Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts. Posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6453 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW SITE ADMIN
Photographers,
I am sorry to say that Airliners.net has been contacted by Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air requesting that we remove all photos of their aircraft from our photo print sales section. I initially refused based on conclusions drawn in this discussion, but they then contacted Photobox, the UK based company that handles the printing and shipping for us and they were not as willing to fight this as I am.
Therefore, all photos showing an Alaska Airlines or Horizon Air aircraft have been removed from the print sales section.
It is very sad to see that some airlines have lawyers with so little real work to do that they can spend time attacking the aviation fans, who love the industry and the airlines. The little you might make from selling a print of a photo to another aviation enthusiast (a photo you shot and own the copyrights to!) is taken away by corporate lawyers paid by airlines who seemingly think paying these guys is a good investment for their money.
Does the airline management even know what their lawyers (Klarquist Sparkman LLC) are doing and what huge loss of goodwill in the aviation community this will cause them? Airliners.net is the biggest aviation site in the world with hundreds of thousands of daily visitors. I will make sure people know about this. I suggest you guys do the same. If you work for any of these airlines or know someone who does, please point their management to this thread. I'm at loss as to how someone could pay lawyers to work on issues like these, don't they have any real problems to attend to? After all the negativity the airline industry received after 9/11 with people fearing air travel or dreading it due to extreme and time consuming security checks, sites such as Airliners.net are helping to bring the positive excitement, magic and beauty back to the industry.
Regards,
Johan Lundgren
johan.lundgren@airliners.net
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6411 times:
Johan,
it is very unfortunate, and I applaud your willingness to fight. Alaska Airlines is not in the right here, and it shouldn't take much to realize that. That Photobox is willing to roll over for them is scary. I would suggest finding a new print supplier, or taking the photo sales unit offline completely. Photobox's actions are dangerous to our art - nearly moreso tha Alaska Airlines.
I'd also suggest hiring a lawyer to send Alaska Airlines a short letter letting them know that you are aware of what the law actually is, and that they have no rights in either copyright or trademark to prevent photographers selling their photos. Such a letter would be inexpensive.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6375 times:
Quoting Administrator (Thread starter): I am sorry to say that Airliners.net has been contacted by Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air
Is this a new development? I received an email about this last week, thats why I ask.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6372 times:
Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 2): I find this amusing. I seem to remember in a previous post that you were so gung-ho about showing them who was boss, it was almost believable.
I don't see why it's amusing, as I'm certainly not laughing about it. I said in a previous post (which I still say) that Alaska Airlines is wrong, and gave reasons. My wishing Airliners.net good luck is not a suggestion that they will need it.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, RR: 48 Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6361 times:
Johan,
Have you considered making this issue a News item for the A/net front page? (or as an item in Civ/Av)
If the thousands of aviation enthusiasts that visit this site knew about the heavy handed attitude of these airlines and a few started voting with their wallets they may rethink this action.
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6302 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 5): Have you considered making this issue a News item for the A/net front page?
Good point Chris .
I think that would would make a lot more people aware of the situation and get something done about it.
Shame on you airlines with a selfish attitude like this dont forget its people that pay for the tickets is how you make your living.
Cheers
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11251 posts, RR: 63 Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6234 times:
This could set a potential catastrophic precedent for our hobby - I wonder how many other airlines would follow suit if they think they can get away with it. The fact that a photographer is unable to sell his or her picture to another aviation fan, seemingly just because a lawyer(s) thinks it's a bad idea is completely unjust. The photographer owns the image, it should be his decision to allow it to be reproduced.
I hope enough pressure can be placed on them the reverse their decision. Good luck Johan.
QANTAS077 From China, joined Jan 2004, 5751 posts, RR: 49 Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6203 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 5): Johan,
Have you considered making this issue a News item for the A/net front page? (or as an item in Civ/Av)
If the thousands of aviation enthusiasts that visit this site knew about the heavy handed attitude of these airlines and a few started voting with their wallets they may rethink this action.
last thing you want to do is get in the face of a wealthy airline...i think this says it all just fine! if they want a photo of their plane i'll be sure to charge them double!
a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
Mwk From Sweden, joined Apr 2005, 20 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6145 times:
This certainly is bad news and quite a small-minded thing for an airline to do. But at least they only object to the practise of selling prints. They could have objected to the practice of publishing photos of their aircraft altogether, and that would have been even worse.
Because, despite what some people here seem to want to believe, these layers do have sort of a case against us. I am not saying that we need their consent to publish photos of aircraft in general, since trademarks can freely be used in artistic work. But we are not allowed to publish photos of other works of art, and some of the special paint schemes of the airlines in question would most likely qualify as a work of art. They are probably based on a photo or drawing, to which someone hold the copyright. So from a legal viewpoint we might be committing copyright violations when we publish photos of works of art, such as special paint schemes.
But in the end this is a question of morals and ethics and I think that Alaska and Horizon has shown a serious lack in that department by chasing after us spotters. This cant possibly hurt them financially so why they object to our hobby is beyond me.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6125 times:
Quoting Mwk (Reply 9): But we are not allowed to publish photos of other works of art, and some of the special paint schemes of the airlines in question would most likely qualify as a work of art. They are probably based on a photo or drawing, to which someone hold the copyright. So from a legal viewpoint we might be committing copyright violations when we publish photos of works of art, such as special paint schemes.
It's fair use in the copyright sense, and so it is not in violation (unless you are clearly making a copy of the underlying work verbatim or close to it). It's the same thing as Andy Warhol painting Campbell's soup cans. For the sake of brevity (and the fact that people are tired of reading my legal stuff ), you should check out the other discussion linked above and the one on the main page right now.
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6077 times:
You know this situation is in the similar vein to a story I read in Trains magazine recently. The Union Pacific Railroad was getting ready to sue a lot of model train equipment manufacturers, such as Lionel, for example; for copyright enfringement of the Union Pacific paint scheme and logo. Yet, from my understanding of the article, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad has never had a problem with model train makers and the use of the logos on model trains.
I think finally cooler heads prevailed and The Union Pacific lawyers went away and did not sue anyone and everyone now gets long with each other.
This is also similar to the fine gentleman who has the website, www.skyshirts.com. He was telling me at one of the airliner shows, that he has to pay copyright fees to many of the airlines for the designs of his t-shirts...........and the ones from American Airlines has a tag attached to show that he has paid a copyright fee to AA.
I thought that was very odd. It isn't like he and/or others are getting very wealthy from a picture of an airline paint scheme, I would think.
I hope you get this problem worked out Johan, I just don't think this is a good situation for you and/or the site.
Shep From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6060 times:
Too many lawyers are now taking it all away...
Back in the 'good old days' - lawyers were called upon to serve the people. But now - it seems the people are serving the lawyers, doctors, insurance companies, and so on...
Government is "in bed" with all of those above...
So what can we do?
We gotta start taking it back... somehow - we gotta take it back...
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11437 posts, RR: 50 Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6039 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 14): What would Johan do if I started selling t-shirts with a picture of a guy holding a t-shirt, sign, etc. that had a big Airliner's.Net logo on it?
I think that's a different situation. The photo sales from this site are for non-commercial use - they're intended for other enthusiasts to make a print and hang on their wall or put in an album. Your theoretical sale of t-shirts is certainly a commercial use.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6038 times:
Quoting Shep (Reply 13): Too many lawyers are now taking it all away...
Geez dude, on the other thread, there was a lawyer completely and totally on the side of Airliners.net. This statement clearly goes too far. Don't hate lawyers - lawyers would be nothing without plaintiffs.
In other words, stay on point. This isn't about lawyers. This is about Alaska Airlines.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1721 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6033 times:
Quoting JayDavis (Reply 12): I thought that was very odd. It isn't like he and/or others are getting very wealthy from a picture of an airline paint scheme, I would think.
I think this is what it's about. Most likely, Alaska Airlines wants "their cut" of the money from print sales? If they can't get any of it, then they'll try to get them shut down?
At least, this seems like a logical take on it. Pure speculation.
CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6017 times:
Quoting Dvincent (Reply 18): I think this is what it's about. Most likely, Alaska Airlines wants "their cut" of the money from print sales? If they can't get any of it, then they'll try to get them shut down?
I would guess if that was the case they'd ask for a cut of the photo sales, not removal of the sale option....
Hawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3095 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6015 times:
This reminds me of when American tried to get all their photos removed from the site. I wonder if some of the same lawyers are involved.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11437 posts, RR: 50 Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6008 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 16): Oh sorry, I forgot to mention....I would only sell to people who enjoy wearing t-shirts as a hobby.
