Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:52 pm
Paul Krumrei wrote:He called me back and said specifically, people saw my posting of the calendar on Facebook and specifically the SMWCAF Facebook page of selling my calendar of the photos that I took at the return of that redtail P-51C.
So you were seliing it on a CAF page of facebook?
Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Facebook allows you to post links to websites, the link was added on the CAF Facebook site, which within the rules of Facebook, you can do.
Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:58 pm
Im with you Paul, personally there is no law stating that you cant sell a photo of an object in public and make a profit. I went to college for photography and know what you can and cant sell photo related.
Now if it were a person, you'd need a release. The aircraft belongs to a Non-Profit agency. A non-Profit agency is telling you, you cant sell a picture with their aircaft in it. After they ensured the logos were large enough to make the aircraft ungody to ensure people knew it belonged to them, to help recruiting, dont want you to spread the word. So a group that needs funding is asking you for money now on their aircraft that you photographed, that they didnt pay you to shoot.....Seems like someone just wants money......Ill build a website and just sell pictures of that aircraft with you Paul!!!!!
How many warbird posters/calenders do you see a year with everyone's aircraft on it? with out releases? To include CAF sponsored Calender sales with other groups aircraft in it.......MMmmm.....Is this an Obama stimulus idea?
Now if it were a person, you'd need a release. The aircraft belongs to a Non-Profit agency. A non-Profit agency is telling you, you cant sell a picture with their aircaft in it. After they ensured the logos were large enough to make the aircraft ungody to ensure people knew it belonged to them, to help recruiting, dont want you to spread the word. So a group that needs funding is asking you for money now on their aircraft that you photographed, that they didnt pay you to shoot.....Seems like someone just wants money......Ill build a website and just sell pictures of that aircraft with you Paul!!!!!
How many warbird posters/calenders do you see a year with everyone's aircraft on it? with out releases? To include CAF sponsored Calender sales with other groups aircraft in it.......MMmmm.....Is this an Obama stimulus idea?
Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:01 am
Do we need to pay Sears for pictures of the Sears Tower people put into calenders? Or the city of San Francisco for use of the Golden Gate.....How about Lockheed for pictures of C-130s used for public calenders?? Should I go on.... Does the DUMB stop here or is this a msg that can go on and on for days? It seems cut and dry.....
Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:57 am
tulsaboy wrote: If the CAF puts their airplane out where others can see it, and someone takes a photo and sells the photo, the CAF has little claim. Otherwise, someone taking a photo of Yankee Stadium and selling it would need the permission of Addias, Coca-Cola, and the other companies whose trademarked logos appear at the stadium and in photos of the stadium before selling that photo.
An interesting tidbit of information. Did you know that it is a violation to sell photos taken at the Reno Air Races without express written permission from the Reno Air Racing Association (RARA)? In other words, your everyday amateur photographer can not sell any pictures taken at the Races without consent from RARA. So, this is a public event, yet RARA is able to exert their control and influence. So, how does this mesh with what was said up above? I suspect copyright law is very, very convoluted and has many exceptions and loopholes. It doesn't always adhere to common sense either. For example, did you know it is a copyright violation and you could be sued for singing "Happy Birthday" in a public place without paying royalties to the songwriter? Crazy isn't it?
Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:33 am
"happy birthday" is in the public domain so your example doesn't apply. singing songs in a public space is considered a performance and if is a song still under copyright you can be called to court.
Copyright laws are difficult to understand and in many case boil down to the team with the biggest lawyer budget. That's why even what's called "fair use" is difficult to use.
I wouldn't put my opinion on the legality of CAF action without speaking with a copyright specialist lawyer.
If you want to have a better perspective of copyright laws, what are they about and what they were intended to be about (and are not right now, being completly perverted) I recommend you read "Free Culture", from Lawrence Lessig.
