PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   The Home of Photos in Dunnunda! Mk II (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/505944-home-photos-dunnunda-mk-ii.html)

DanielFoster 29th May 2014 01:28

VH-EBQ - A330-200.
 
http://image.planeimages.net/MataBMq...9IO4sSRx_small
Full Resolution

cowl flaps 29th May 2014 10:38

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.

DanielFoster 29th May 2014 11:24

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.

Jabawocky 29th May 2014 11:55

nice logo daniel, but a good point about the watermark.

fix that and you will be on a winner :ok:

VH-XXX 29th May 2014 21:11

$500, you are being ripped! I once got $2,800 for a photo that made front page of the Herald.

DanielFoster 29th May 2014 22:27

Not a bad deal, XXX! That's enough for a new dSLR Body or Lens. Well worth it.

Dan

gerry111 30th May 2014 15:56

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! :eek:

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. :D :D:D

Piano Man 31st May 2014 12:21

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ps832aca10.jpg
This truly is a stunning country. The more and more I spend here the more I fall in love with it. Oh and you can fly Caravan EXs here too!

spinex 31st May 2014 23:27

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.

Creampuff 1st Jun 2014 00:29

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...

morno 1st Jun 2014 02:29

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

Capn Bloggs 1st Jun 2014 02:44

Piano Man, what's that yacht doing on top of the island, or are my new glasses deceiving me?

Creampuff 1st Jun 2014 02:53


How exactly is having an AOC going to make it 'safer' to sell the photo?
In no way whatsoever. But the classification of operations in Australia has as much to do with politics as it has to do with safety.

Don't worry: It will be all fixed in 1998 with the new, simpler, harmonised, best-practice regulations!

morno 1st Jun 2014 03:03

Awesome, so we're only a few years away now, :E.

Your boat Piano?

andrewr 1st Jun 2014 22:24


Were you to charge money for the photo, there may be regulatory consequences...
If you are referring to CAR 206, where does it refer to charging money? The way I read it, it defines aerial photography is a commercial purpose. It doesn't say anything about "if you charge money for the photo".

That may not be how it is usually interpreted, but that is what it seems to say.

Creampuff 1st Jun 2014 23:58

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….

andrewr 2nd Jun 2014 00:19

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.

Creampuff 2nd Jun 2014 00:32

Another gold mine of uncertainty and paradoxes: Ascertaining the purpose or purposes of a flying operation.

zappalin 2nd Jun 2014 01:24

Got to Palawan yet Piano Man? My word... What a stunning place.

Any non-floating Caravan jobs there?

Jabawocky 2nd Jun 2014 01:25


Piano Man, what's that yacht doing on top of the island, or are my new glasses deceiving me?
Bloggsie old mate, waiting for the next high tide of course!


Hey Piano man, keep em coming, we were getting tired of the Whitsundays and Cairns and girls on Whitehaven Beach :}


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:47.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.