Ah Jeff, as usual, your shining wit is an example to us all.
Anyone would be hard pressed to claim that selling a few prints of photographs (that are my copyright) through this website constitutes a commercial undertaking. If you had 500 t-shirts made and were selling them from a road-side stall, that would be a different matter.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1721 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6006 times:
Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 19): I would guess if that was the case they'd ask for a cut of the photo sales, not removal of the sale option....
I don't know if any kind of negotiation happened behind the scenes with the print company. It's entirely possible that they asked the print company for a cut, they said no, so they then said "well, then remove them from print sales."
I just don't see any motivation for it otherwise. Again, just speculation. I've used the aforementioned customer response form and sent a letter. The more people that say something the better chance we have of reversing it.
Mwk From Sweden, joined Apr 2005, 20 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5975 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 10): It's the same thing as Andy Warhol painting Campbell's soup cans
Actually it isn’t, Campbell’s soup cans are protected by trademark and they are therefore free to be used in an artistic work. But what I said is that when we take a photo of a work of art, which is protected by copyright, we might be going a bit to far.
So I’m not saying that they have a general case here, they would have to prove that the paint scheme is a work of art before they had any legal ground for their claim. And that could not be done regarding the normal scheme, it is only in the case of special schemes that we might be in the wrong.
TransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2032 posts, RR: 11 Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 5929 times:
Quoting Shep (Reply 13): Government is "in bed" with all of those above...
It's the juristic-industrial complex we've been warned about, but we weren't vigilant enough and now there's no turning back! At least that's what Elvis tells me, who is sitting at my breakfast table.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
25 D L X: Okay, I'm not going to rehash all the arguments I made on the other thread, so check them out here: No Photo Sales Of Alaska Airlines Aircraft? (by X
26 JohnJ: . Union Pacific followed through with their threats and actually filed suit against a model train manufacturer and a guy who produces calendars. Unio
27 D L X: Did UP win, or did they settle? That's a really big difference. I think UP simply used a scare tactic, and the model train company got scared. Do you
28 JohnJ: UP settled - the license requirement stands, but they've agreed to waive the fee. The suits were brought against Lionel and MTH Electric Trains (Mike'
29 JohnJ: Sorry to keep digging up the Union Pacific lawsuits, but they're conceptually very similar to the issue at hand with Alaska Airlines. I found a web si
30 D L X: I don't know. I don't think people would be surprised to hear me say this, but UP's got the law wrong in terms of licensing trademarks. Reading their
32 Paulinbna: If Alaska Airlines has a problem with it why have a number of other airliners bought prints and files form me and many other people here. Would they n
33 Philb: This is either corporate or lawyer greed. Perhaps we should all tell Alaska that they have lost any custom they had from A.netters until they reverse
34 Mwk: @ D L X While not a lawyer, I am a student of business law, so I also know a few things about this. After having read your comments in the other threa
36 Codeshare: Nice overall PR 'flop' from Alaskan/Horizon. How about banning their photos on here The whole thing probably comes from one ambitious manager's head (
37 Mirrodie: How long ago is AA try to do this? In the grand scheme of things, I think it's a rather petty lawsuit. Sorry to hear.
