Permission to photograph airplanes in public

[Todd]

Do I need permission from an aircraft owner to publish pictures of
their airplane for profit? I want to take pictures of airplanes and
publish them commercially, on the web and in print.

Assume the following:
1) I am in authorized areas when I take the pictures.
2) I am not taking pictures of the owner or any people.
3) The photo does not contain any company logos or other copyrighted
images.
4) The N-number can be clearly seen.
5) The photo is of the outside of the airplane.
6) The aircraft will not be touched.
7) The aircraft is airborne, on a public-use airport, or on public
display.
8) The aircraft will be US-registered, in which the owner of the
aircraft can be found publicly in the FAA aircraft registered database.
9) I will be the photographer.

EG: Does Airliners.Net get permission from the aircraft owners to
publish their pictures. They have some very nice pictures that you can
buy.

Thank you in advance for your advice.

Todd

[Morgans]

"Todd" > wrote

> Assume the following:
> 4) The N-number can be clearly seen.

I believe you will be in a bind, on this issue. It will come down to
violation of privacy, since it is so easy to get information from the
N-number.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Todd wrote:
> Do I need permission from an aircraft owner to publish pictures of
> their airplane for profit? I want to take pictures of airplanes and
> publish them commercially, on the web and in print.
>
I will be interested in seeing the answers you receive to this
question. In general, exterior photos of public buildings, churches,
courthouses, buildings on national, state or local historic sites do
not need a property release. Private property may require one.

The key difference is "editorial" or "commercial." Just because you
make money or get paid for the photo does NOT make it commercial.
Photos that illustrate the text in a newspaper or magazine are
editorial. Those that illustrate the products being sold in the
advertisements are commercial. (But I expect lawyers can find a
multitude of exceptions to this simple distinction.)

The constitution protects the press and freedom of expression. It is in
the public's interest to protect those rights. On the other hand, the
courts have established a right to privacy.

When a person lands at a public airport, leaves the airplane in plain
sight with the tail number readily visible, does the pilot or owner
have any reasonable expectation to privacy? If not, then my non-lawyer
opinion is that a photo that is used for editorial purposes should not
require a property release.

However, after taking more than 300,000 photos, my wife, a
photographer, always got a model release if the person was
recognizable. Eventually, about ten years ago, she started using a
property release, too.

A short but effective property release: "In consideration of value
received, I assign to <photographers name>, his successors or assigns,
the absolute right to use images of my property in whole or in part for
any purpose whatsoever."

[Todd]

Let me clarify my intention: I plan to publish the pictures in print
and on the web for the enjoyment of viewing the pictures. Not to help
sell or endorse another product. This will be a collection of photos
of airplanes. Quite simple.

In many cases, the owner may not be around when I take the picture. Or
the pilot is not the owner. I may be taking the picture of a jet
landing at large airport and cannot approach the pilot because I am not
allowed near the aircraft. It may be very difficult to contact the
owner, short of sending a postcard to the address in the FAA aircraft
registry. It would save me A LOT of time if I don't have to hunt down
the owner of each aircraft I take a picture of.

[Todd]

> I believe you will be in a bind, on this issue. It will come down to
> violation of privacy, since it is so easy to get information from the
> N-number.

Is there an expectation of privacy when you fly your aircraft in public
airways and land at public airports? Is that true when you drive your
car on public roads?

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
>> Assume the following:
>> 4) The N-number can be clearly seen.

> I believe you will be in a bind, on this issue. It will come down to
> violation of privacy, since it is so easy to get information from the
> N-number.


Car photos - with license plate visible.
House photos - with address numbers visible.
Boats, in a marina, with their names visible.

How do photographers handle these situations?

http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/stuff/mtm/index.html
"This is the house where Mary Richards lived. In the show, it was given as
119 N Weatherly Ave, Apt D. In reality, the home is located at 2104 Kenwood
Ave. Kenwood Ave is a very high end neighborhood, and it is unlikely that
the Mary character could have afforded to live there.

The owner of this home, a university professor, grew tired of the traffic
and attention, so he tried to end his relationship with the show. MTM was
not anxious to change the story. To encourage MTM to move on, the professor
put up "Impeach Nixon" signs at the home in 1973. As a result, Mary Richards
moved to an apartment in 1975.

