Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Selling Aviation Photos Illegal?  
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 21836 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Hello photographers,

To continue the topic here, I am posting a document of much relevance to our discussion. It was provided by a relative of one of our moderators that works as a lawyer:


F. MEDIA TITLES USED ON COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AND COMMERCIAL
MARKS USED IN THE MEDIA
2. Commercial Marks in the Media

10:22.1. Media use--Use of commercial marks in works of art

Commercial trademarks and services marks often appear in works of art. For
example, Andy Warhol's images of CAMPBELL's soup cans are a now famous chapter
in the history of modern art.[FN1] Many famous photographers have included
billboards and store signs in their photos, which are then displayed and
collected as works of art. Works of art depicting sporting events often show
background billboards and the marks of professional sports teams. When does
such a use of marks in art works constitute infringement and when is it immune
as being a non-confusing use under the aegis of free speech protections for
art?

When a trademark is used by another for a valid literary or artistic purpose,
the case law adopts a balancing test: Does the interest in avoiding customer
confusion on affiliation or approval outweigh the First Amendment interest in
free expression? As the Second Circuit has remarked: "[I]n general the
[Lanham] Act should be construed to apply to artistic works only where the
public interest outweighs the public interest in free expression."[FN1.1]

There is a surprising paucity of case law on the legality of the unpermitted
use of commercial trademarks in works of art. In one case, paintings of the
grandstand at the Saratoga Race Track were then reproduced on souvenir goods,
such as T-shirts. The court found no trademark infringement, saying that a
painting of a scene in which a trademark actually appears serves a valid First
Amendment interest: the artistically relevant need of realism.[FN2]

Even a building that is used in an art work may have trademark status.
However, it may be sometimes difficult to prove the existence of a trademark
right in a building, especially when asserting such a right against the use of
images of the building on a poster. For example, the Rock and Roll Hall of
Fame and Museum in Cleveland, designed by famed architect I.M. Pei, has an
unusual and distinctive appearance. The Museum asserted a case for trademark
infringement against a photographer who sold $40 posters featuring a
photograph of the Museum at sunset, the defendant's poster being competitive
with the Museum's own $20 posters showing the Museum at sunset. While the
district court enjoined the defendant's posters as being an infringement of a
trademark in the building appearance, the Sixth Circuit reversed, saying that
the Museum had not proven that it had used the building appearance as its own
trademark and had not proven that defendant's use of the building in his
poster was an infringement. [FN3] However, Judge Martin, dis senting, said
that this case was no less an infringement than if someone sold an unlicensed
poster showing a photo of a COCA-COLA contour bottle: "The Museum enabled its
building to serve as its mark by constructing a signature edifice so unique as
to offer instant recognizability."[FN4]

Author's Opinion: When a commercial trademark appears in a work of art, it is
more likely to be found to be a trademark infringement when (1) the trademark
visually dominates or is the focal point of the art work, and (2) when
reproductions of the art work are sold in commercial quantities or when
reproductions appear on a commercial article, such as a calendar, tote bag or
coaster. In the author's view, these two variables are reasonable predictors
of infringement. Thus, if the two tests are satisfied, a court is apt to find
that the commercialization of the art work will be likely to confuse consumers
into mistakenly thinking that this is a real advertisement or promotion put
out by the trademark owner or one that is approved or licensed by the
trademark owner.

It is no answer for the artist to respond to a complaining trademark owner:
"What are you complaining about? Reproductions of my work are free advertising
for your mark and products." This is no defense because the trademark owner
has no control over the nature and quality of the artistic reproductions. A
trademarked article or advertisement sold without the mark owner being able to
control the nature and quality of the product is not genuine: it is a
misleading use and is an infringement.[FN5]

[FN1] Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d 1715 (9th
Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 993, 154 L. Ed. 2d 912 (U.S. 2003)
("[T]he trademark owner does not have the right to control public discourse
whenever the public imbues his mark with a meaning beyond its
source-identifying function.... If we see a painting entitled 'Campbell's
Chicken Noodle Soup,' we're unlikely to believe that Campbell's has branched
into the art business.").

[FN1.1] Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 999, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1825 (2d Cir.
1989). See discussion at
31:144-31:149.

