid advertising--the actual ads that appear in magazines and newspapers, the playing field changes.
When this company is talking about their paint scheme design being copyrighted, that's probably true. They are likely wanting to protect their design and avoid having a photo of their plane show up in a competitors ad or brochure. Disney is one company that is HIGHLY protective of copyright--they want to control their "image" as much as possible. Apparently they have copyrighted just about everything in their theme parks, so you can't take a photograph of say Cinderella's castle and then sell it to your local travel agent for an ad they are putting together promoting trips to Florida. So in the case of this thread, you would probably have only three possible clients to sell this image commercially, the company that owns the plane, the plane manufacturer, and whoever designed the paint scheme.
As far as having the image here on a-net, you need to get an authoritative opinion from an intellectual property attorney, but my opinion is that as long as you aren't seeking to make money from it, you should be fine.
I shoot Nikon and Canon, so I guess you could say I go both ways! : )
Clickhappy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8834 posts, RR: 79 Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4519 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Apparently they have copyrighted just about everything in their theme parks, so you can't take a photograph of say Cinderella's castle and then sell it to your local travel agent for an ad they are putting together promoting trips to Florida
To achieve such a picture one would need to be on Disney property, which is not the case here.
There have been lawsuits with regards to photographing buildings, of which whos design was copyrighted by the architects. If you take a picture from across the street then you are okay, take a picture inside and you are not.
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 22 Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4502 times:
I have Leonard D. Duboff's book "The law (in plain English) for photographers" and darkly remember that I read something about the building photos which Royal mentioned. Unfortunately I couldn't find this part right away, but maybe someone else has this book (or something even better)?
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2383 posts, RR: 55 Reply 25, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4473 times:
Send them the bil for the following.
! the full day you took of work to go and shoot the pics.
2.The price of the film and development of the picture in question.
3. Editing it and uploading it time .
Send them say a $300 bil for the picture to cover expenses and agree to pull it to get their reaction.
I personally wouldn't even look at the email twice because like others have said its complete BS but i would do the following to see if they are willing to pay
Family is the most important thing in the world
26 Mygind66: Bronko... Send them an email saying that if they take legal actions against you you'll publish this info here in A.net with all the details who they a
27 Bronko: Yes, the email was from someone with a first name of Vicki. Have you had a run in with her before? Is she not an attorney as she claims?
28 C133: krages.com: The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places
29 CallMeCapt: Are you guys surprised? It's a law firm. They're bored and want to stir some shit. As Alan said, send them a bill and watch their reaction.
31 Gary2880: lol thats great, the phantom of a.net. so we have a resident nutter trying to get all photos pulled from the website by saying their illegal?
32 CallMeCapt: Post her email address on here and we'll all bombard her inbox with threats of harrassment and false accusations of copyright infringement.
33 VSIVARIES: Tell the legal firm to take a running jump. I work for a firm here in the UK, we make high-end domestic appliances. We have many registered designs. I
34 Tappan: 2 words that should end any thoughts of nervousness by our threatened photog(s)....... BULL SHIT.... Don't answer until they send you a certified lett
35 Burnsie28: Simple fact, if you pulled the trigger on the camera, then its your copyright. Its not their work, if that was the case, just about everything would b
36 CO777: Maybe this Vicky is the one at the old FAA parking lot. Jason Whitebird
37 Ltena: Hello, Its really sad to see this kind of post but well, In deed they can proceed legaly to you, maybe you are right maybe you aint, but as clickhappy
38 Tommy Mogren: It's your shot, your copyright. Do nothing, you're on the safe side. Enjoy your photo! Tommy Mogren
39 JeffM: While it is true he owns the copyright to the photo he took, it is questionable if it can be used commercially, Bronko does not own the trademark. If
40 Administrator: I'm sorry I haven't seen this thread until now. It happens at times that lawyers contact me on issues like these and I would very much like to get the
41 Danny: This Vicky is probably just some young lawyer trying to impress somebody. She is totally wrong though. Leave the photo where it is and do nothing. Jus
42 JeffM: Can you site anything legally binding to back that up? I believe that is what Johan is asking for. It is easy to say someone is wrong, much harder to
43 Danny: Jeff - links are above in the thread. If she was right you could not post a photo of anything except yourself. We don't need to prove it. She needs to
44 Skymonster: JeffM (post 39) is pretty much right on - this topic has been discussed elsewhere recently and the key is commercial exploitation. If use is editorial
45 JeffM: This is also part of the reason places such as Major League Baseball parks, NBA arenas, the NFL, etc. do not allow spectators in with long lenses and
46 Bronko: I think the most prudent course of action for me to take at this time would be to pull the photo by the deadline as requested. That will give us time
47 JeffM: Sounds more then reasonable. Good luck, I'll be very curious how this works out. -Jeff
48 Eksath: Bronko, Please keep us updated with the status as this impacts the whole community. Good luck and I hope you prevail. Eksath
49 Lennymuir: JeffM says: ...They own the rights to the teams logos and the players are not protected from commercial use of their images by people reselling them..