38 D L X: No, I think I understood what you were saying, but it's simply not what the law is in America. (I don't know about elsewhere.) If it is a drawing, it
40 Hawaiian717: I don't remember for sure. 2001 at the latest; I did find a post in another forum that made reference to this kind of activity from them, but I can't
41 Mwk: Maybe this is why our opinions differ. Under Swedish law a creation or work need to archive what is called “verkshöjd”. There is no good direct
42 D L X: An aircraft is considered a "useful article" in that it does something and performs some function. Under American copyright law, useful articles may
43 Burnsie28: How are they able to do this, as the photographs are copyright and full ownership lies with the person that took the picture, thus AS has no ownership
44 JeffM: ....have you read any of the above posts? Alaska/Horizon doesn't want any ownership to anyone's copyright, they are protecting their Intellectual Pro
45 D L X: They aren't entitled to that either though. I don't care how much they spent creating their logos, brand, and such, the law simply doesn't protect it
46 JeffM: If you say so. But you know that is not the truth in all instances. Personally I could care less about Alaska airlines and what they want, so I'll st
47 D L X: It is the truth. If I don't have the right to sell my work however I see fit, I also don't have the copyright. The right of distribution is one of th
48 PlymSpotter: Doesn't that depend on whether the picture was shot from private property, or public ground? I seem to remember some pictures of England footballers
49 D L X: I don't know anything about the law in England or Spain in regards to copyright. This isn't the law in America though. In America, much leeway is giv
50 PlymSpotter: Thanks - I wasn't sure what the situation was on that matter in America. I should think that 90% of A.net's photographs come from public property any
51 Mwk: That is very interesting, here a useful article (or “brukskonst”) would be eligible for copyright protection. But it would be harder to archive s
52 D L X: In American law, a useful article may be patented if it lives up to the very difficult patent requirements. However, patent only protects other peopl
53 D L X: How do you figure that? American company as a plaintiff, the alleged infringing act (taking the photo) was done on American soil (or possibly Mexico)
54 Mwk: I’ll give it a try: I meant that they are the same in that they are both objects that are copyright protected. I know you don’t agree with me tha
55 EMA747: Way to go Alaska/Horizon! I for one will try to never fly with them now as it's these petty things that really p**s me off, why not try to adhere your
56 D L X: If you mean "airframe", then no, I don't agree. If you mean "paintjob", then yes, I completely agree. I think you mean paintjob, so the question is e
57 SkyexRamper: Well not totally true, as a photographer you own the rights to that specific shot in form only, not to subject matter. You can't claim copyrights to
58 Graphic: I think its funny that Johan has been given a golden opportunity to stand up for the photographers that made him where he is today and instead he's be
59 Clickhappy: How can Johan "fight" this? They are not his images. Why don't you post some Alaska pictures on your Rocky Mountain Photography website and offer them
60 Graphic: We sell prints to anybody who's interested. So far none...
61 Clickhappy: Only for sale if contacted directly? Throw some links up with a 'buy it now' option and/or some Cafe Press.
62 CalgaryBill: If I understand the timeline, Johan refused to remove the "buy it now" button so Alaska went to the printer and gave them the cease & desist. Since t
63 Graphic: That requires a little more than just a link, there'd have to be coordination with a printer and a system of taking credit card orders ala paypal, th
64 Clickhappy: So, you don't have the time to "deal with it" but you want to make Johan look like a bad guy for backing down? Typical. What makes *me* sad are people
65 Graphic: There is a huge difference between our little website and airliners.net. Our website relies on us to make it what it is, the amount of effort we put
66 CYEGsTankers: If I was apart of the two carriers I would be ashamed of these as well. Not that they have ever been selected for $,$$$ or anything :P View Large View
67 CalgaryBill: If you read some of the posts above, including mine #62 and Johan's himself, Johan did not back down. In fact, he refused to remove the button when a
70 113312: Maybe they should take the logos and paint off of their planes too since the purpose of those is identity and advertising. If they fly their planes in
71 Piercey: I don't know if anyone else noticed, but skyshirts has also stopped the sale of Alaska branded items... http://www.skyshirts.com./Detail%20P...ges/al
72 Bruce: I dont know if this is related, but i got a paypal payout from my sales...and i have not reached $50. i did not request it. Is the photo sales program
73 CcrlR: This reminded me of when Boeing was going after the model airplane manufacturers over the use of their airplanes in model form. They went as far as t
74 WestJetYQQ: I want to know how this would negatively affect the airline in any way that would make them feel the need to stop them being sold here. I think it cou
75 JeffM: Write them a letter. They should pay us to take pictures of their planes, but that ain't happen' either.
76 Scotland1979: It is shame that Alaska Airlines do not want us to sell some print(s). And what point does Alaska Airlines have some special scheme liveries like Adda
77 Jacobin777: ...that's how I feel.... .....maybe I should lobby the FAA to ban Alasaka Airlines when they fly over my house, as I feel its "intruding on my privac
78 Clickhappy: If they fly their planes in public, then you should be free to photograph them. Alaska Airlines has not told anyone they can't take pictures of their
79 Wunala: I have just done this, and also reminded them that I filled out a customer care form back in July 06, and am still awaiting a reply, despite being pr
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 962 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11251 posts, 
From China, joined Jan 2004, 5751 posts, 
), you should check out the other discussion linked above and the one on the main page right now.
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11437 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2032 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
