Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question About Selling Photographs  
User currently offlineCatalinasgrace From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 1 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4831 times:

I have been trying to find out information on selling prints that I have taken. My question is, can the photographer (myself) sell prints of an aircraft that I do not own?

Example:
Say I took a very good shot at an airshow, can I as the photographer sell that print? Do I need the aircraft owner permission? What do I need to know about this kind of thing?

I tried to search it but only came back with posts about other peoples photos being ripped off by someone else.

I thank you for your time!

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4815 times:

Laws differ from country to country but generally I believe the rules in the U.S. and the U.K. are similar. If an aircraft is photographed from a public place (irrespective of whether or not it's actually in or over a public place) you are the copyright holder and therefore you are entitled to do with that shot what you see fit. This of course includes selling it.

There have been instances where an airline or operator has tried to lay claim to an image but this is nonsense. If someone doesn't want their aircraft photographing they shouldn't parade them in public places - simple as that.

No-one can stop you selling an image, although they may try. They don't have a leg to stand on!

Karl


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4798 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Catalinasgrace (Thread starter):
Say I took a very good shot at an airshow, can I as the photographer sell that print?

Have a look at the EAA's media policy for photos shot at their annual Oshkosh (Airventure) airshow. Draconian and absurd, if you ask me

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4765 times:

I have been approached about some photos I have of TVA Power Plants. If you don't know who the "TVA" is, they are a government entity in the south called the Tennessee Valley Authority. They own and operate a range of electrical generation plants all over the mid-south. Everything from Dams to Nuclear, and Coal fired power plants. Here's their wiki site which is pretty accurate! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

Either way, before I "sell" or "publish" any photo of their power plants on my own, even though I took the shot, I have to have their permission first. They own the Copyright to the power plant and reserve the right to review the photos for anything that would be sensitive to their ability to compete fairly on the open market. In many cases, their logo is on the side of the plant in some place and that logo is the property of TVA and can only be shown in certain ways. This is a case where a photo taken on public land has to be reviewed before publishing.

Now at airports, as long as you are on public land and are not showing any airline in a bad/negative light you should be fine. Sell away!!!



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4761 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 2):
Have a look at the EAA's media policy for photos shot at their annual Oshkosh (Airventure) airshow. Draconian and absurd, if you ask me

That's just plain out absurd. What the heck? Out of the thousands who attend each year, many are "Freelance" aviation photographer. Meaning, they are able to derive a portion of their yearly taxable income from photo sales to public or private firms or media. I realize that EAA owns the event, but the airport is a public airport and not one that is owned by the EAA. Personally, I just see it as a way the EAA can collect money on their behalf because it was taken at their "Flagship" show. Does this mean that at all the little GA airports in this country where the local EAA Chapter has a breakfast once a month that these rules apply there too?



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4752 times:

With reference to the Oshkosh thing I would have thought they'd have trouble making that stick - especially in foreign countries. I mean, I take a shot of an aircraft in the air from public land, return to the UK and sell my image - what leg would they have to stand on to persue me from the other side of the Atlantic??!!

Threatening words as a deterrent perhaps?

Karl


User currently offlineIamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4707 times:



Quoting Lexy (Reply 3):
Either way, before I "sell" or "publish" any photo of their power plants on my own, even though I took the shot, I have to have their permission first. They own the Copyright to the power plant and reserve the right to review the photos for anything that would be sensitive to their ability to compete fairly on the open market. In many cases, their logo is on the side of the plant in some place and that logo is the property of TVA and can only be shown in certain ways. This is a case where a photo taken on public land has to be reviewed before publishing.

Presumably, you were on their property at the time the picture was taken? Otherwise there is no way such a restriction would hold up in the United States unless you presenting the work as authorized in some way by TVA. Even photographs taken on property are hard for the property owner to make a claim against unless they specified a condition of your presence on the property was forfeiture of the copyrights for the work you created. They can claim they own a "copyright to the buildings" (I doubt you'll find that term in any case law rulings), but it's well established that photographs of architecture are derivative works and therefore allowable under US copyright laws.

Which is why the Oshkosh airshow has those crazy rules. For the most part I'm sure they ignore violators, but if they decide someone's work infringes too much on their marketing of the show, it leaves them a legal route to grab their paying guests by the legs and shake them upside down until all their lunch money falls out of their pockets.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4699 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Iamlucky13 (Reply 6):
Which is why the Oshkosh airshow has those crazy rules.