50 JeffM: It's so. It's their property. They can 'say no' to any and all photography if they desire.
51 Skymonster: Gerry, I don't know about decals specifically, but the makers of models (for example, GeminiJets) need licences from BOTH airplane manufacturer AND ai
52 Lennymuir: Very Interesting Jeff (and Andy). I wonder how much clout Vicky would have outside the US? BTW, I'll answer one on my questions above. Model decals of
53 N317AS: I recently had a situation like this where I received a cease and desist letter from an airshow. I thought it was crap until I talked to a former a.ne
54 JohnJ: "So, taking this further, into another similar sphere. If a model decal company created decals (water slide transfers) of this particular design for a
55 JeffM: Most likely they (the magazines) are considered as having usage in an editorial, or journalistic nature, and can legally use the image. They don't se
56 Dendrobatid: ....the airshow was a privately run event. This is why lawyers get rich. Now, in the UK a car was damaged in a motorised car wash and the car owner s
57 Sllevin: I don't wish to give specific legal advice, as it's illegal in California and probably other states But here's the kicker issue: Your photograph is ac
58 TS: Just as a little sidenote: Since when does U.S. law apply around the world? Wouldn't it be enough for a.net to comply with Swedish laws? Are you sure?
59 Fergulmcc: Jeff, I have to disagree with you there mate, the magazine or newspaper would not sell if you took the photos out. Try it and you will soon see how q
60 SnowJ: Okay, here's my take on it. A photograph taken from a public place belongs to the photographer, plain and simple. I think someone's just being a pain
61 Dendrobatid: Q What is the difference between a lawyer dead on the road or a rat dead on the road ? A There will be skid marks before the rat. They are now using l
62 DC10Tim: This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread. I'm convinced the fact the aircraft carries their copyrighted design is incide
63 Apuneger: Although it seems that, with all points made, Airliners.net has a strong case against this claim, the best thing to do would probably be to consult a
64 Lennymuir: Of all the specific points raised and answered so far: Remember: The lawyer is representing a client who operates a 'biz-jet', not a major airline. (I
65 JohnJ: I've been doing some poking around on the Internet to come up to speed on Copyright law, as I find this a most interesting issue. According to the lin
66 Cyclonic: I find this whole issue to be quite sad. It'd be like taking a cityscape photo like say of Times Square in New York with all the logos and ad's in it,
67 JeffM: ...LOL...I agree in that situation, but you're missing my point. The magazine does not sell the photos to it's subscribers from the magazine of someo
68 Eksath: JeffM, Cannot it be argued that aviation photography (i.e. what we do) is photojournalism and hence falls under the perview above? Eksath
69 DC10Tim: Jeff, would you elaborate on this a bit more. Are you saying that selling a photo to a newspaper would be acceptable, whearas to any other company wo
70 JohnJ: Here's Section 107 of the US Copyright Law, which concerns fair use of a copyrighted item: § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithst
71 Gladave: looking over the subject if one 'sold' the photo then they may be in copyright infringement, so lets say the photographer gets contacted by X Airliner
72 Fergulmcc: Yep, I see your point Jeff, thanks, and from what I'm reading I think the photos for sales is going to be a sticking point here. As for just photogra
73 JeffM: Surely it could! And I think that is the dilemma we face. It all depends on what you do with the image. If you sell it to the newspaper that is o.k.
