Permission to photograph airplanes in public

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

"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

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."

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.

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?

("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

"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

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

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

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