16th Jun 2016, 15:49 - Wikipost
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Home of Photos in Dunnunda! Mk II
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Behind an airport fence - mostly
Age: 33
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-EBQ - A330-200.
Why do people spoil a fairly decent image with a watermark that takes up about a quarter of the image ?
Is it copyright paranoia, or are they that priceless ? Just my $0.02 worth.
Is it copyright paranoia, or are they that priceless ? Just my $0.02 worth.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Behind an airport fence - mostly
Age: 33
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cowl flaps: Copyright paranoia. The website I use applies the watermarks for me. Many of my friends have had their images taken and used by various news agencies. It must be taken into consideration that said friends get approached by operators offering to buy photos for $500+ per image. It's a big IP issue which seems to plague the press.
Regardless:
The watermark isn't covering the subject of the image. It is a deterrent of sorts.
Regardless:
The watermark isn't covering the subject of the image. It is a deterrent of sorts.
Goodness! Haven't I been been potentially ripped off?
My photo of the 'Cherokee Challenge' flight, last November of G-ATYS with the backdrop of Uluru appeared in 'Australian Pilot' magazine 'Dec to Jan 2014' on page 54.
But with absolutely no attribution to me as the photographer!
And I don't care even a little bit. The fun of the flying adventure to catch up with Andy and Sam was worth so much more.
My photo of the 'Cherokee Challenge' flight, last November of G-ATYS with the backdrop of Uluru appeared in 'Australian Pilot' magazine 'Dec to Jan 2014' on page 54.
But with absolutely no attribution to me as the photographer!
And I don't care even a little bit. The fun of the flying adventure to catch up with Andy and Sam was worth so much more.
That would probably put you in a minority then Gerry3, I've gladly provided photographs to schools, clubs and non-profit organisations, but finding one of mine incorporated into an ad (sans permission) that I know cost someone quite a bit of money pi$$ed me off no end. A nicely worded letter accompanied by an invoice had the desired effect on that occasion.
But G3, didn't you take the photo during a private flight, to join up with your friend collecting money for charity?
Were you to charge money for the photo, there may be regulatory consequences...
Were you to charge money for the photo, there may be regulatory consequences...
And that, right there, is the reason why aviation in this country is dieing......
If there were regulatory consequences for selling a photo you took during a private flight, then we may as well close down aviation in this country, because that sort of mentality is what is killing it. How exactly is having an AOC going to make it 'safer' to sell the photo?
morno
If there were regulatory consequences for selling a photo you took during a private flight, then we may as well close down aviation in this country, because that sort of mentality is what is killing it. How exactly is having an AOC going to make it 'safer' to sell the photo?
morno
How exactly is having an AOC going to make it 'safer' to sell the photo?
Don't worry: It will be all fixed in 1998 with the new, simpler, harmonised, best-practice regulations!
Awesome, so we're only a few years away now, 
.
Your boat Piano?
.Your boat Piano?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were you to charge money for the photo, there may be regulatory consequences...
That may not be how it is usually interpreted, but that is what it seems to say.
You may well be right. Any photograph taken by anyone from the air might be “aerial photography” within the meaning of 206 and therefore unlawful unless authorised by an AOC. CARs 206 and 2(7) provide endless nooks and crannies capable of bizarre outcomes that have nothing to do with safety.
But don’t worry, come 1998….
But don’t worry, come 1998….
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, CAA 27(9) refers to "flying or operation of an aircraft for such purposes as are prescribed" so perhaps you can do what you like, as long as that is not the purpose of the flight?
In general I agree about CAR 206.
In general I agree about CAR 206.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Piano Man, what's that yacht doing on top of the island, or are my new glasses deceiving me?
Hey Piano man, keep em coming, we were getting tired of the Whitsundays and Cairns and girls on Whitehaven Beach
