Photography of Military aircraft

[Spanish Waltzer]

A question to you military aircraft photography gurus....

If I have taken some photos of UK military aircraft doing their stuff away from military airfields and want to sell these photos via websites do I need any form of permission from the UK ministry of defence?

Some websites suggest that they require written proof of copyright etc. but as far as I understand it as I took the picture, I own the copyright.

I appreciate it's a competitive world out there but I am only looking on a small scale and would be very interested to hear from anyone by PM or reply who has sold / does sell such photos to get a steer as to what is required to satisfy website requirements.

Many thanks

SW

[Maxibon]

Hi Spanish Waltzer

Many thanks for your question. As luck would have it, you are in luck! I am SO2 Miltary Aircraft Photography and am tasked with collecting all monies.

The cost is £100 per pic and cheques should be made payable to Central Aviation Secured Handling - its easier to use the initials, naturally.

Please send to RAF Upfield Officers' Mess, North Hampshire, RG20

Thanks you for contributing and we commend you for taking as many pics of our wonderful aircraft as possible.

Max (Sqn Cdr, or something like that):ok:

[Softie]

Hi SW
Please ignore Maxibon's unhelpful contribution. You can use and sell any image you take of a military aircraft taken from a public location without the need to seek permission from the MOD. You would only have a problem if photography from outside the fence is prohibited under the Official Secrets Act and there is only one airfield I know in the UK where this applies.

As the photographer, you automatically own the copyright for all photographs you take (unless you are being paid to take them). You are correct to say that competition is strong and only the very best will find a market.

Softie

[Spanish Waltzer]

Maxi - thanks for your helpful contribution...I knew I could rely on you. Cheque is in the post ... :=:suspect:

Softie - thanks for your more useful advice and confirmation of my understanding. The problem I have come up against is that some web publishers seem to require release forms due to perceived crown copyright or reject them for 'trade mark' reasons.

I was hoping that there might be some legal jargon available that provides me with the backing to sell MY photos of military aircraft without fear of breaking MOD ownership / copyright legislation....or am I missing the point??

[Satellite_Driver]

SW,

The only way that you would not own copyright in any pictures you take is if somebody paid you to take them for them.

The problem you might be running in to is the assumption that any pictures of RAF aircraft must have been taken either by an RAF/MOD photographer or by another professional. Frankly, I would consider it a bit of a cheek to hear such a suggestion; unless a picture has CROWN COPYRIGHT stamped all over the back, why the hell should someone assume I didn't take it myself?

But, should you run into someone being awkward, I would suggest something along the lines of:

"I confirm that I took this photograph on [DATE], that I am first author of it within the meaning of Section 9(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and that I have not assigned my copyright in whole or part to any other person."

[Tiger_mate]

To sell the photograph does not automatically mean that 'your' copyright goes with it. In the same way that an artist usually retains copyright after the canvas is sold. This is to stop third parties from financially exploiting your work through their reproduction.

Copyright in itself can be sold, which is what pretty much all Formula 1 teams have done*. (*To third party advertising agents). I am told that Lockheed; who I believe are now 'Boeing' visited the US Courts recently to defend their copyright against photographers/artists/model manafacturers reproducing aircraft in image and model forms without paying for the right to do so, and perhaps not surprisingly, they lost the case.

To sell an F1 photo* (without team approval) is to invite all sorts of unwelcome attention, so the whole affair remains a minefield.

[Pontius Navigator]

Similar question:

Someone on MOD property takes a photograph. Who owns the copyright? For the sake of argument the photographer was not 'inside the wire' but on MOD land where any member of the public may walk.

It that same person seeks permission and then goes on to MOD land? Two cases here, one is at a charity photoshoot, the other is where the photographer is the only one present.

In the photos on MOD land case, does the MOD have any rights to claim a proportion of any profits?

[spannermonkey]

SW,

Just to put you mind at rest, if you take a picture of any military ac when you are not on a MoD establishment i.e. a base or pointing a lens through the wire then you are safe and own the copyright of the picture and as such can do as you wish with them - even if that entails selling them to make a profit. This applies to any pictures you take of anything actually - just look at the paparatzi scum - they make their living by selling pictures that are taken of 'private' moments while on public land.

Secondly you can sell the pictures in a number of ways but basically the two main ones are:

Licenced and Royalty Free, licenced is a way that ensures you retain the copyright so that the user can only print/reproduce or modify the picture in accordance with your instructions. Royalty Free is where you basically 'sell' the copyright to the person/company/organsisation that wishes to use the image, they are then free to do as they wish with it as you have sold the copyright to them. This is a very basic explanation and as has been pointed out it can be a bit of a mine field out there. Any licenced pictures must have YOUR copyright stamped on the back of them.

I only offer Licenced pictures as a rule due to Royalty Free being a one hit wonder, unless you have been offered a large sum and you consider it worthwhile. That said if its a picture that is good enough to sell then it will sell again and again unless its a very narrow subject.

Have a look at the various websites out there that will also 'host' your pictures for you but be aware many will charge a huge percentage of any sales in commision and you end up with little in return and the actualy sales price is often quite low.

My advice would be to get a real good portfolio together, get yourself a top notch website and then pray to the gods that you are lucky enough to actually find someone who will buy your pictures - many ways of doing this, check out the web.

Just as an aside and to give you an idea of the level you need to be aiming to make any sort of decent money check out Jaimie Hunter at aviacom.com. This guy is one of the best in the industry. Though the way in which Jamie works is very different to 99.9% of photographers out there and is the same way I now work.