You can download for free here (or buy it in paperback):
http://www.free-culture.cc/index.html
By the way, reading it from the other side, if you think some people spent many hours and money to recover this aeroplane I think it can be understandable if they are pissed on someone taking some pictures (however good they are) and making a profit of them without giving them nothing. At least I would try to understand this angle of it.
I'm not affiliate with CAF or even in the US. I'm just trying to see it from all perspectives.
Copyright laws are difficult to understand and in many case boil down to the team with the biggest lawyer budget. That's why even what's called "fair use" is difficult to use.
I wouldn't put my opinion on the legality of CAF action without speaking with a copyright specialist lawyer.
If you want to have a better perspective of copyright laws, what are they about and what they were intended to be about (and are not right now, being completly perverted) I recommend you read "Free Culture", from Lawrence Lessig.
You can download for free here (or buy it in paperback):
http://www.free-culture.cc/index.html
By the way, reading it from the other side, if you think some people spent many hours and money to recover this aeroplane I think it can be understandable if they are pissed on someone taking some pictures (however good they are) and making a profit of them without giving them nothing. At least I would try to understand this angle of it.
I'm not affiliate with CAF or even in the US. I'm just trying to see it from all perspectives.
Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:53 am
The P-51 is a product of North American, now Boeing I believe, if anyone had a suit it might be them, if they cared. As far as RARA, when you buy your ticket its in fine print that you can not use the pictures taken inside the gates for profit.
Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:40 am
Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, and Grumman have trade marked the names and designations of all thier aircraft and have been demanding royalty payments and licensing fees from model makers for several years. So, if you print P-51 Mustang, you need to pay boeing a fee.
It is interesting how they can take a name and model number of a publically funded aircraft, and take it for thier own use.
It is interesting how they can take a name and model number of a publically funded aircraft, and take it for thier own use.
Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:09 am
I received a note from the MN Wing commander after I asked her about the issue.
"Unfortunately with all of the copyright laws of the CAF there has to be approval from HQ in order to use CAF aircraft for tee-shirts, calendars or anything like that."
"The calendar you had posted was a great idea and perhaps it's something we can look into with HQ and find out how to make it happen. I know the MN wing has been trying to come up with a calendar of our own as a fundraiser and perhaps that would be something you would like to get behind."
To me it reads. Great idea, but we want the money not let you have it.
"Unfortunately with all of the copyright laws of the CAF there has to be approval from HQ in order to use CAF aircraft for tee-shirts, calendars or anything like that."
"The calendar you had posted was a great idea and perhaps it's something we can look into with HQ and find out how to make it happen. I know the MN wing has been trying to come up with a calendar of our own as a fundraiser and perhaps that would be something you would like to get behind."
To me it reads. Great idea, but we want the money not let you have it.
Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:16 am
warbird1 wrote:tulsaboy wrote: If the CAF puts their airplane out where others can see it, and someone takes a photo and sells the photo, the CAF has little claim. Otherwise, someone taking a photo of Yankee Stadium and selling it would need the permission of Addias, Coca-Cola, and the other companies whose trademarked logos appear at the stadium and in photos of the stadium before selling that photo.
An interesting tidbit of information. Did you know that it is a violation to sell photos taken at the Reno Air Races without express written permission from the Reno Air Racing Association (RARA)? In other words, your everyday amateur photographer can not sell any pictures taken at the Races without consent from RARA. So, this is a public event, yet RARA is able to exert their control and influence. So, how does this mesh with what was said up above? I suspect copyright law is very, very convoluted and has many exceptions and loopholes. It doesn't always adhere to common sense either. For example, did you know it is a copyright violation and you could be sued for singing "Happy Birthday" in a public place without paying royalties to the songwriter? Crazy isn't it?
BTW, Oshkosh, I believe, has (or had in the past) the same rules in place. If you read the fine print, EAA "owns" all the photos taken at Oshkosh.
Jerry
Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:33 am
This is kind of out of left field, but please bear with me.