Location: 2104 Kenwood Parkway. There is no easy way to find this location.
Take the Hennepin Ave exit south from I-94, go west on Franklin, then west
on 21st Ave."

http://www.tvacres.com/homes_mary.htm
Same thing...


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Todd" > wrote

> Is there an expectation of privacy when you fly your aircraft in public
> airways and land at public airports?

There is an expectation that your number will not be published, for many
times more people to see, than who would see it, if it were just driven or
parked.

Ever notice that on reality type TV shows, any legible liscense plate
numbers are always digitally blurred?

I'll bet the producer's lawyers know something that we do not.

> Is that true when you drive your
> car on public roads?

Yep. I have no proof to offer, but common sense, and observation. Also, if
you are driving down the road, most people do not have the time to record
liscense plate numbers, so they can look them up later. If a picture is
made, there is all the time in the world to look up things, and enlarge or
enhance other numbers that were not even visable to the person driving down
the road.

Just take the pictures, and use photoshop to blurr the numbers. It will
take about a minute per picture, then you can rest easy.
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Schumann]

If you are doing anything in public, there is no reasonable expectation of
privacy. You could be on a privately operated web cam for the whole world
to watch on any street corner in any major city.

Mike Schumann

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Todd" > wrote
>
>> Is there an expectation of privacy when you fly your aircraft in public
>> airways and land at public airports?
>
> There is an expectation that your number will not be published, for many
> times more people to see, than who would see it, if it were just driven or
> parked.
>
> Ever notice that on reality type TV shows, any legible liscense plate
> numbers are always digitally blurred?
>
> I'll bet the producer's lawyers know something that we do not.
>
>> Is that true when you drive your
>> car on public roads?
>
> Yep. I have no proof to offer, but common sense, and observation. Also,
> if you are driving down the road, most people do not have the time to
> record liscense plate numbers, so they can look them up later. If a
> picture is made, there is all the time in the world to look up things, and
> enlarge or enhance other numbers that were not even visable to the person
> driving down the road.
>
> Just take the pictures, and use photoshop to blurr the numbers. It will
> take about a minute per picture, then you can rest easy.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Cub Driver]

Generally there are two rules about invasion of privacy, to wit:

1) If you are publishing news, you have a lot of leeway. Unless you
can be shown to be deliberately holding the person up to ridicule, you
can publish just about anything you want. If you're the New York
Times, this right is pretty much absolute. If you're Private Pilot
magazine, it's pretty much assured. If you're a personal blog, you
don't have a lot of recourse if someone complains.

2) If you are selling advertising, you don't have any leeway at all.
You want written releases from everybody for everything.

I've worked on several magazines and books, and I've never heard of
anyone getting permission to photograph a plane. Still, it has
occurred to me from time to time: I wonder if his wife knows he's at
this fly-in with that pretty girl? So I would ask permission myself it
the individuals were recognizable, but I don't most photographers do.
The same way, I always tell people I am working for a magazine, though
often enough I do it *after* I've gotten the quote I want to use.
Alternately, I use the quote without identifying the source, making
sure that nothing in the quote would identify the speaker without
question.

As it does with so many things, the web makes a cock-up of the
publishing rules. Use good taste, and be prepared to take down a
picture if anyone objects (and have some such statement on your
copyright/information page).

Good luck!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

I'd take the advice given in another post: use photo-editing software
to alter or eliminate the N number.

Just keep thinking about that businessman taking his secretary to the
lake when his wife thinks he's selling umbrellas to Wal-Mart. He might
be very very angry to see his dirty weekend revealed on the web.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[bsalai]

This could vary from state to state. I'm in NY, and I think you can use
the pictures of airplanes without permission. You do have to be careful
if there are people in the pix, permission to use the likeness of a
living individual for commercial purposes is required in NY.

There was a case a few years ago that you might be able to find that
might help you with these issues. I don't remember the parties names,
but it concerned aerial photography of the Calif coast, and particularly
the secluded homes of the very well off. One of them (the well off,
not the home) sued the photographer. My recollection is that the
photographer won.

If forced to pick an answer, I would say that as long as there were no
identifiable people in the pictures, you would be OK at least in NY.

