Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft — Aviation Photography Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

AdamWright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

Hey,

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?

(this photo realllllly wants to be considered ! Wink )

Thanks
-Adam

15 replies: All unread, jump to last

PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AdamWright (Thread starter):
Can an image where the registration has been digitally removed

Digitally removed from the photo? Then the answer is no. Or is it invisible due to the angle the photo was taken?

F4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2469 times:

Even if you took the picture so the angle hid the registration, someone may recognize the plane and submit the registration # on the "correct info" page.

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA

Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work

Fiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1009 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2449 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?

Danny

Bring back Bethune!

Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3141 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

Can you post a small pic of the misterious plane with removed Reg. Thanks.

Georg

VasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2428 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.

Just my 2c.

--Vas

One Lucky shot deserves another!

AdamWright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2401 times:

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)

But thanks for the previous responses. The photo is an Air2Air photograph and I'll have to check and see if there are any pics where the reg is already hidden.. but I'm doubting that.

-Adam

CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2398 times:

Not to step on the owner's toes, but if s/he ever flies into public airports then their plane's going to show up here sooner or later, complete with reg etc...

As Danny said, if it's a cockpit shot then that's a different story...

B

Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3141 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2381 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.

Georg

TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

No manipulation is permitted, so if the reg has been removed in post-processing then the image is not allowed.

If you have an image with the reg naturally obscured, then that is perfectly acceptable.

TZ

TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images

PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting AdamWright (Reply 6):
For this instance and future photographs for me and other photographers

You acn also read it yourself at
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#editing

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 (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2289 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...

Soaring the internet...

THVGJP From Ukraine, joined Mar 2002, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1968 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

CHabu From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

Makes me curious about the airplane... Wink

Chris.

Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1874 times:

Quoting THVGJP (Reply 12):
Let the flaming begin

Not worth the effort.

Quoting THVGJP (Reply 12):
I guess its me

It is.

Quoting THVGJP (Reply 12):
If what you own makes you feel uncomfortable about your ownership of said item its obviously not necessary to own in the first place.

I don't follow the logic of this statement. Comfort about ownership and the necessity of ownership are two different things.

Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2

JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 14):
Not worth the effort.

Ditto

Quoting Viv (Reply 14):
I don't follow the logic of this statement.

I don't follow the logic of the whole post. He's only seeing one possibility.

Top Of Page

Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: