Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Copyright Issue Again?  
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Hi guys.
Check this site out http://www.beap.be/. Did you guys give permission. I know at least two shots from here. Andrew Hunt and Chris Sheldon arent the ones on the right hand side yours?
Peter



-
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEBOS From Belgium, joined Jul 2001, 520 posts, RR: 49
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

They have at least my permission for usage of the left photo.

Sven



An-225 stalker: 1 x LUX, 1 x EIN, 1 x DXB, 2 x SHJ, 3 x CGN
User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

well spotted!

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?


User currently offlineAndyhunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2228 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Same here, note sure whether or not I gave permission. Oops.

Andrew



Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Well I have not had any request from them, and they molested my shot... a big fat BEAP over it.  Angry
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineEBOS From Belgium, joined Jul 2001, 520 posts, RR: 49
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

I have not saved the particular email, but i remember the request came from publisite that designed the website.

Sven



An-225 stalker: 1 x LUX, 1 x EIN, 1 x DXB, 2 x SHJ, 3 x CGN
User currently offlineLuchtzak From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 468 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

Hi everybody! Please e-mail to paul.vandenhende@skynet.be ,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!

Glad to help!

Kind regards
luchtzak


User currently offlineLx-maria From Luxembourg, joined Sep 2001, 70 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

Hello,
Here we go again.

Is it allowed to take photos of a registered trademark like company names and publish them on the net ?

By making the photo and publishing it; we violate ourselves the copyright of that company.

Of course; as these photos are good publicity; no company ever complained.

Honestly; do you think that Singapore Airlines should pay you; when they want to use your Singap-747 ?

Let's be honest; you can't have the copyright of something you don't own yourself.

Take a photo of just the logo of McDonalds and each time you see one on the site or a newspaper, they will pay you.

Come on guys; it's a hobby; spotting has nothing to do with copyrights or business.
I you don't want everybody to see your photo; put them in a closed-safety-deposit-box.



User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2142 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.

Peter
P.S.: I am eagerly waiting on Mr. Mogrens comment on this Big grin



-
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Yeah Peter, I sent them an invoice they wont forget very soon.

The comment from lx is just too tiresome to comment..
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2096 times:

Couple off examples:

You have a Giant bicycle, and you are very proud of it, you take a photo of the thing. Giant can sue you???? don't think so.

I can think of more, but I don't feel like putting them here, too tiring indeed...


Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineLjungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 908 posts, RR: 36
Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2094 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.

Johan Smile


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2082 times:

Any photo as a "creation" blongs to the photographer, the person who made it.

I'm not sure about what I'll say now and maybe I get some hard replies but I'll say it, trying to continue a serious discussion.

In my country, singers and bands must pay to the authors association to get the "copyright" and be able to display on CD's the watermark "Copyright.....".

In your countries it's the same? Can this be also applied to photography? I mean, the photo is our creation, it belongs to us, but folowing the legislation do we have the "Copyright"?

just asking opinions...

Luis


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Good question Luis. Lets hear what the others have to say.



-Dmitry


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2032 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.

Saludos
Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

Luis,

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!


User currently offlineLx-maria From Luxembourg, joined Sep 2001, 70 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2012 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.

MM


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2004 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?

Think about it...


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1991 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????
Peter



-
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

Theft perhaps?


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/

User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1976 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.

Andy


User currently offlineTsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1965 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.

Thanks



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 23, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

Tsentsan, they are more than happy to have it on your photo, it will only get huge ammounts of attention, ie advertising.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1953 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  Smile ), 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


Cheers,

Colin



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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
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...
Copyright Issue Again? posted Mon May 13 2002 12:14:19 by PUnmuth@VIE
Copyright Violation Again? posted Tue Nov 1 2005 16:21:26 by Mario340
Copyright Violations, Again. posted Mon Sep 5 2005 10:02:40 by Tommy Mogren
Copyright Violation, Again (8381.dk) posted Thu Mar 10 2005 15:29:07 by Tommy Mogren
Starair - Copyright Issue posted Wed Jul 7 2004 18:58:33 by PUnmuth@VIE
Copyright Issue? posted Fri Apr 2 2004 23:02:38 by 737heavy
Copyright Issue? posted Fri Mar 26 2004 00:44:20 by QantasA332
FlyMex Does Copyright Violation Again! posted Wed Oct 15 2003 06:56:38 by Mx330
Yet Another Copyright Issue - Part 2 posted Wed Jun 18 2003 23:54:38 by Manzoori
Yet Another Copyright Issue posted Tue May 27 2003 12:38:22 by Manzoori