First off, I was enchanted with the CAF as a kid, and am just amazed at what it has morphed into today...something that I would be willing to bet guys like Lefty, Lloyd Nolan, Vern Thorpe, Walt Wooten, and the 'early Colonels' would just shake their heads at and say "that's NOT what we had in mind...."
The argument over the logo has been amusing to read, and the calendar/profit thing has just made me roll my eyes. The warbird/airshow movement isn't big enough or important enough to have the kind of in-fighting it has.
ANYHOW.
My other 'life' is running with the Unlimited Hydroplane crowd. Last year I put together a sponsorship from the United States Navy--yes, actually got the government to finance our racing operation. Painted the boat up in Blue Angel colors and raced across the country. Did pretty well, too.
When we were formulating the program, we wanted to maximize exposure for the Navy, as well as awareness of the sailors/soldiers/airmen in all the armed forces. We thought it would be a neat idea, as part of the sponsorship terms, to 'donate' a percentage of our winnings from each race site to the USO. Great idea, eh? Because the USO is all about supporting our troops, etc. Kind of a win-win for everyone.
The USO came back and told us to pack sand...that unless we could make a 'donation' of over some ungodly number--my mind says $50,000--we were expressly forbidden to put their logo on our boat, or mention them in any of our press releases, etc.
It was an amazingly stunning blow to me--especially as a former Navy pilot who had utilized the USO a lot, and given that my mom has been a USO volunteer for nearly 20 years. What is the saying? No good deed goes unpunished?
After I got over the shock of it all, I did a bit more rooting around to find out why, and once the emotions settled down it actually DID make sense. The USO did not want to have their name associated with every two-bit fund-raiser, grassroots, local organization that IF something went wrong, would result in bad publicity. By requiring that that kind of 'association' be in place before you can 'use' the USO brand, it makes sure that they're not drug through the mud through circumstances beyond their control. Kind of convoluted, but if I ran something like the USO, United Way, or a non-profit organization, I wouldn't want anyone off the street using my name/logo.
Can you imagine if (insert any racist/political/religious extremist group) held a biker gang poker run and wet t-shirt contest to raise money for your organization, and the media got ahold of it?
Yes, kind of an extreme example, but it does make sense. And perhaps, JUST PERHAPS, this is what the CAF is trying to do with this photo/calendar issue. Money may have plenty to do with it, but it also may have to do with controlling your brand and making sure it doesn't get 'exploited' from a business standpoint.
Just a thought.
And as far as the Reno Air Race stuff goes...well, as a member of the press corps there since 1986, I'm just going to say that it is a complete non-issue. RARA may be many things...lots of them not very good...but they make it clear what their expectations are, and everyone I know plays by the rules. It's not that big of a deal to clear it with them ahead of time. It's never been an issue.
First off, I was enchanted with the CAF as a kid, and am just amazed at what it has morphed into today...something that I would be willing to bet guys like Lefty, Lloyd Nolan, Vern Thorpe, Walt Wooten, and the 'early Colonels' would just shake their heads at and say "that's NOT what we had in mind...."
The argument over the logo has been amusing to read, and the calendar/profit thing has just made me roll my eyes. The warbird/airshow movement isn't big enough or important enough to have the kind of in-fighting it has.
ANYHOW.
My other 'life' is running with the Unlimited Hydroplane crowd. Last year I put together a sponsorship from the United States Navy--yes, actually got the government to finance our racing operation. Painted the boat up in Blue Angel colors and raced across the country. Did pretty well, too.
When we were formulating the program, we wanted to maximize exposure for the Navy, as well as awareness of the sailors/soldiers/airmen in all the armed forces. We thought it would be a neat idea, as part of the sponsorship terms, to 'donate' a percentage of our winnings from each race site to the USO. Great idea, eh? Because the USO is all about supporting our troops, etc. Kind of a win-win for everyone.