The EAA's rules go way, way overboard:

(emphasis mine)

--------------------------------------------------------
The sale or use of any Recording of any aspect or activity connected with AirVenture (including but not limited to aircraft, crowds, air shows, forums, exhibits, etc.) for commercial purposes without EAA’s written permission is strictly prohibited

Use of AirVenture-related logos, words, graphics, designs, photographs (film or digital) and/ or any other images that depict or reference the annual EAA AirVenture convention/fly-in (including any use that commemorates, denotes, references or otherwise makes some association with the EAA AirVenture convention/fly-in) without the prior written consent of EAA is strictly prohibited.

--------------------------------------------------------

The problem I have with the policy in general (and the bolded statements in particular) is that they extend to geographic locations far beyond (what should be) the reach or concern of the EAA.

For example, as it reads, if I drive to Madison, Wisconsin and shoot a P-51 that stopped for fuel enroute to the airshow, the EAA's language prohibits me from selling those shots.

Similarly, if I'm floating on a boat in the middle of Lake Winnebago or standing in the parking lot of a Burger King in downtown Oshkosh and shoot arrivals into KOSH during the show, the EAA's language prevents me from selling those shots, as well.

It's absurd. And it's one of the reasons I do not (and never will) mention the word "Airventure" in any of my shots from (or "related to"  sarcastic  ) the show.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineDerekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4692 times:

The sort of restrictions in force at Oshkosh are similar to those at RIAT, Waddington and many other airshows in the UK. It is the same at many, if not all museums as well. Whether they can "make it stick" is irrelevant. It is a condition of entry that you obey these rules.

This from the RAF museum Hendon website

"12.Photography, including filming, the taking of digital images and the use of flash, is permitted, but solely for private use. Prior written agreement is required for any form of photography, image taking, or sound recording for any type of commercial use, including but not restricted to advertising, trade or other business use. "

You could argue that uploading to this website may be included in that list.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineJeffm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4661 times:



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1):
If an aircraft is photographed from a public place (irrespective of whether or not it's actually in or over a public place) you are the copyright holder and therefore you are entitled to do with that shot what you see fit. This of course includes selling it.

Not exactly.....if the image contains a trademarked logo, you may have an issue....sure you still own the copyright to the photo, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to do what you whish with it. It's not a good idea to give that kind of advice if you aren't a copyright lawyer.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4635 times:

Jeff,

Here in the UK I've never had an issue selling photo's so based on my experiences I feel I'm giving the right advice. Generally (a key word I used in my original post) you are okay to sell your images here in the UK and by not giving positive advice it would be wrongly deterring people from doing so.

I'm reluctant to say, "No, it isn't safe" because chances of being met with hassle are slim - although I do agree with you that it's not always black-and-white.

Karl


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
Here in the UK I've never had an issue selling photo's so based on my experiences I feel I'm giving the right advice.

Because you have never had an issue does not mean you were giving the right advice.

People have traded using other's trademarks or IP for long periods and then been told to cease doing so or worse.

Whilst it is perhaps uncommon for a situation such as described by the OP to cause trouble it is certainly not unknown. advising someone that "therefore you are entitled to do with that shot what you see fit." is not accurate by my understanding of US/UK and Australian copyright law.

I had a situation where an organisation wanted to use one of my images for free based on the fact it had their trademark in it and I could not sell it otherwise, reached an impasse- they would not pay and I agreed to not sell it elswhere- pretty much a lose/lose!

Cheers

PS who kidnapped JeffM and replaced him with someone willing to write more than one line!!  Wink



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4635 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Karl sums up the situation in the UK well but that may well be different in other parts of the world and it would be wrong to think that it is the case around the world. There are a couple of Airlines that demanded that images of their aircraft be removed from the For Sale option on the site (Alaskan being one, Horizon the other I think) in line with what Jeff says and whilst I thought that their request was a nonsense someone decided to comply rather than enter into an argument ie litigation.
The EAA rules are draconian and they certainly would not be enforceable in the UK - people go to airshows to take photographs but nor are they new. We had our own example on this site when someone lifted a generic terms of use from somewhere and tried to impose it onus before they were removed. Predating that by many years, an example was London Heathrow byelaws in which BAA tried to make any photographs taken there, or in the vicinty, their property. I have tried to find that but it may well have disappeared when the Government sold the airport to BAA, though it was certainly in place when I was taking photographs in the 1970s and probably later too. These laws are frequently not repealed (removed) and I doubt that they would comply wth the Human Rights Act now anyway.
The situation is not actually straightforward and if you are a trespasser you may not hold rights to the images (the TVA being an example as above).....in the UK of course.
Every now and then I get letters asking for me to remove images taken without permission which I simply ignore.