PM me if you want more info or send me some sample pics for an honest opinion.

[Softie]

SW
Would you be referring to Alamy? They forbid use of trademark and, although, the RAF tried to trademark the roundel, it lost its case as the roundel was deemed to be in the public domain. There are many many images of RAF aircraft and the roundel on Alamy's website so I don't see any problem.
PN
If you take a photograph on MOD property with permission (eg. at an airshow, during an organised visit or, if in the RAF, with Stn Cdr's approval) then the photographer still owns the copyright and may sell the images. The exception are RAF Photographers whose work is automatically Crown Copyright.
TM
I can understand the attitude on F1 to images. There is probably something in the TOCs on photography at races - the same rules apply at music concerts. I received a phone call recently about referring to the 4-yearly international sporting event when I won a gold and a couple of silvers in a monthly print competition - they threatened to send the big boys round!

[Pontius Navigator]

TY Softie, now all I have to do is avoid a particular rocky wg cdr :)

[fallmonk]

Just out curriosity ,
IF your at a MOD base can you take picts from fence ok or do you have to go to gate house and ask permission? do u need to contact sayed bases PR officer or go to the top and ask the CO?

[Pontius Navigator]

fallmonk, as long as there is not a civilian policeman in the camera shot, you do not need permission. If don't want you to photograph then it is up to us to make it impossible, such as flying by night or closing for the day and then reopening :)

You will not be interfered with whatever. If you trespass however a different set of rules kick in and most will involve the civilian police.

[Softie]

FM
Unless there are signs prohibiting photography under the Official Secrets Act (ie. at Boscombe Down), there is nothing to stop photography from public property outside the fence. There is no need to seek permission. Indeed many airfields have set up positions for plane spotters/photographers with info boards.

However, there is much debate in the photographic press recently regarding the suspicion of taking images or video for terrorist purposes; it does not have to be aircraft but includes public buildings and military establishments. If the police suspect, they can question but they cannot demand you to delete or erase images (that is theft). The best rule is to act openly and avoid raising such doubts.

[Roadster280]

Most MOD facilities have signage with words to the effect of "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act. No photography or recording devices permitted" posted along the perimeter fences every hundred yards or so.

I would think this could lead to some odd situations. For example, if one pulled up next to the fence and took photos (looking into the facility) anyway, then this might be illegal. However, what if the camera is pointed 180 degrees about, and hence pointing away? Any arriving/departing aircraft could be snapped at will. Plod might take exception. So intrepid photographer drives 400 yards away, out of sight, and takes effectively the same photos. Is he then in trouble? He can't see the signs (may never have seen them), and is minding his own business with his camera. Yet ends up with similar photos to having pointed his zoom lens over the fence next to the sign that says "don't do it".

[Pontius Navigator]

Roadster, don't try this in Greece.

[Roadster280]

Well, quite :)

Kind of sums things up though. Do that kind of thing in Greece and you're in the brown. Do it in the UK and almost certainly you are OK, because the do-gooders have made the law an ass, with more loopholes than the chainlink fence in question!

What's wrong with dragging the potential Spetznaz guy into the guardroom, accidentally smithereening his camera with a pick helve and letting him go with some suitable words of advice?

[Spanish Waltzer]

thanks everyone for such a range of useful and informative responses....and there was me thinking every thread on pprune dissolves into abuse after 1 or 2 posts ;)

Of course there are two different issues here, the legality of taking the photos on / nearby MOD property and the legality of actually selling the photos.

One of the hurdles I came up against appeared to relate to the ownership of logos or badges etc on aircraft in the same way I suppose pictures of F1 cars that are covered in sponsorship logos.

From what you say it appears that I need not worry so thanks for that.

Regards

SW

[grandfer]

I remember years ago I went on board USS Guadacanal in Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth , we were told we could take any photos we wanted of the ship or the aircraft on the flight-deck so long as no dockyard buildings were in the background !!!!

Grandfer:ugh::ugh:

[Tiger_mate]

That philosophy is very common. Photograph aeroplanes all day but keep exposure (pardon the pun) of buildings to a minimum. Got to say though that in this day and age where everybody has access to Google Earth, the relevence of this has diminished to zero if one took a pragmatic approach.

[Pontius Navigator]

in this day and age where everybody has access to Google Earth, the relevence of this has diminished to zero if one took a pragmatic approach.

Ah, RAF plod and pragmatic - oxymoron

[Tankertrashnav]

I'm just wondering how long it will be before our lords and masters realise that they are missing an opportunity to widen the police state we are becoming, and put a blanket ban on all military aircraft photography. If anyone thinks this is a ridiculous fear, they should be aware that railway enthusiasts are routinely stopped by rail company employees, and even worse by British Transport Police, and quite incorrectly told they are committing an offence by photographing trains on railway property. How long before some aircraft enthusiast pointing his lens over a fence is arrested by the local fuzz or the Mod Plod with the official secrets act being vaguely quoted as reason for the harrassment.

[Wiley]

It's already happened - in Greece. Some will recall the pair(?) of Brit plane spotters who were gaoled some years ago for photographing airborne Greek AF aircraft during an exercise.

Ahhh... now that I've read page 1, I see Pontious beat me to pointing that out.

[bobward]

If you can remember that far back, in the 1950's the RAF didn't allow any cameras at their Battle of Britain displays.... full circle?