This is general information, not legal advice.

Brad



wrote:
> Todd wrote:
>> Do I need permission from an aircraft owner to publish pictures of
>> their airplane for profit? I want to take pictures of airplanes and
>> publish them commercially, on the web and in print.
>>
> I will be interested in seeing the answers you receive to this
> question. In general, exterior photos of public buildings, churches,
> courthouses, buildings on national, state or local historic sites do
> not need a property release. Private property may require one.
>
> The key difference is "editorial" or "commercial." Just because you
> make money or get paid for the photo does NOT make it commercial.
> Photos that illustrate the text in a newspaper or magazine are
> editorial. Those that illustrate the products being sold in the
> advertisements are commercial. (But I expect lawyers can find a
> multitude of exceptions to this simple distinction.)
>
> The constitution protects the press and freedom of expression. It is in
> the public's interest to protect those rights. On the other hand, the
> courts have established a right to privacy.
>
> When a person lands at a public airport, leaves the airplane in plain
> sight with the tail number readily visible, does the pilot or owner
> have any reasonable expectation to privacy? If not, then my non-lawyer
> opinion is that a photo that is used for editorial purposes should not
> require a property release.
>
> However, after taking more than 300,000 photos, my wife, a
> photographer, always got a model release if the person was
> recognizable. Eventually, about ten years ago, she started using a
> property release, too.
>
> A short but effective property release: "In consideration of value
> received, I assign to <photographers name>, his successors or assigns,
> the absolute right to use images of my property in whole or in part for
> any purpose whatsoever."
>

[Todd]

Thanks for the responses. The verdict seems to be mixed. Since no
people will be in the picture, I can eliminate some of those concerns.
I doubt that my picture will have much indication as to where the
picture is taken, as the focus and framing will be of the airplane.
But I suppose a part of a building could appear in the background that
could identify WHERE the picture was, but certainly not WHEN it was
taken.

If I did get permission, is that permission tranferable to the next
owner? What if I take a picture today and the airplane is sold
tomorrow. Can the new owner object? Or the owner years from now.
What if I use a picture that was taken 2 years ago, or 40 years ago?
By the time I take the picture and get it to print it may be many
months aparts. This is not a peridocial it is a publication of
aircrafts and facts about it.

Do these questions help support your arguments, one way or another?

Todd

[John T]

FWIW, when I took a photo class, such issues were briefly covered.
Generally, if you take the photo from a public place, such as a public
sidewalk, the subject has no say. The way it was worded that even if you
took a picture of someone in their bedroom, while standing on a public
sidewalk, you didn't need the subjects permission.

So take that witha grain of salt.

[Montblack]

("bsalai" wrote)
> There was a case a few years ago that you might be able to find that might
> help you with these issues. I don't remember the parties names, but it
> concerned aerial photography of the Calif coast, and particularly the
> secluded homes of the very well off. One of them (the well off, not the
> home) sued the photographer. My recollection is that the photographer won.


Babs.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B23F11FFC
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

<http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200305%5 CCUL20030530e.html>

[From the link]
(CNSNews.com) - Singer/actress Barbra Streisand has filed a $50 million
lawsuit against amateur photographer Kenneth Adelman for posting a
photograph of her Malibu, Calif., estate on his website. The site features
12,000 other photos of the California coastline as part of a project to
document coastal erosion for scientific and other researchers.

Adelman's website also contains photos of other houses along the coastline.
He told CNSNews.com that Streisand was the only one who took legal action
against him.

"Nobody climbed onto her property, nobody's showing her topless sunbathing -
in fact, you don't see any people at all," Richard Kendall, Adelman's
attorney said. "The case has no legal legs to stand on whatsoever."

The lawsuit names Adelman, his web hosting service and Pictopia, a
photography company that distributes his work. It claims the picture of
Streisand's house violates her right of privacy and a state law enacted to
curb paparazzi seeking celebrity photos. The suit seeks to have the photo
removed from the website and $50 million in damages.

"An important civil right of privacy is involved," John Gatti, Streisand's
lawyer, told the Los Angeles Times. "The lawsuit seeks to establish the
extent to which individuals are protected against technologically enhanced
encroachment into their private property."