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineEMA747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 1171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4573 times:

Is airport property classed as private or public then? I mean would the mounds at MAN or EMA be publice? I guess places like Myrtle Ave at LHR is 100% public.


What happens if the plane as advertising on it that is not to do with the airline? I'm think of things like the AirAsia X/oakland raiders A340 and the Germanwings/Park Inn A319. Can the company rather than the airline impose any restrictions on copyright?


Andy S



Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4568 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Andy
Again, I can only speak about the UK, but even though the airport is private property if can also be classed as a Public place.
If my aged memory serves me correctly, a public place is a place to which, at the relevant time the public is allowed access whether on payment or otherwise (in many UK statutes)

It is then that slight variations can make differences for lawyers to argue and make money off you  Smile

The mounds at MAN are certainly a public place as there is no hinderance, no signs or anything (and the same at EMA too, though a little less clear cut).

If you set up a business (say) selling T shirts or mugs with an airline logo jet on, they may have recourse to sue you if their logo is prominent, essentially selling because of their logo, otherwise, no, they can do nothing, again based on UK law

Mick


User currently offlineEMA747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 1171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4565 times:

Thanks for that Mick

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 14):
If my aged memory serves me correctly, a public place is a place to which, at the relevant time the public is allowed access whether on payment or otherwise (in many UK statutes)

It is then that slight variations can make differences for lawyers to argue and make money off you Smile

The mounds at MAN are certainly a public place as there is no hinderance, no signs or anything (and the same at EMA too, though a little less clear cut).

I did a bit of basic law at university and what you say makes sense. I seem to remeber now that you mention it that private usually makes somewhere that is gated off/you are restricted physically from entering or they have prominent signs saying you are not allowed there.


In the case of EMA the mounds are not an official spotter place and are down a muddy track so are not exactly on standard airport grounds (ie where the public would normally go) However I think I remember reading the "airport trail" walking path around airport made it more of a public area. I've never had any problems with security there though.


It's all very vague and I wish they could make these things much clearer. It would save security/spotters/photographers so much time and needless questions when stopped. 99.9% of us would not go to a place if we knew for a fact it was off limits.

Andy S



Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4542 times:

At the end of the day if you get a sale then go for it!!! Settle on a figure you're happy with and sell it. There's slim chance anyone other than the two interested parties will ever know of it.
Spence.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4532 times:

Quoting Iamlucky13 (Reply 6):

Presumably, you were on their property at the time the picture was taken? Otherwise there is no way such a restriction would hold up in the United States unless you presenting the work as authorized in some way by TVA. Even photographs taken on property are hard for the property owner to make a claim against unless they specified a condition of your presence on the property was forfeiture of the copyrights for the work you created. They can claim they own a "copyright to the buildings" (I doubt you'll find that term in any case law rulings), but it's well established that photographs of architecture are derivative works and therefore allowable under US copyright laws.

Good point, I would love to talk with a Copyright Lawyer about something as tricky as this type of Photography. Photography of Power Plants here in the states is frowned upon big time. You think Aviation Photography is bad, try taking pictures of power plants and see what it gets you. Especially if it's a government agency like TVA is. Those clowns are all, and I mean ALL, trigger happy and as a company that still applies.

See, TVA has their own Police Departments at their plants and they are sworn officers of the law. They have every right to arrest and detain you on the grounds of trespassing or other really nasty claims. Atleast that's what I have always been told and I used to work for TVA. If there is a nasty corporation out there concerning photos of their "property" it's TVA hands down and they're an arm of the United States Government! Go figure. I could tell you some stories and to be quite frank, I have photos from when I worked there pre-9-11 that if posted online today would get me jail time by this time tomorrow.

[Edited 2009-12-04 10:04:07 by lexy]

[Edited 2009-12-04 10:04:25 by lexy]


Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1753 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
The problem I have with the policy in general (and the bolded statements in particular) is that they extend to geographic locations far beyond (what should be) the reach or concern of the EAA.

For example, as it reads, if I drive to Madison, Wisconsin and shoot a P-51 that stopped for fuel enroute to the airshow, the EAA's language prohibits me from selling those shots.

