Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:11 pm
My main purpose in the begining was to highlight what I think is improper net etiquette on many levels. The rapid posting of several (10) unrelated and somewhat off topic threads for the sake of doing it. Also to highlight the return of the same type of activity that got a person banned and that seems to be the same guy doing it again. The reaction was the same as before. It is left up to the site owner to deal with this fellows account here on WIX.
Also in display was a thorough disregard for the etiquette of posting photos not your own here on the board. I have posted photos not my own on this board, and others before but I have always tried to remember to paste a link to it's original location on the web and give credit where it is due...if possible.
Like I said before there are differences between Law and WIX policy. I think we can continue to do business as we have done as long as we use care in the posting of photos not our own.
The posting of photos here for reference is one of the great things about WIX and my own personal junior researcher mindset. I learn a lot of information here that only a small group of people really care about. I know my wife could care less what the proper color scheme for a PBY flying on Pearl Harbor day should be...but hey somebody has to care about these things lest they be forgotten....
ramble off...
Also in display was a thorough disregard for the etiquette of posting photos not your own here on the board. I have posted photos not my own on this board, and others before but I have always tried to remember to paste a link to it's original location on the web and give credit where it is due...if possible.
Like I said before there are differences between Law and WIX policy. I think we can continue to do business as we have done as long as we use care in the posting of photos not our own.
The posting of photos here for reference is one of the great things about WIX and my own personal junior researcher mindset. I learn a lot of information here that only a small group of people really care about. I know my wife could care less what the proper color scheme for a PBY flying on Pearl Harbor day should be...but hey somebody has to care about these things lest they be forgotten....
ramble off...
Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:29 pm
A few years ago i had a problem with a local warbird owner over photo's.
They told me at one time that were every their aircraft fly any photo's or video belongs to them because it was their aircraft, is this really true??
Also what step's would any of you take if you found your images on a website were they had removed your copyright via clone stamp or cropping and you were not asked for their use on said website.
How would you deal with a magazine that you had a agreement with on using your images and they did not follow their end of the deal and still used your images?
And one more, i have been asked to help out with a book, they want to use my images in this book. Should I be looking for a writen agreement? As you can tell I have no idea on these issues, not really looking to make a living off of this work its just a hobby but dont really like being taken advantage of either.
Cheers Dave C
They told me at one time that were every their aircraft fly any photo's or video belongs to them because it was their aircraft, is this really true??
Also what step's would any of you take if you found your images on a website were they had removed your copyright via clone stamp or cropping and you were not asked for their use on said website.
How would you deal with a magazine that you had a agreement with on using your images and they did not follow their end of the deal and still used your images?
And one more, i have been asked to help out with a book, they want to use my images in this book. Should I be looking for a writen agreement? As you can tell I have no idea on these issues, not really looking to make a living off of this work its just a hobby but dont really like being taken advantage of either.
Cheers Dave C
Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:54 pm
Just to follow up k5054 and Ztex's points - the issue with flyingheritage's posts was that no acknowledgement or attribution to the source of the photos was given. 'Bald' like that was not, I felt, appropriate. Most posters are clear where stuff's come from and respond appropriately when asked about it. The issue was created by fh's response to being asked.
In other words, it was a courtesy and usefulness issue, initially, not a copyright question.
k5054 mentions 'reasonable effort' to establish copyright. It's very common in UK and Australian books to see a note saying that every reasonable effort has been made to trace the owners of the un-attributed photos. Anyone who is the owner is asked to contact the publisher and the matter can be sorted out - usually with a credit in future editions and payment as appropriate /negotiated.
'Fair use' has also been discussed, and is a cornerstone of critical and non scholarly works, particularly in the UK. Australian law is very different.
And again, much of the discussion so far is only appropriate to US law, often irrelevant outside the US. k5054's point about the US Government material having a public domain type presumption is, internationally, the exception, rather than the rule globally - and people can make noise about it either way, but that's just how it is.