[FN2] New York Racing Ass'n v. Permutter Publishing, Inc., 959 F. Supp. 578
(N.D.N.Y. 1997) (image of the grandstand at the Saratoga Race Course was not
proven to constitute trade dress so as to prevent defendant's use of the image
on souvenir goods such as T-shirts; as an alternative holding, the court found
that even the depiction of valid trademarks was not an infringement because of
the artistically relevant purpose and the minimal possibility of consumer
confusion). See Cortez v. CMG Worldwide Inc., 962 F. Supp. 308, 311-312
(N.D.N.Y. 1997)(Owners of famous racehorses claimed artists who created images
of famous race horses in racing scenes violated Lanham Act by creating
contusion as to the sponsorship or approval of those pictures. This claim
raises "a novel question of federal law" and therefore court denies a stay in
view of a similar claim pending in state court.)

[FN3] Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Productions, 134
F.3d 749, 45 U.S.P.Q.2d 1412 (6th Cir. 1998) ("[W]e cannot conclude on this
record that it is likely that the Museum has established a valid trademark in
every photograph which, like [defendant's] prominently displays the front of
the Museum's building.") on remand, 71 F. Supp. 2d 755 (.D. Ohio) (case
dismissed on summary judgment, court finding that not only did the museum not
prove it had used the building design as its trademark, but that defendant
himself did not use the image in such a way as to indicate that the accused
poster was authorized by the museum). See New York Racing Ass'n v. Permutter
Publishing, Inc., 959 F. Supp. 578 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (image of the grandstand at
the Saratoga Race Course was not proven to constitute trade dress so as to
prevent defendant's use of the image on souvenir goods such as T-shirts);
7:100, regarding trademark rights in a building appearance.

[FN4] 45 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1419. Judge Martin, dissenting, concluded that: "I
believe the Museum has a valid trademark in its building and that a
photographic image of the museum building could qualify as a trademark on
merchandise." 45 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1421.

[FN5] See
3:10.


I think this makes it rather clear that posting images on Airliners.net of any aircraft is not a violation of any copyrights or trademarks (as long as you own the photo copyright). I am still not sure if selling images could cause problems or not.

Your views and comments are appreciated.

Regards,
Johan


Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBjcc From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 338 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 21806 times:

Would selling a photo depend on the country of the buyer and seller?

I note that all of the above are cases which have been heard in the US. If the transaction does not invove the US, then surely the above case law would not apply.

That is not to say that in the country of the seller/buyer similar law does not exist.

On a slightly different point, does not the copyright owner also have to object? If there is no objection raised then there is no complaint and therefore no breach.

Finaly, as far as I am aware there is no granting of a licence by the owners of say British Airways to magazines or book publishers, who regualy sell thier wares with airline photos in them, that would indicate an implied consent by Airlines that they don't see it as any breach of copyright.

Just an opinon.......


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21779 times:

Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
1) the trademark
visually dominates or is the focal point of the art work, and (2) when
reproductions of the art work are sold in commercial quantities or when
reproductions appear on a commercial article

As was said in the other thread, the aircraft is the "focal point" here, not the design, therefore the two criteria for infringememnt aren't met.

Reading through all of the above it would appear that selling images is perfectly legal too.

It would be interesting to know what the position is in relation to Swedish law and what international agreements Sweden is party to regarding trademarked designs.

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineJaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21755 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 2):
As was said in the other thread, the aircraft is the "focal point" here, not the design,

What about images like these?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Vanderheyden



Tom


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21711 times:

That's a fair point Tom. Clearly that could be considered to be a reproduction of the logo, wheras I doubt an aircraft taking off, for example, could be.

I hope we don't go down the path where the screeners have to be "lawyers" and screen for potential trademark infringements too.

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineBirdy From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 113 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 21686 times:

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 1):
Finaly, as far as I am aware there is no granting of a licence by the owners of say British Airways to magazines or book publishers, who regualy sell thier wares with airline photos in them, that would indicate an implied consent by Airlines that they don't see it as any breach of copyright.

Images for editorial use (newspapers, magazines, books etc.) usually do not need model or property releases to illustrate and/or support text.
Images which shows clearly identifiable people, properties, logos, may require a signed property release if it is to be used for commercial purposes like advertisement.

All depends of purpose image is used.

Regards,
Greg



"The nicer an airplane looks, the better it flies"...
User currently offlineTappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 41
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 21661 times:

Selling IS NOT a problem.
Mark Garfinkel


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 21628 times:

Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
(2) when
reproductions of the art work are sold in commercial quantities or when
reproductions appear on a commercial article, such as a calendar, tote bag or
coaster. In the author's view, these two variables are reasonable predictors
of infringement.