The USO came back and told us to pack sand...that unless we could make a 'donation' of over some ungodly number--my mind says $50,000--we were expressly forbidden to put their logo on our boat, or mention them in any of our press releases, etc.
It was an amazingly stunning blow to me--especially as a former Navy pilot who had utilized the USO a lot, and given that my mom has been a USO volunteer for nearly 20 years. What is the saying? No good deed goes unpunished?
After I got over the shock of it all, I did a bit more rooting around to find out why, and once the emotions settled down it actually DID make sense. The USO did not want to have their name associated with every two-bit fund-raiser, grassroots, local organization that IF something went wrong, would result in bad publicity. By requiring that that kind of 'association' be in place before you can 'use' the USO brand, it makes sure that they're not drug through the mud through circumstances beyond their control. Kind of convoluted, but if I ran something like the USO, United Way, or a non-profit organization, I wouldn't want anyone off the street using my name/logo.
Can you imagine if (insert any racist/political/religious extremist group) held a biker gang poker run and wet t-shirt contest to raise money for your organization, and the media got ahold of it?
Yes, kind of an extreme example, but it does make sense. And perhaps, JUST PERHAPS, this is what the CAF is trying to do with this photo/calendar issue. Money may have plenty to do with it, but it also may have to do with controlling your brand and making sure it doesn't get 'exploited' from a business standpoint.
Just a thought.
And as far as the Reno Air Race stuff goes...well, as a member of the press corps there since 1986, I'm just going to say that it is a complete non-issue. RARA may be many things...lots of them not very good...but they make it clear what their expectations are, and everyone I know plays by the rules. It's not that big of a deal to clear it with them ahead of time. It's never been an issue.
Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:35 am
Jerry O'Neill wrote:BTW, Oshkosh, I believe, has (or had in the past) the same rules in place. If you read the fine print, EAA "owns" all the photos taken at Oshkosh.
Jerry
I would tell the EAA and the CAF they can own what comes out from between my butt cheeks before they can have my photos......
Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:48 am
Speedy wrote:
Yes, kind of an extreme example, but it does make sense. And perhaps, JUST PERHAPS, this is what the CAF is trying to do with this photo/calendar issue. Money may have plenty to do with it, but it also may have to do with controlling your brand and making sure it doesn't get 'exploited' from a business standpoint.
I am not adding any logos and such on the calendar, simply the aircraft, how can they tell me that I cannot sell PHOTOS of an AIRPLANE that I TOOK?
That is the issue.
No logos are mentioned or added in my photos, nothing but pictures of the aircraft.
Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:54 am
Paul Krumrei wrote:Speedy wrote:
Yes, kind of an extreme example, but it does make sense. And perhaps, JUST PERHAPS, this is what the CAF is trying to do with this photo/calendar issue. Money may have plenty to do with it, but it also may have to do with controlling your brand and making sure it doesn't get 'exploited' from a business standpoint.
I am not adding any logos and such on the calendar, simply the aircraft, how can they tell me that I cannot sell PHOTOS of an AIRPLANE that I TOOK?
That is the issue.
No logos are mentioned or added in my photos, nothing but pictures of the aircraft.
No...but at least from what I saw, you were 'marketing' your thing as the Return of the Redtail or something like that...which is obviously their airplane with their logo on the side.
I'm not saying that they're right or that you're right. Just that in some twisted way, having been in your same position, I may be able to see what they're saying or trying to do.
Or, I could just be high....
Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:00 am
I agree that the original Colonels would be deeply ashamed of what the CAF has become...as for the Red Tail copyright, someone had better tell Audobon as there is a Red Tail Hawk. I guess that no one can take and sell a picture of a Red Tail Hawk unless they get written permission from the CAF lawyer to do so! 
Paul, as for your calendar, I would buy one if available..we might have to meet at a secret location and watch out for people in trench coats because you never know who may be lurking!
Paul, as for your calendar, I would buy one if available..we might have to meet at a secret location and watch out for people in trench coats because you never know who may be lurking!