Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
I have NO IDEA if they ever asked for permission. I can't find a request amongst my emails, but bearing in mind that every time I'm away overnight I come back to find 40-odd new emails in my inbox, it's starting to get difficult to keep track. Maybe I need a secretary?
Luchtzak From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 468 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1868 times:
Hi everybody! Please e-mail to email@example.com ,he's responsible for the site administration, he sent me an e-mail saying it wasn't intentional to use the pictures, so e-mail him, and he will apologize and ask permission for the pictures, or update his site!
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
With all the respect you are messing up two things:
1.) The logo owners copyright. Yes it is his own. And if someone uses this logo lets say producing a crap watch with the rolex logo on it. Then the producer will be sued by the copyright owner.
2.) The copyright owner of the photo. He took the picture, so its his right to decide who is going to use it. And if and what he will charge the user for the usage of the picture. Or do you think for examples photographers making pictures for Singapore Airlines for a marketing folder are making this for free just because the SQ logo is on the damned picture they took?? (replae SQ with any other brand).
Yes its a hobby, BUT if someone uses my pictures the least he should do is ask for permission. If he doesnt, well then its the photographers right to forbid the user the usage of the pictures.
To follow your McDonalds example: If its my photo i see then yes they have to pay. If the newspaper doesnt want to pay i am sure thy could ask McDonalds for some free press material.
P.S.: I am eagerly waiting on Mr. Mogrens comment on this
Ljungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 902 posts, RR: 39 Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1782 times:
Correct, Lx-Maria, you can't have the copyright of something you don't own yourself! You're completely right about that!
But, of course, as I'm the owner of my (own) photos, I have also the copyright!
Lx-Maria (are your real name Maria??), of course you're free to have whatever opinion you like about this, but the international laws and regulations about copyright issues do NOT agree with the opinions you've stated in this forum, they are very clear about that.
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 33 Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1720 times:
Luis, I don't know exactly, how it works in Protugal, but I guess, it's the same as here in Switzerland.
A band can register a song by sending it (music and lyrics) to SUISA, an association, which handles all copyright issues. As a musician, I can put a Copyright mark wherever I want, even without registering it at SUISA, but if a another musician copies my song and sends it to SUISA, he will be the legitimal copyright holder, as I don't have a prove, that the song belongs to me.
It's different for fotographers. An example: if I go to a professional photographer to mae a protrait, and I pay for it, I only recieve a copy, but not the original negative or slide. The photographer is then the holder of the copyright, without paying anything to anyone.
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1716 times:
as the photographer, as soon as I take the photograph, it automatically becomes my copyrighted work. I do not have to assert my copyright (for example, by putting a copyright message on it) for this to be the case - it is automatic.
An example: there was a case I heard about in the UK a few years ago where a man took his film to a photo shop to get it developed. The shop thought his photos were particularly good, and used one of them, without his permission, and before he had even seen the results, in their advertising display in the shop (showing what sizes of enlargements you could have made from your negatives). He successfully sued the shop for use of his copyrighted work without permission - because as soon as he took the photograph it became his intellectual property.
To anyone who doesn't understand what the fuss is all about: copyright is a way of protecting your intellectual property. If music was not copyrighted, artists would not be able to make a living from it, because (forget about home taping and copying of CDs here) any company who wanted to could LEGALLY press as many bootleg copies of any CD they wanted and sell them for whatever they liked, thus removing the ability of the record company to generate royalties for the artist. Lest we forget, there are many people who make their living from photography, and they need exactly the same sort of protection. Yes, for myself, and many others, this is a hobby. But that still doesn't mean someone can lift my photos and use them without my permission. THEY don't know whether I am an amateur or a pro - for all they know, it could be my main source of income!
Lx-maria From Luxembourg, joined Sep 2001, 70 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
Ok, I got the picture.
It's all about money.
So when you see your photo at 3x2 cm on a screen, you start screaming about copyright.
Jeezus; i thought you all loved aviation.