Yet Kendall said the "anti-paparazzi statute," which is designed to prevent
trespasses on property and stalking of celebrities, has absolutely no
application to the long-range offshore photographs of coastline that
happened to include Barbra Streisand's house and many other houses.

"This is not someone who is focusing on Barbra Streisand, stalking Barbra
Streisand or doing anything other than an environmental study of the coast,"
Kendall said, adding that neither the paparazzi statute nor the U.S.
Constitution "immunize a celebrity mansion that happens to loom over the
coast from being photographed at long distance."

According to the suit, the quality of the photo is "staggering" as a result
of "enhanced technology," which caused Streisand "anxiety" ever since it was
published on the website in November 2002.


Montblack

[Casey Wilson]

"Todd" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Do I need permission from an aircraft owner to publish pictures of
> their airplane for profit? I want to take pictures of airplanes and
> publish them commercially, on the web and in print.
>
<< text deleted >>

The answer I give in my "Photo Tips for Writers" workshop is that if you
don't know if a model release is required then it is.

Caveat: I am a freelance writer and photographer, not an attorney. I have
no qualifications to give legal advice.

With that said, here is my understanding of a complex issue. If you have an
image that is directly related to a 'news' story, then the 1st Amendment
allows you to use the image. But, you do need permission for the commercial
use of an image of someone else's private property if the image can be
directly related to a person or his or her estate.

If for example you took a picture of an accident in which a vehicle (boat,
airplane, auto, even house....) could be related to a person (N#, Coast
Guard Registration, License plate, address) you can sell it to a newspaper
or magazine. BUT, if at some later time you wanted to use that same image
to advertise yourself or some product, e.g. in a commercial manner, you
MUST then get permission from property owner.

I carry a wad of model releases around in my camera bag just for that
reason.

Go Fly!

Casey

[John Gaquin]

"Todd" > wrote in message

> Do I need permission from an aircraft owner to publish pictures of

Wouldn't it be smarter, quicker, and less ambiguous to simply ask your
attorney?

[Skywise]

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("bsalai" wrote)
>> There was a case a few years ago that you might be able to find that might
>> help you with these issues. I don't remember the parties names, but it
>> concerned aerial photography of the Calif coast, and particularly the
>> secluded homes of the very well off. One of them (the well off, not the
>> home) sued the photographer. My recollection is that the photographer won.
>
>
> Babs.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?B23F11FFC
> (Same link as below ...wait for it)
>
> <http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200305%
5CCUL20030530e.html>
<Snipola>

Or go to the California Coastal Records Project webpage documenting
the event...

http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[.Blueskies.]

"Todd" > wrote in message oups.com...
> Let me clarify my intention: I plan to publish the pictures in print
> and on the web for the enjoyment of viewing the pictures. Not to help
> sell or endorse another product. This will be a collection of photos
> of airplanes. Quite simple.
>
> In many cases, the owner may not be around when I take the picture. Or
> the pilot is not the owner. I may be taking the picture of a jet
> landing at large airport and cannot approach the pilot because I am not
> allowed near the aircraft. It may be very difficult to contact the
> owner, short of sending a postcard to the address in the FAA aircraft
> registry. It would save me A LOT of time if I don't have to hunt down
> the owner of each aircraft I take a picture of.
>

Airlines.net has all the info they can muster, published, on their pages...

[.Blueskies.]

"Montblack" > wrote in message ...
> ("bsalai" wrote)
>> There was a case a few years ago that you might be able to find that might help you with these issues. I don't
>> remember the parties names, but it concerned aerial photography of the Calif coast, and particularly the secluded
>> homes of the very well off. One of them (the well off, not the home) sued the photographer. My recollection is that
>> the photographer won.
>
>
> Babs.
>

Recollection is correct, the judge dismissed the suit...

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:27:29 GMT, bsalai >
wrote:

>. One of them (the well off,
>not the home) sued the photographer. My recollection is that the
>photographer won.

I remember the case; it was reported in the Wall Street Journal. The
photographer did win, but of course there was nothing compromising in
the photograph. No people, and no indication of who owned it (as there
is in the case of an airplane with the N number showing).



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:41:06 -0500, John T > wrote:

>Generally, if you take the photo from a public place, such as a public
>sidewalk, the subject has no say. The way it was worded that even if you
>took a picture of someone in their bedroom, while standing on a public
>sidewalk, you didn't need the subjects permission.

