AdamWright
Topic Author
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:58 pm

Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:20 pm

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
 
PUnmuth@VIE
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:25 pm

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
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:08 pm

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
 
User avatar
Fiveholer
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:50 pm

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
Posts: 2911
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:11 pm

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:16 pm

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

Georg
 
vasanthd
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 8:35 am

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:29 pm

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
Topic Author
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:58 pm

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:13 am

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
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 12:27 am

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:16 am

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
Posts: 2911
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:11 pm

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:40 am

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
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:47 am

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
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:48 am

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
Posts: 909
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2001 7:50 am

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:28 am

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
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:17 am

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:19 am

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
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:58 am

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:25 am

Makes me curious about the airplane...  Wink

Chris.
Someday i'll fly away......
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:28 pm

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
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Adding A Picture Of A 'confidential' Aircraft

Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:38 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RWalchshofer, twosevenright and 6 guests