74 JohnJ: "One point that hasn't been made here and its a little mystifying that it hasn't come up, or maybe it has and I've missed it. Don't you think that thi
75 Fergulmcc: It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face!! Some people!! Fergul PS: I have a saying in life, Don't bite the hand that feeds y
76 Bruce: I saw this thread a couple days ago and have been thinking about this. The more I think about it I am inclined to believe that photo sales for commerc
77 Sllevin: This is categorically untrue, or else photographers would never be able to sell their work at all. Most photgraphers for auto magazines, for example,
78 Bruce: Right. Taking pictures in a public venue is totally fine. and you own the rights to it. BUT, when you market it and create a profit from it is where I
79 ShyFlyer: One of my favorite non-A.Net photographers is John K. Morton. I have a few of his books, and on the first few pages I noticed this passage: Mr. Morton
80 Sllevin: I understand what you're thinking. But again (and honest, I'm not trying to be pedantic, so please bare with me), copyright infringement circles arou
81 JeffM: Why then do they blur trademarked images on stuff like people's t-shirts and such on T.V. ?
82 TACAA320: " The company is claiming that my photo is in violation of copyright laws as the scheme is copyrighted." I have being reading over and over this threa
83 Sllevin: Is there any case law your friends can cite? I'm aware of none, which means no precedent. I can assure you that most feature films made do not have r
84 TACAA320: "Is there any case law your friends can cite? I'm aware of none, which means no precedent." Listen I'm just trying to help. Not to fight at this time,
85 APFPilot1985: No offense man, but you are talking about completely different legal systems. I've been looking on weslaw and lexus nexus and no precedent so far.
86 Tappan: Can we kill this thread already??!!!!!!!!! All due respect, the only country left where this might be true is the Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Oh y
87 LN-MOW: Even a Taliban regime would let this fly. However we are in Bushistan, the country with more lawyers per square foot than any other other contry on th
88 Bjcc: Without wishing to add fuel to the fire, so as to speak, copyright is a difficult issue. I know nothing about US law on the subject and very little ab
89 Sllevin: We should also be clear on the impact. If the photographs violate copyright, and if Johan is made aware this is actually law (which it isn't), he woul
90 TACAA320: "copyright is a difficult issue." [reply 88] I agree 100% with you. And that's precisly what some people don't understand. Even if the legal system ar
91 Tappan: The lady that emailed this guy is either...... A) Extremely drunk or drugged. B) Acting out a college sorority prank. C) An ex girlfriend of Johan's w
92 JohnJ: I asked my company's legal counsel about this today. First off, he was surprised they were bringing this up as a copyright issue vs. a trademark issue
93 TS: Exactly. That's why I wouldn't do anything. If we photographers back off very soon a.net teens will send out e-mails threatening "legal action." Ridi
94 Lennymuir: Quote Bjcc. However, it may interest some of the UK's photographers that the BAA actually own the copyright on any photo taken on their property. Yes,
95 GPHOTO: Ok, how far does this go? What about airshows? Let's say I go to one of the airshows held at Kemble for example. Does that mean that the copyright of
96 Danny: Because TV wants you to pay them to show your logo
97 Lennymuir: What about Duxford? Does the Imperial War Museum then hold copyright? Possibly, it is up to the company to pursue or waive. Ask Duxford. I don't work
98 Bjcc: Lennymuir, You have confused two things. Bye laws and company desire. Your large telcom firm (yep I got the hint!) can claim copyright, but have to go
99 Kempa: I am not a lawyer but I cannot see how copyright laws would apply in this case. The letter claims that the photograph of an airplane that shows a copy
100 B744F: Probably just another recent college grad trying to make a hit in the office? Unless you personally are profiting from the photograph, they have nothi
101 Administrator: I am archiving this thead, it continues here: Selling Aviation Photos Illegal? (by Administrator Jun 6 2005 in Aviation Photography) Regards, Johan[Ed
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jul 2001, 801 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 2774 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2029 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1394 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Costa Rica, joined Aug 2004, 7307 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2383 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