Short answer - No. There are exceptions, such as if you take photographs with their explicit permission or arrangement at a private function (not a public airshow) or take photos for them, although tha'ts changed recently in the UK - not sure of the US. Either way, you have residual copyright rights, even if you agree to waive some of them. (August may be better placed to give reliable data. I just work on 'no' to that one!) However the photo copyright is still yours, you may not be able to profit from it.
(Also some airshow organisers presume to dictate commercial use of photos at the event. I've no idea how viable that is, some are more NASCAR than others... )
Politely ask for a credit / removal, and if not complied with you can threaten legal action, later via the ISP. The issue isn't that it's legal, it's just small cost crimes that are difficult to bring home.
As above, except you have a much better chance of suing them successfully, as they are a company with a business location. If you look serious, most defaulter magazines cough up.
That's reasonable. Usually I can't justify paying much or anything for non-core photos in the books I work on. Most people are happy to allow a photo to be used for a 'thank you' in the book, credit with the photo and a copy of the book where possible. Obviously if that's not acceptable, then I don't use the photo. Sometimes someone has a particular shot we 'must' use, and we then come to an arrangement.
It's very unlikely anyone's going to get rich supplying their own photos to vintage aviation books (or from vintage aviation books!).
Generally, if I supply a photo of mine, I make it clear it's not to be re-used without prior permission and ensure my contact details are provided. If someone wants to use a photo, I'm usually happy to arrange so, for free, if there's a limited / no profit for them. Where I've supplied photos to high income publications (a BMW promotional booklet for instance) it's at commercial rates.
All very sensible Dave, and reasonable. Most people most of the time are more than happy to negotiate sensibly. As ever, there a few offenders that cause disproportionate trouble.
HTH.
In other words, it was a courtesy and usefulness issue, initially, not a copyright question.
k5054 mentions 'reasonable effort' to establish copyright. It's very common in UK and Australian books to see a note saying that every reasonable effort has been made to trace the owners of the un-attributed photos. Anyone who is the owner is asked to contact the publisher and the matter can be sorted out - usually with a credit in future editions and payment as appropriate /negotiated.
'Fair use' has also been discussed, and is a cornerstone of critical and non scholarly works, particularly in the UK. Australian law is very different.
And again, much of the discussion so far is only appropriate to US law, often irrelevant outside the US. k5054's point about the US Government material having a public domain type presumption is, internationally, the exception, rather than the rule globally - and people can make noise about it either way, but that's just how it is.
Dave Cheeseman wrote:A few years ago i had a problem with a local warbird owner over photo's.
They told me at one time that were every their aircraft fly any photo's or video belongs to them because it was their aircraft, is this really true??
Short answer - No. There are exceptions, such as if you take photographs with their explicit permission or arrangement at a private function (not a public airshow) or take photos for them, although tha'ts changed recently in the UK - not sure of the US. Either way, you have residual copyright rights, even if you agree to waive some of them. (August may be better placed to give reliable data. I just work on 'no' to that one!) However the photo copyright is still yours, you may not be able to profit from it.
(Also some airshow organisers presume to dictate commercial use of photos at the event. I've no idea how viable that is, some are more NASCAR than others...
)Also what step's would any of you take if you found your images on a website were they had removed your copyright via clone stamp or cropping and you were not asked for their use on said website.
Politely ask for a credit / removal, and if not complied with you can threaten legal action, later via the ISP. The issue isn't that it's legal, it's just small cost crimes that are difficult to bring home.
How would you deal with a magazine that you had a agreement with on using your images and they did not follow their end of the deal and still used your images?
As above, except you have a much better chance of suing them successfully, as they are a company with a business location. If you look serious, most defaulter magazines cough up.
And one more, i have been asked to help out with a book, they want to use my images in this book. Should I be looking for a writen agreement?
That's reasonable. Usually I can't justify paying much or anything for non-core photos in the books I work on. Most people are happy to allow a photo to be used for a 'thank you' in the book, credit with the photo and a copy of the book where possible. Obviously if that's not acceptable, then I don't use the photo. Sometimes someone has a particular shot we 'must' use, and we then come to an arrangement.