My father started 35 years ago; he already took me with him when i was 2 years old; never asked a dime for a photo. Just making a huge collection and exchanging with friends.
But maybe i'm the exception in the spotters-world because i'm female.
On the otherhand, i'm a lucky person to have the cockpit as my daily office; so no frustration about only shooting photos for money.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1692 times:
Maria, think of it this way:
What would happen to all the professional photographers (the ones making a living from it) if other people (hobby photographers) were giving away their photos for free? They'd be put out of business and a result would be that the quality of the work would go down and down and down, since the good guys had to do something else for a living.
Now since you are a professional pilot, what do you think about all your fellow pilots who work for free, or sometimes even pay to work as a first officer? How does that affect you? Does your employer have to cut your salary in order to compete with the not-so-serious airlines?
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1679 times:
It has nothing to do with loving aviation or not or with your gender.
Its simple the fact that people take things which doesn't belong to them and use them. What would you call that process in one word????
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1664 times:
Lx-maria aka MM implies she works as a pilot.
I think she would think very differently if we all had pilots licences with type ratings and we offered to fly for airlines for free.
MM - with respect, you have no idea which of us are professional photographers who earn a living from this game, and those of us who are amateurs who are still greatful for some contributions (or at least courtessy) to help contribute to the cost of taking these photographs. If someone doesn't ask, they're stealing our work, just like a pilot offering to fly for free would be stealing yours.
Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 16 Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1653 times:
Could I just ask a question here? I dont mean to be rude to anyone.
If you take a picture of an airline, and its a superb picture, and as Da fwog said, the copyright belongs to him. Then you get make quite a sum of money using that picture. Would it be possible that the airline and airplane manufacturer come to you, and demand money from you because its a copyright of their logo/airframe too? I'm not too familiar with this idea, so please pardon my ignorance.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 24, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1641 times:
Tsentsan - no problem, in effect the logo on the aircraft is in the public domain. In general there are no restrictions on your photographing anything on public display - even people. However in the case of people, there are restrictions on how that photo may be used depending on circumstances.
The only time an airline may have a case against you is if you took a picture on private property where photographic access has been banned.
LX - yes, it can look a bit petty at times. However
1 - many of us are quite happy to allow free use of a picture in certain situations - we just like to be asked! It is not just about money. There are organisations which I would never want my images to be associated with (eg. Nikon ), and, as the photographer I have the right to control how my image is used.
2 - unfortunately, camera and film companies don't offer discounts to those who do not make a living from photography (perversly, it tends to be the other way round). I, for one, could not afford to continue my current level of photography (in terms of both quantity and quality) without some financial return. While there may be some grey areas, I certainly draw the line at a company profiting from my work at my expense!
3 - being a hobbyist should not mean being unprofessional in terms of quality and handling of your work. I use "professional" in the sense of an attitude to ones own work - this includes having a sense of the value of your work, and treating other photographers (including pros) with respect. It is unprofessional, in my opinion, to devalue your own work - and the work of others - by indiscriminately giving pictures away
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
25 Kingwide: [based on UK copyright law] This issue is actually a little more complex. A company that owns the trade-mark can actually make a case to prevent me fr
26 Tsentsan: Wietse and Colin, Kewl~! I thought it happened all in a vicious cycle, and airline would only be happy if you gave it to them for their use too Very i
27 Mirage: Thanks for the comments Gerardo and Chris. Sometimes I feel like walking on a swamp when trying to understand the copyright laws wich are not so simpl
28 Ckw: Luis - of course they're not simple - lawyers have to eat you know (or so I'm told) Cheers, Colin
29 Lx-maria: Ok, A lot of arguments have persuaded me you have the right to ask money. So, let's talk business. What would anybody charge for the use of your photo
30 Ckw: I think the price set depends on a number of circumstances - the request may be for a one off use, or it may be for use on a number of current or pote
31 Jan Mogren: Lx-maria, that is way below what I normally charge. /JM