Not very good advice unless your goal in life is to be a papparizo!

You can get away with a lot if you can reasonably argue that you are a
newman performing a public service, even if what you actually are is a
sleazeball making money off the externalities (or even internalities)
of the rich & famous. I don't see how this gent can make that
argument, even if he were willing to try.

>So take that witha grain of salt.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Skylune]

If the airplane you wish to photgraph is is public space you can click
away, just as you can for cars, boats, people, etc. You can photo the
pilot, the N-number whatever you want. You can't enter private property
(e.g. walk up to the hangar, or trespass on the airport property -- not
that there is anything typically preventing that) to photograph, though.


If you intend to use the photos for commercial purposes, however, you
should obtain the party's written permission.

[gatt]

"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...

>>Generally, if you take the photo from a public place, such as a public
>>sidewalk, the subject has no say. The way it was worded that >>even if you
>>took a picture of someone in their bedroom, while standing on a public
>>sidewalk, you didn't need the subjects permission.
>
> Not very good advice unless your goal in life is to be a papparizo!

It depends. The benchmark cases for these rules are complex and gruesome.
But the long and short of it is, if you can see it from public property it's
fair game, which has been deemed a generally good thing. The moral/ethical
particulars of the situation fall upon the photographer to determine whether
it's appropriate to take a photograph.

The scumbag paparazzi have managed to exploit some hard ethical decisions,
but that's not radically different than people who exploit freedom in any
context for their own gain at the expense or embarrassment of others. (Just
because you can sneak a camera onto a beach and take close-up photos of
girls in bikinis doesn't make it right.) They get away with it, though,
just like the hate groups that parade in public can.

-c

[cjcampbell]

Montblack wrote:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?B23F11FFC
> (Same link as below ...wait for it)
>
> <http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200305%5 CCUL20030530e.html>
>
> [From the link]
> (CNSNews.com) - Singer/actress Barbra Streisand has filed a $50 million
> lawsuit against amateur photographer Kenneth Adelman for posting a
> photograph of her Malibu, Calif., estate on his website. The site features
> 12,000 other photos of the California coastline as part of a project to
> document coastal erosion for scientific and other researchers.

Streisand's lawsuit got nowhere.

[cjcampbell]

Todd wrote:
> Do I need permission from an aircraft owner to publish pictures of
> their airplane for profit? I want to take pictures of airplanes and
> publish them commercially, on the web and in print.

As you have figured out by now, it depends on way to many variables --
who, what, where, when, etc. Newsworthy photographs may be published
any time. The courts look very dimly upon any restriction of freedom of
the press, to the point that "the press" may be just about anyone at
any time. A newsletter with a ciculation of 10 gets the same protection
as any of the giant metropolitan dailies.

Use of an image for advertising is another matter. Models and owners of
property that have value because of their unique image are protected.
You cannot take a picture of Barbra Streisand and use it to sell coffee
without her permission. You can take a picture of her estate from the
air and sell it for scientific purposes, however.

Similarly, you could sell pictures of the Red Baron team in a newspaper
without their permission, but if you want to use the pictures to
endorse Shakey's Pizza or even lipstick you are going to need their
permission. I suspect that a calendar photo would also require a
release.

Some states offer special protection for photographing children, and
almost all states recognize certain rights of privacy.

Airliners.net and photo agencies generally do not ask photographers for
model releases. Airliners.net does not pay for photos, anyway (at
least, they never have paid me for one). Photo agencies usually assume
that photographers can produce the required model releases for whatever
use their pictures are put. Their contracts with the photographers
specify that the photographer has obtained all necessary releases. If
Global sells your photo and you don't have the necessary release and
someone comes after Global for it, you can bet that Global is going to
hold you in breach of contract, refuse to pay for your photo, remove
your other photos, never buy photos from you again, and probably sue
the pants off you. They will also pull your photo from the client who
purchased it and refund his money.

