|Quoting Catalinasgrace (Thread starter):|
Say I took a very good shot at an airshow, can I as the photographer sell that print?
|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
|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.
|Quoting Iamlucky13 (Reply 6):|
Which is why the Oshkosh airshow has those crazy rules.
|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.
|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.
|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).
|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.
|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.
|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.
|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