Seems pretty clear right there. But again, this would all be argued in court, which would cost more then the sale of the image would bring in.

Greg is very much right on this...

Quoting Birdy (Reply 5):
Images for editorial use (newspapers, magazines, books etc.) usually do not need model or property releases to illustrate and/or support text.

Editorial vs. Commercial is the key.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 21525 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Selling photos of airliners has been around a lot longer than Airliners.net, the internet, and the latest craze of threatening to sue anyone and everyone.

I went to my first airline slide show in 1979 with my dad, that was 25+ years ago, I have never heard of anyone being sued for buying and/or selling a K64 slide of a jetliner.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 21505 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
I have never heard of anyone being sued for buying and/or selling a K64 slide of a jetliner.

Great, but that is not what the discussion is about, and just because you have not heard of it happening doesn't mean it hasn't or won't.


User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 21479 times:

Must be a fun life being a lawyer and having to get a definitive view on who owns a trademark/copyright and what it really means.

I can see that if someone lives by their image, or their art, then they want to protect it, but the paint on the side of the aircraft is not the revenue earner so there is no intrinsic value related to an image of an aircraft.

There may be some argument about aircraft in custom colour schemes, e.g. the Peter Max COA 777, but even then, the justification for the artwork and the fact that it is not for commercial gain, per se, probably means that selling photos of it is OK. Legally, it could probably be argued that it was the aircraft that was being photographed and the paint scheme was incidental anyway.

If the Peter Max was retired from service and put in a museum, then the museum could probably claim that they had some sort of right to the image of it, if the museum shop was full of posters and postcards of it and other people taking photos was going to affect their sales.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 21461 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JeffM (Reply 9):
I have never heard of anyone being sued for buying and/or selling a K64 slide of a jetliner.

People trying to sell Fuji slides will be sued though Wink

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 21448 times:

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 10):
but the paint on the side of the aircraft is not the revenue earner so there is no intrinsic value related to an image of an aircraft.

The paint on the side of the aircraft is the Trademark, the Logo, the brand. That is what is protected, not the medium in which it is applied, or what it is applied to.


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 21438 times:

I believe in this case that selling commercially is completely legal. I think what the document is saying is that as long as we aren't trying to promote the airline or if what we do could be confused with promoting the airline (you'd have to be dumb to believe that we're promoting certain airlines), then it's ok because we are clearly identifying ourselves as "artists" and not trying to represent the company who's airplane we've just shot.

User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 21403 times:

I was told by the legal deparment of a very large (largest in the world?) frieght/package airline that it's perfectly legal to sell/take "real" photos of their airline if you were not selling actual items like mugs and/or similar. Selling the photos to a magazine and/or newspaper was 100% legal and they had no problem with it. And trust me, this company is very very tough on the (illegal) use of their logos/copyright/trademark. A lot of the info posted in these threads are a bit off and/or completely wrong/misleading.

So, if we're talking about selling the photos for publiciation and/or posting on this site we are fine. That's my advice, do what you want with it.

Mike


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 21386 times:

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 14):
frieght/package airline that it's perfectly legal to sell/take "real" photos of their airline if you were not selling actual items like mugs and/or similar.

What would they do if you were to sell their logo on mugs, calendars, posters, etc? We knew editorial work (magazine, newspapers) was not in question.


User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 21363 times:

Pro- Avphotography sales are illegal arguments:

Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
Does the interest in avoiding customer
confusion on affiliation or approval outweigh the First Amendment interest in
free expression?



Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
"The Museum enabled its
building to serve as its mark by constructing a signature edifice so unique as
to offer instant recognizability."[FN4]



Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
trademark infringement when (1) the trademark
visually dominates or is the focal point of the art work, and (2) when
reproductions of the art work are sold in commercial quantities or when
reproductions appear on a commercial article, such as a calendar, tote bag or
coaster. In the author's view, these two variables are reasonable predictors
of infringement. Thus, if the two tests are satisfied, a court is apt to find
that the commercialization of the art work will be likely to confuse consumers
into mistakenly thinking that this is a real advertisement or promotion put
out by the trademark owner or one that is approved or licensed by the
trademark owner.



Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
"What are you complaining about? Reproductions of my work are free advertising
for your mark and products." This is no defense because the trademark owner
has no control over the nature and quality of the artistic reproductions.
A
trademarked article or advertisement sold without the mark owner being able to
control the nature and quality of the product is not genuine: it is a
misleading use and is an infringement.



Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
violated Lanham Act by creating
contusion as to the sponsorship or approval of those pictures.



Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
the artistically relevant need of realism.

Effectively, the spirit of these court cases comes to a crux when brandings can be confused/missused and that harm may come from the inability to control the use of a brand. A photo of an American MD80 on a.net
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric D Smith- Rocky Mountain AvPhotos

does not allow for American to control the branding of their paint scheme. Does the photographer, Eric Smith, violate the Lanham Act by confusing the branding of American Airlines? Will American suffer any harm from this photo? Would the implied risks of commerical harm from said photograph justify AA to use the image without consent, so that they may control the theme and aspect of the image? Note, I'm not saying AA would do this, I'm asking would this line or reasoning would hold up in court? I'm also not saying that Eric's character of avphoto mold him as sleezy/evil etc, the fact that he gets into fender benders w/ lil old ladies will cement that charaterization  Wink. Of course, damage from trade mark infringement appears to be difficult to prove, espcially when so many images are instantly recognizable. Also, where does Eurowhite play into this equation? The similiar paint schemes AA and the US special livery could create branding problems between the 2 airlines.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Burns
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wayne Cowan

Does this create any less confusion? Finally, who owns a trademark when it is being used in a different context? Case in point. http://www.rockymountainavphotos.com/rockymountain.jpg and
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kyle Matson - Rocky Mountain AvPhotos

Does this F9 bird advertise F9 or RMAP? Is this bird now essential to the advetising of RMAP??


User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 21344 times:

I still don't understand why we are discussing about U.S. law. A.net is based in Sweden, which is not under U.S. jurisdiction.

Thomas


User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 21344 times:

That is $200 per hour...

 Wink

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 21332 times:

Quoting TS (Reply 18):
I still don't understand why we are discussing about U.S. law. A.net is based in Sweden, which is not under U.S. jurisdiction.

Easy, the thread starter Bronko lives in the U.S.. There are also international copyright/trademark laws that may apply in Sweden as well.


User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 21312 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 15):
What would they do if you were to sell their logo on mugs, calendars, posters, etc? We knew editorial work (magazine, newspapers) was not in question.

They would require you to stop and possibly pay damages I'm sure. I knew editiorial work was not a problem but from reading these posts (also from the other forum) some people were confusing the two.

The incident that caused these threads was just the posting of the image online (bizjet), not sales of mugs, pics and so on. I was keeping on topic.

Mike


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 21294 times:

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 21):
They would require you to stop and possibly pay damages I'm sure.

Is something along these lines what you are referring to as types of sales they would look to prevent? (examples only...names + photoID removed)

http://home.comcast.net/~jwckmiller/anetstuff/likethis.jpg


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 21280 times:

Now I know why I'm glad I didn't opt in on the photo sales Big grin

User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 21267 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 22):
Is something along these lines what you are referring to as types of sales they would look to prevent? (examples only...names + photoID removed)

yes, from talking with the guy (nice as heck) that is something they would be concerned about. when we were talking he mentioned mugs/coffee cups specifically as an (one) example. btw...it wasn't the airline in your example  Wink

mike


User currently offlineBirdy From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 113 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 21207 times:

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 21):
Quoting JeffM (Reply 15):
What would they do if you were to sell their logo on mugs, calendars, posters, etc? We knew editorial work (magazine, newspapers) was not in question.

They would require you to stop and possibly pay damages I'm sure.

Thinking this way...

Profiting from advertisements like on A.net or other similar site where aircraft photos/logos appear, and constitute main reason of traffic and way to attract viewers, would be considered also as illegal?
If someone sells prints, mugs, calendars or whatever with copyrighted logos, shapes (aircraft) etc. it is commercial activity and it is illegal. I suppose profiting from adverts in this situation is just another form of this activity... confused 