A good photo attorney can keep you out of hot water and also help you
protect your very valuable property. This guy seems to work pretty hard
at it:
http://www.krages.com/

[Skywise]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in
oups.com:

<Snipola>
> Similarly, you could sell pictures of the Red Baron team in a newspaper
> without their permission, but if you want to use the pictures to
> endorse Shakey's Pizza
<snipola>

Errr...the Red Baron team endorsing Shakey's Pizza?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[cjcampbell]

Skywise wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> <Snipola>
> > Similarly, you could sell pictures of the Red Baron team in a newspaper
> > without their permission, but if you want to use the pictures to
> > endorse Shakey's Pizza
> <snipola>
>
> Errr...the Red Baron team endorsing Shakey's Pizza?
>

My point exactly. Anyone using the Red Baron team to advertise a
product without the permission of Red Baron Pizza would likely hear
from the latter's lawyers. Especially if you tried to give the
impression that they were endorsing Shakey's. It was the worst case I
could think of.

[Jim Macklin]

Worst case was a magazine ad for the Beech Aero Club, that
talked about the new Beech Skipper and had a nice picture of
a Piper Tomahawk.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"cjcampbell" > wrote in
message
oups.com...
|
| Skywise wrote:
| > "cjcampbell" > wrote in
| >
oups.com:
| >
| > <Snipola>
| > > Similarly, you could sell pictures of the Red Baron
team in a newspaper
| > > without their permission, but if you want to use the
pictures to
| > > endorse Shakey's Pizza
| > <snipola>
| >
| > Errr...the Red Baron team endorsing Shakey's Pizza?
| >
|
| My point exactly. Anyone using the Red Baron team to
advertise a
| product without the permission of Red Baron Pizza would
likely hear
| from the latter's lawyers. Especially if you tried to give
the
| impression that they were endorsing Shakey's. It was the
worst case I
| could think of.
|

[Robert M. Gary]

Boy I remember covering this in business law. I don't recall the answer
but I remember that there were several factors involved one of which I
believe was whether the owner had given up the privacy (just like
celebs give up their right to privacy by entering the public eye).
Airshow aircraft would clearly fall in that category.
However, my concern would be with the TSA. Going around taking
pictures, especially after the recent postings by some groups
concerning blownig up GA aircraftm, would generate interest.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> If the airplane you wish to photgraph is is public space you can click
> away, just as you can for cars, boats, people, etc.

I remember enough from law class to remember that is wrong with regard
to commercial photography. You can photograph "generic people" (like a
bunch of people walking down the street). However, you cannot feature
any given person without getting a release from them. The same would
apply to aircraft. However, certain people (and I assume aircraft) give
up their right to this privacy by doing things like running for public
office or appearing in movies or TV.

-Robert

[cjcampbell]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> However, my concern would be with the TSA. Going around taking
> pictures, especially after the recent postings by some groups
> concerning blownig up GA aircraftm, would generate interest.

Well, with TSA, you never know what those guys are going to think (or
if, for that matter). It is not just TSA, either. Photographers have
been assaulted for taking pictures of a park when there were children
present, even if the children did not appear in the photos. I know of
one guy who had a parent try to run over with a car, call him a
pervert, and held him prisoner until the cops showed up to set him
free. (Hmmm.... Seems photographers and pilots have a lot in common,
including the general public's assumption that we are criminals.)

Photographers are regularly questioned by people who are concerned
about their pictures of everything from bridges to skyscrapers, to
airplanes. You can argue that nearly everything has some sort of
security risk. ("Look! See that man! He took a picture of a bee on a
flower! He must be a terrorist!")

Bert Krages has created a "bust card" for photographers, not unlike the
one the ACLU gives to protesters. You can find it here:

http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm

But really, the only thing you can do if someone starts to hassle you
is to remain polite and non-confrontational, get his badge number if he
has one, and make a complaint to his boss, pointing out that your civil
rights were being violated and that it should not continue.

One thing that the OP should realize, too, is that some municipalities
(notably New York) are very aggressive about collecting licensing fees
for commercial cinematography conducted within their city limits. Some
cities spend a small fortune marketing themselves to film studios. They
claim that it is to help cover their costs for the drain on municipal
services created by film crews, but it gets pretty ridiculous for New
York to argue that a lone individual shooting a documentary in Central
Park is a hazard to himself or anyone else. The real issue is that
these towns want a piece of whatever you make off the film; often they
want far more than you will make off the film.