It's very unlikely anyone's going to get rich supplying their own photos to vintage aviation books (or from vintage aviation books!).
Generally, if I supply a photo of mine, I make it clear it's not to be re-used without prior permission and ensure my contact details are provided. If someone wants to use a photo, I'm usually happy to arrange so, for free, if there's a limited / no profit for them. Where I've supplied photos to high income publications (a BMW promotional booklet for instance) it's at commercial rates.
As you can tell I have no idea on these issues, not really looking to make a living off of this work its just a hobby but dont really like being taken advantage of either.
All very sensible Dave, and reasonable. Most people most of the time are more than happy to negotiate sensibly. As ever, there a few offenders that cause disproportionate trouble.
HTH.
Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:17 pm
Thanks for the advice James, looking forward to helping out on a book, since it is on Spitfire's ( can never have enough books on the Spit. )
Cheers Dave C
Cheers Dave C
Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:43 pm
Dave, would this be a certain warbird owner who won a lawsuit against a certain childrens movie company several years back?
Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:48 pm
Think it would be fair to say many folks have seen their photos pop up on other sites or used in print without their permission. As it's been stated, each country has different laws governing the issue. It's learning those laws and knowing one's rights which is the key. Thanks for the great discussion.
I've had it happen more than once.
I've had it happen more than once.
Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:08 pm
I'll just add a few thoughts to James's. A lot of it is just reinforcement, as he's generally right.
No.
Depends. Mostly on whether my investigation of the site leads me to think that the owner is a well-meaning enthusiast or a serial ripping-off scumbag.
I often don't put a copyright notice on my images (see, e.g., the ones in the gallery linked to in my signature). I feel that when the purpose of the photos is aesthetic, it defaces them too much. They are just as protected, and I would still go after an infringer. But if it was the decent enthusiast type of infringer, I might give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he knew the pic was mine.
Send them a bill for what I would have expected to receive for the way they actually used the images, or maybe a little more.
Yes. Make sure it covers other media. If the book succeeds, they'll want to do a calendar, a CD, etc. using the same images.
James mentioned that many enthusiasts will supply photos just for credit, or maybe a free copy. Very true. But there exists a cadre of professional aviation photographers, who hang out on fencecheck.com, who feel that those enthusiasts are degenerate scab scumbags who are taking work away from photographers trying to earn a living and thereby threatening the fabric of society as we know it. (Sorry Liza, I know not all fencecheckers are like that.) I'm not kidding, the vitriol against "crowdsourced" images there can get pretty intense. Something to consider if you ever want to join the club of elite pro av photogs.
August
Dave Cheeseman wrote:They told me at one time that were every their aircraft fly any photo's or video belongs to them because it was their aircraft, is this really true??
No.
Also what step's would any of you take if you found your images on a website were they had removed your copyright via clone stamp or cropping and you were not asked for their use on said website.
Depends. Mostly on whether my investigation of the site leads me to think that the owner is a well-meaning enthusiast or a serial ripping-off scumbag.
I often don't put a copyright notice on my images (see, e.g., the ones in the gallery linked to in my signature). I feel that when the purpose of the photos is aesthetic, it defaces them too much. They are just as protected, and I would still go after an infringer. But if it was the decent enthusiast type of infringer, I might give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he knew the pic was mine.
How would you deal with a magazine that you had a agreement with on using your images and they did not follow their end of the deal and still used your images?
Send them a bill for what I would have expected to receive for the way they actually used the images, or maybe a little more.
And one more, i have been asked to help out with a book, they want to use my images in this book. Should I be looking for a writen agreement? As you can tell I have no idea on these issues, not really looking to make a living off of this work its just a hobby but dont really like being taken advantage of either.
Yes. Make sure it covers other media. If the book succeeds, they'll want to do a calendar, a CD, etc. using the same images.