Confused...
Greg



"The nicer an airplane looks, the better it flies"...
25 JeffM : Well, after reading Mike's response, which is what I believed to be the case from the research I did, I've removed the few hundred photos that I did
26 TS : The Lanham Act is not international law.
27 Post contains images JeffM : Did I mention the Lanham Act? No. I didn't. Keep looking, you'll find it.
28 TS : Why don't you read the first post? This is what this thread is about. Keep looking, you'll find it.
29 Post contains links and images JeffM : Actually, this is what the thread is about.... Threatened With Legal Action Over ANet Photo (by Bronko May 20 2005 in Aviation Photography) You implie
30 Clickhappy : Jeff, what is your problem? This thread is about brain storming, collecting ideas and getting various peoples point of views. I am not sure why you fe
31 JeffM : Royal, I would have thought that you could tell the difference between hawking slides at a convention or on e-Bay and selling mouse pads, mugs, calen
32 Post contains links Birdy : There is more information’s about trademarks and photography. http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html So is selling prints, mugs, posters etc.
33 TransIsland : I would think that most photo sales on a.net hardly qualify as "commercial quantities." Though it'd be interesting to know what the definition is - i
34 Post contains links Mikephotos : For those who haven't read it, here's a good article from PopPhoto (hope it wasn't posted, didn't see it here) http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download
35 Post contains links Administrator : Alright guys, time to make a decision on this issue. It seems the laws are quite unclear and that there is no way to know for sure unless it is tried
36 Clickhappy : Nice work Johan, I think your reasoning is clear and accurate. If anyone disagrees or is worried about breaking the law they can ask that their photos
37 JeffM : Good info Mike! Thanks for bringing it up.
38 Administrator : I have now implemented the changes explained above (print sales only for prints and trademark notice). Regards, Johan
39 DLKAPA : Is there a possibility that this thread can be saved so we can use this for reference should I or any other photographer get a threatening e-mail?
40 Mikephotos : Thanks Jeff. I know most of it we covered from the numerous posts from everyone but it's always good to see what we think is in writing somewhere, by
41 Eksath : FYI: Editorial use A few months ago, I had issues with some of my pictures. The opposing lawyer informed me that despite the fact the pictures (on her
42 BigPhilNYC : What's funny is the beating I would lay on some lawyer if he ever tried to extort me like that. He can threaten suing me again and criminal charges al
43 Jan Mogren : Phil, that reminds me of how you wanted to greet Mr Avrane in France. What happened there? /JM
44 BigPhilNYC : We were able to come to another agreement.
45 Mikephotos : Eksath, sorry but the above is so wrong it's not even funny. He bs'd you and got the better of you. He's the reason for all the bad lawyer jokes. I'd
46 Kempa : Johan, All that you posted on the top of this thread relates to TRADEMARK. It seems the lawsuit threat was based on COPYRIGHT. These are two very diff
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Some Various Aviation Photos posted Wed Oct 25 2006 02:05:02 by Mohavewolfpup
Professional Photog Is Selling My Photos! posted Thu Dec 1 2005 22:18:49 by AndrewUber
When Not Taking Aviation Photos...advice? posted Mon Apr 5 2004 07:42:22 by Mirrodie
Fuji S5000 Any Good For Aviation Photos posted Mon Mar 15 2004 16:48:54 by LHRSIMON
Selling Digital Photos posted Thu Jan 2 2003 19:45:59 by 9A-CRO
Selling Your Photos posted Fri Aug 3 2001 22:25:17 by Beefmoney
When Selling Your Photos To Fellow Collectors... posted Tue Apr 17 2001 03:28:48 by Dazed767
Aviation Photos At Faro, Portugal posted Sat Jul 15 2000 23:14:13 by Scotty
The Truth About Selling Photos posted Mon Sep 25 2006 17:13:21 by BigPhilNYC
Possible Illegal Use Of Photos? posted Thu Sep 1 2005 15:25:21 by SQNo1
Professional Photog Is Selling My Photos! posted Thu Dec 1 2005 22:18:49 by AndrewUber
When Not Taking Aviation Photos...advice? posted Mon Apr 5 2004 07:42:22 by Mirrodie
Fuji S5000 Any Good For Aviation Photos posted Mon Mar 15 2004 16:48:54 by LHRSIMON
Selling Digital Photos posted Thu Jan 2 2003 19:45:59 by 9A-CRO
Selling Your Photos posted Fri Aug 3 2001 22:25:17 by Beefmoney
When Selling Your Photos To Fellow Collectors... posted Tue Apr 17 2001 03:28:48 by Dazed767
Aviation Photos At Faro, Portugal posted Sat Jul 15 2000 23:14:13 by Scotty
Selling Photos posted Thu Jul 26 2007 23:13:11 by Relic