AdamWright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3876 times:
Will airliners.net accept a photo of an aircraft where the registration has been removed due to the owners wishes? I have a photograph that I would really like to add to the database. However, it is the owners wish that the registration not be publically released on the photograph. Can an image where the registration has been digitally removed (due to owners demands) still be given an equal opportunity in teh screening process? Like can N**** be put in place of a normal reg?
Fiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
Well, is this a cockpit shot we are talking about where there is no N placard on the 'deck? Or is this an exterior shot where the number is showing? My theory...even IF the owner does not want their rego published BUT the photo was taken from a public area, which is NOT the property of the FBO where it was taken. IF that's where you were. In short, if you were OUTSIDE on public land, go for it. Were you given permissing to enter said aircraft or shoot it on terms of not publishing them in public domain?
VasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3734 times:
Quoting AdamWright (Thread starter): Can an image where the registration has been digitally removed still be given an equal opportunity in teh screening process?
Nope. I doubt that. But if you took the photo in an angle obscuring the reg#, it would suffice the A.net rules...I think you can mention in the comments "Reg number removed at owners discretion. In that way others will not correct the reg info. This is something similar to the recent Photo Date debate we had...if you had to share a photo with limited info...go ahead.
Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3687 times:
Quoting AdamWright (Reply 6): Perhaps one of the CREW Members can chime in? Since they are the Rule Police, I would like to hear it from the horses mouth. (For this instance and future photographs for me and other photographers)
A pic with a removed Reg isn't allowed on Anet....that's as sure as the Amen in the church. A pic can't be such interesting that it makes it on Anet with such a manipulation.
Quote: The second reason is more serious. Airliners.Net does not tolerate ANY deliberate alteration of the image for the purpose of the removal of objects from the image, addition of objects to photographs, deliberate blurring of objects (to create an artificial depth of field) or faces, or changing the registration or even entire colour schemes. These type of EDITING rejections can result in a ban from the site.
Schreiner From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3595 times:
If you shot the picture from inside the aircraft the owner can forbid your picture to be public. If from outside the aircraft its not his call. Cockpit photo's are usually shot from the inside, so the owner can forbid your picture to be uploaded here. I know that an airport cannot forbid pictures to be taken inside an aircraft. Brgds...
THVGJP From Ukraine, joined Mar 2002, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3274 times:
Maybe its the Marxist in me but I figure if some guy has the bucks to spend on a multimillion dollar jet why be ashamed of it or want "confidentiality". If what you own makes you feel uncomfortable about your ownership of said item its obviously not necessary to own in the first place. Who cares if some multinational corporation such as CoccaCola has a G-5 or a BBJ, its necessary for business, the corporation shouldn't have to hide the fact that it own such assets. I guess its me but I dont get this obsession with privacy on these peoples planes, they fly into a public (highly visible) airport and park there while doing business, transparency in a publicly traded corporation and how they spend there money is good. A private individule may be another story however I figure if you have it flaunt it. Let the flaming begin