James mentioned that many enthusiasts will supply photos just for credit, or maybe a free copy. Very true. But there exists a cadre of professional aviation photographers, who hang out on fencecheck.com, who feel that those enthusiasts are degenerate scab scumbags who are taking work away from photographers trying to earn a living and thereby threatening the fabric of society as we know it. (Sorry Liza, I know not all fencecheckers are like that.) I'm not kidding, the vitriol against "crowdsourced" images there can get pretty intense. Something to consider if you ever want to join the club of elite pro av photogs.
August
Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:31 pm
Dave,
Good to hear. My advice is just advice! Keep us posted...
Wow. Interesting point. As a publisher rather than a photographer, I tend to see that from the other side, I guess, and miss much of the noise.
Generally, 'pro' photographers get my business because they have created an opportunity, or are on the spot for the critical moment - an air to air, press launch or exclusive event. I can't think of an occasion where I've used an amateur shot over a pro one, generally because they're in different niches in my experience. Most pros aren't interested in the restoration / detail shots, or the airshow ground to air work.
In my ignorance, I suspect some of the mud slinging August alludes to has more to do with some people trying to make their small differences look bigger - the 'real' pro photographers working in vintage aviation are very few, and don't waste time arguing, I suspect.
There are a few photographers I don't work with any more - the issues are to do with attitude, lack of professionalism, and bloody-mindededness rather than cost.
Behind all this is the press principle - The right picture at the right time is worth gold. Like fishermen, save the 'ones that got away' stuff for the bar.
Just some thoughts.
Good to hear. My advice is just advice! Keep us posted...
k5083 wrote:James mentioned that many enthusiasts will supply photos just for credit, or maybe a free copy. Very true. But there exists a cadre of professional aviation photographers, who hang out on fencecheck.com, who feel that those enthusiasts are degenerate scab scumbags who are taking work away from photographers trying to earn a living and thereby threatening the fabric of society as we know it.
Wow. Interesting point. As a publisher rather than a photographer, I tend to see that from the other side, I guess, and miss much of the noise.
Generally, 'pro' photographers get my business because they have created an opportunity, or are on the spot for the critical moment - an air to air, press launch or exclusive event. I can't think of an occasion where I've used an amateur shot over a pro one, generally because they're in different niches in my experience. Most pros aren't interested in the restoration / detail shots, or the airshow ground to air work.
In my ignorance, I suspect some of the mud slinging August alludes to has more to do with some people trying to make their small differences look bigger - the 'real' pro photographers working in vintage aviation are very few, and don't waste time arguing, I suspect.
There are a few photographers I don't work with any more - the issues are to do with attitude, lack of professionalism, and bloody-mindededness rather than cost.
Behind all this is the press principle - The right picture at the right time is worth gold. Like fishermen, save the 'ones that got away' stuff for the bar.
Just some thoughts.
Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:42 pm
Some of you might be interested in a current discussion of copyright and fair use unrelated to airplanes. There is currently a controversy over a wildly successful Obama campaign poster that an artist painted based on an unattributed (but later identified) photojournalist's image. The guys in the following thread are very experienced and sophisticated photographers, and as you'll see, they're not far ahead of us in working out what fair use means.
http://photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Sas5
August
http://photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Sas5
August
Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:00 pm
Interesting one August.
Incidentally, a fundamental point that's crucial to the discussion - most of our aircraft photographs aren't actually worth much/any money.
They're important to us, of some use, but if we are honest, most of the time we'd not pay that much cash for them ourselves, if we had to. That doesn't excuse any issues, but that's why there's relatively little high-cost catfights in our arena - there's very little revenue to be diverted.
Incidentally, a fundamental point that's crucial to the discussion - most of our aircraft photographs aren't actually worth much/any money.
They're important to us, of some use, but if we are honest, most of the time we'd not pay that much cash for them ourselves, if we had to. That doesn't excuse any issues, but that's why there's relatively little high-cost catfights in our arena - there's very little revenue to be diverted.
Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:29 pm
k5083 wrote:Some of you might be interested in a current discussion of copyright and fair use unrelated to airplanes. There is currently a controversy over a wildly successful Obama campaign poster that an artist painted based on an unattributed (but later identified) photojournalist's image. The guys in the following thread are very experienced and sophisticated photographers, and as you'll see, they're not far ahead of us in working out what fair use means.
http://photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Sas5
August
All very interesting yet again, the photographer has "frozen" an image of Obama, its Obama's likeness in both cases, and the artist has used it as the basis of his painting.
If it wasnt painted over the photo, ie like a tracing, I would consider its simply an inspiration of the same likeness, but if it tends towards simply a "colouring in" of the photo then its clearly using the photographer's work.
As an aside, how do Celebrities such as "Elvis" (can I legally use those 5 letters in that form?) claim to own their images and likenesses? ie to control dolls, posters etc?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:22 am
Not to drag this conversation on, but two more points.
First, as someone who has close friends in the publishing industry, the margins really aren't always that great (and neither would be a reasonable cut for you), and most books won't have a calendar or peripheral products produced.
Second, on the point about professional photographers and a dislike for others "giving" their shots away, I really and truly can see it both ways. I enjoy taking pictures of aircraft, and if someone asked me to use some of the photos I would be rather flattered. On the other hand, I occasionally have the privilege of flying with a professional aerial photographer (he's pretty good, too!) as his backup pilot. From this perspective, while any amateur who's got an imagination might be able to get "the shot", they're not as likely to be able to get good, consistent, professional results, and the odd freelancer "giving" his photos away makes it harder for them to do their legitimate business and support themselves.
In the end, I don't thing it's wrong for the average Joe to let someone use his shot, but average Joe might be more considerate of the professionals, if he put a "value" of some sort on the photo. The publisher should be aware of the professional's efforts and need to earn a living in order to be available for those consistent results. AND the professional photographer must maintain his standards, give the consistent results, and find gracious ways to explain his position.
Oh, and it really is nice to get paid to fly on the odd day! It's a fun challenge helping provide those consistent results. Rigid airspeeds and altitudes, predictability, flexibility, and maintaining proper distances from the target.
Ryan
First, as someone who has close friends in the publishing industry, the margins really aren't always that great (and neither would be a reasonable cut for you), and most books won't have a calendar or peripheral products produced.
Second, on the point about professional photographers and a dislike for others "giving" their shots away, I really and truly can see it both ways. I enjoy taking pictures of aircraft, and if someone asked me to use some of the photos I would be rather flattered. On the other hand, I occasionally have the privilege of flying with a professional aerial photographer (he's pretty good, too!) as his backup pilot. From this perspective, while any amateur who's got an imagination might be able to get "the shot", they're not as likely to be able to get good, consistent, professional results, and the odd freelancer "giving" his photos away makes it harder for them to do their legitimate business and support themselves.
In the end, I don't thing it's wrong for the average Joe to let someone use his shot, but average Joe might be more considerate of the professionals, if he put a "value" of some sort on the photo. The publisher should be aware of the professional's efforts and need to earn a living in order to be available for those consistent results. AND the professional photographer must maintain his standards, give the consistent results, and find gracious ways to explain his position.
Oh, and it really is nice to get paid to fly on the odd day! It's a fun challenge helping provide those consistent results. Rigid airspeeds and altitudes, predictability, flexibility, and maintaining proper distances from the target.
Ryan
Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:00 pm
k5083 wrote:Corrie,
Your colleague sounds like fun. My Ph.D. is in a different social science but I too have published in the history of technology; it used to be a cognate of mine.
But this ain't no faculty lounge. It's a recreational forum in which few, if any, serious scholars regularly contribute. Depicting it as a hive of scholarship or research would, in my view, be a tough sell.