Similarly, if I'm floating on a boat in the middle of Lake Winnebago or standing in the parking lot of a Burger King in downtown Oshkosh and shoot arrivals into KOSH during the show, the EAA's language prevents me from selling those shots, as well.

It's absurd. And it's one of the reasons I do not (and never will) mention the word "Airventure" in any of my shots from (or "related to"    ) the show.

Just because someone prints up a bunch of legalese does not actually give them the rights. This happens all over, especially in end user license agreements of questionable legality. I'm sure if someone actually fought AirVenture on this they would probably have to curtail their language significantly. There's multiple parts to this - contract law (what you agree to by purchasing the Airventure ticket and the fine print on the back) and copyright law. It gets muddy very quickly.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4500 times:



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 18):
Just because someone prints up a bunch of legalese does not actually give them the rights. This happens all over, especially in end user license agreements of questionable legality. I'm sure if someone actually fought AirVenture on this they would probably have to curtail their language significantly. There's multiple parts to this - contract law (what you agree to by purchasing the Airventure ticket and the fine print on the back) and copyright law. It gets muddy very quickly.

I would love to see the amount of photos sold by various people who attend EAA's "Airventure" every year. Some good hard numbers on how many photos they've sold from that event is what I am talking about. Then a good look at the photos and what they are being used for. Then compare those numbers, the quality of the photos themselves, and the purpose of the sale, to those of the EAA's "Official" photographers. EAA has their own photographers, because of their very closed-minded magazine they publish, on staff that cover the event like a blanket. I am sure they are good, very good at what they do. But I can think of some on here who go to EAA every year it seems that I would put up against any on the EAA payroll on any day!

Bottom line is EAA and their "limits" they try to put on photography at their events is a joke at best. Yes, it's a airshow that is sponsored by EAA and put on by them, but it's at an airport that is taxpayer supported. They are on land that is NOT private at that time and they should have the right to do as they please with the photos they get there.



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4492 times:



Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 12):
whilst I thought that their request was a nonsense someone decided to comply rather than enter into an argument ie litigation

Perhaps this 'blinding with science' is the very deterrent such people use so that photographers are effectively 'scared' to go ahead with a sale. Threatening words are often enough to convince the average Joe Public but like you say I think they'd have one heck of a job dragging it through a court if it got that far. I for one doubt they'd engage in a lengthy legal battle if you politely refused to comply.

That said, it would depend on where the pic's were taken. If from public land then surely the airline's only way of preventing photography of their property is to either not fly from that particular airport or fly at night?!!

There was a thread here not so long ago about a small Caribbean commuter carrier threatening legal action over a picture taken from a public beach in the Netherlands Antilles. The photog politely told them to stick it and nothing else I believe was ever heard; plus the photog was over 5,000 miles away here in the UK!

Once again (and I did say my opinion was based on UK legislation) I would advise anyone here to pursue a sale as the likelihood of repercussions is too slim to outweight the prospect of silver lining one's pockets. If we all worried about photo sales no-one would ever sell anything yet we see many positive 'photo sale' threads here - many no doubt resulting in successful negotiation.

Just question the legitimacy of the spot from which you took the shot - is it private (e.g. airline) property? If so I believe the airline can have some impact on what you do with the photo. Is it a military base? If so, again be cautious. Otherwise, just apply a little common sense and you can make some very satisfying and rewarding sales!

Karl


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...
Pre-Screening - Question About Crop (Silver1SWA) posted Sun Oct 25 2009 12:09:12 by Silver1SWA
Question About Obstructing Objects posted Thu Jul 23 2009 12:26:27 by Nozilla
Question About 'back Focusing' posted Thu Mar 12 2009 10:03:05 by Silver1SWA
Question About Spotting At TPA posted Sat Jul 12 2008 14:12:25 by MaidensGator
Question About One Shot... posted Thu Feb 21 2008 01:54:28 by GertLOWG
Question About DOF posted Sat Jan 26 2008 17:10:46 by LOCsta
Question About A Sale/Pricing posted Thu Jan 3 2008 13:37:43 by DeltaAVL
Question About Lens Hoods posted Thu Dec 27 2007 23:43:02 by ACDC8
Question About Resizing posted Wed Dec 26 2007 17:11:55 by WestJetYQQ
Question About Catagory posted Wed Dec 12 2007 12:04:56 by AIRBUSRIDER