August
Nice! you have a nice day too August ... I was enjoying this thread until I got b*tch slapped ... haha ... So I'm NOT a scholar here?, did I spell that word correctly? ... Joking aside, very interesting and informative thread, I know a bit about copyright infringment from a different arena, that being the Architectural world. I can see a photographer being upset about his or her work being used by someone else without permission, but try thinking about an Architect's $100K design being used by another Architect without permission? .... It's very easy for Architects to steal others designs. Happens all day, everyday. Very little can be done about it.
Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:12 pm
Hellcat, you mean "very little" in the sense of suing and settling for enough to buy 3 WWII fighters and a Harvard? 
Mark, the Elvis question gets into the right of publicity which is a whole 'nother thing.
As for value, margins, etc in aviation photography, I hear you. The pro argument is that that is because values have been deflated by the amateur snappers. I have no dog in the hunt, personally. I agree with James that the way for a pro to survive in aviation photography is to shoot what amateurs cannot, by dint of skill or opportunity.
August
Mark, the Elvis question gets into the right of publicity which is a whole 'nother thing.
As for value, margins, etc in aviation photography, I hear you. The pro argument is that that is because values have been deflated by the amateur snappers. I have no dog in the hunt, personally. I agree with James that the way for a pro to survive in aviation photography is to shoot what amateurs cannot, by dint of skill or opportunity.
August
Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:19 pm
I want to add a couple of things . . .
My initial response was the same as Ztex's- I also saw that we were going down the exact same road as before with the various incarnations of this fellow-starts out reasonable, begins spamming with other people's content without any context, and winds up very adversarial. That behaviour got him banned last time. The more I explored however, the more offended I became-it's not as if no one had explained the, if not legal ,the ethical lapses in what he was engaged in. When I pulled the file info on the A-20 image and found out he took those images from the Magnum stock photo site I got really spooled up. First of all-they put those images up there for the explicit purpose of selling them. They have a reputation for vigorously defending photographer's copyrights-and proven themselves to be quite litigious. You can argue fair use all day long, but if you are facing a lawsuit it's a whole 'nother ball game. As a working photographer I felt it was my responsibility to contact them as well as the the other photographer who clearly had a 'do not reproduce' notice on his website.
I also enjoy looking at the images of warbirds posted here, and the discussion that ensues. That's why I'm here. If it seemed like I was picking up FH, or Wixlova, it's because he continually pushed the boundaries, flaunted the rules and got aggressive when confronted about it. An innocent mistake? I think not.
The last thing I want to mention, while a (at least in the US) photograph is considered a copyrighted work the instant the shutter is released, you don't have all the right to recover damages unless that copyright is registered with the Library of Congress. It is easy to do, and if the works are unpublished, you can register hundreds of image at once for a small fee. You can even do it online now.
My initial response was the same as Ztex's- I also saw that we were going down the exact same road as before with the various incarnations of this fellow-starts out reasonable, begins spamming with other people's content without any context, and winds up very adversarial. That behaviour got him banned last time. The more I explored however, the more offended I became-it's not as if no one had explained the, if not legal ,the ethical lapses in what he was engaged in. When I pulled the file info on the A-20 image and found out he took those images from the Magnum stock photo site I got really spooled up. First of all-they put those images up there for the explicit purpose of selling them. They have a reputation for vigorously defending photographer's copyrights-and proven themselves to be quite litigious. You can argue fair use all day long, but if you are facing a lawsuit it's a whole 'nother ball game. As a working photographer I felt it was my responsibility to contact them as well as the the other photographer who clearly had a 'do not reproduce' notice on his website.
I also enjoy looking at the images of warbirds posted here, and the discussion that ensues. That's why I'm here. If it seemed like I was picking up FH, or Wixlova, it's because he continually pushed the boundaries, flaunted the rules and got aggressive when confronted about it. An innocent mistake? I think not.
The last thing I want to mention, while a (at least in the US) photograph is considered a copyrighted work the instant the shutter is released, you don't have all the right to recover damages unless that copyright is registered with the Library of Congress. It is easy to do, and if the works are unpublished, you can register hundreds of image at once for a small fee. You can even do it online now.