PPRuNe Forums - Pictures of your planes

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)

- - Pictures of your planes (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/458546-pictures-your-planes.html)

love the twin air horns on the slower one ;)

http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/4...feedge1024.jpg

my little group jet :) got some great pics that day

Woot you own a jet?
What do you do for a living if i may ask?
Great planes everyone! Very nice to see all the different kinds!

Victor Charlie on a trip to Morecombe Bay.
G-AVVC | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Quote:

Woot you own a jet?
What do you do for a living if i may ask?

£1000 buys you a share, used to be a member of that group myself many moons ago, not so sure I'd recommend it based on my own experience...

600 litres an hour for fuel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barcli (Post 6628873)

love the twin air horns on the slower one ;)

What exactly is the purpose of those?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyingmac (Post 6629512)

Victor Charlie on a trip to Morecombe Bay.
G-AVVC | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Nice, did you land on a beach?

###Ultra Long Hauler###

ULH - they are venturis - the air driven through them with forward motion causes a vacuum. This vacuum then drives vacuum instruments such as Turn and Slip, etc instead of a vacuum pump.

Stik

Flyingmac - lovely to see the 172H, - is it an "H" ? with the 6 cylinder RR ? I used to own G-AVJI for many years.....

now this :G-CENC Christen Eagle | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

http://www.hbdwc.ch/DWCbern2.jpg

She's mine and so is the copyright to the picture :)

M20C, 1965, O360-A1D.

Nice Mooney. Is that a M20A with the wood wing?

http://home.online.no/~anderfo/Div/IMG_0011.jpg

"Mine"! ....or at least a small part of it. Group owned.

Just three months or so ago I wouldn't have been able to reply to this thread. As it is.............

http://www.pprune.org/[IMG]http://i1.../G-BUKU001.jpg http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p.../G-BUKU001.jpg

Quote:

JKX
Any thoughts on why some of the photos of your aircraft can be copyrighted? Seems to me that in most cases your permission to take photographs was not authorised or granted! And does it mean that if I photo-shop someone elses picture I can copyright it too?

Simple Guide for the UK most countries are similar.

With a pic of an aircraft (or thing/person/animal) the copyright is owned by the photographer, legally referred to as the 'author', unless the author agrees to assign copyright to another party by means of a contract of some sort.

If your aircraft is in a public place, eg aerodrome, then it, you, your pax etc etc and the surrounding area are fair game to be included in an image taken by someone. They do not need your permission to take the image or publish it be that for fun (eg this thread) or commercial gain (a web site selling images/magazine use). If you are in your hangar, your own landing strip, then that may be considered a 'private' place and you can prohibit photos being taken as a condition of entry. You can't prevent a shot being taken over the fence though.

If you use someone elses image and photoshop it, without permission from the copyright holder that is a copyright infringement, and the infringer could be liable for costs. Needless to say you can't claim copyright on the photoshopped image unless you have permission to use the original in the first place.

Web sites/forums etc are considered 'publishing', hence many of them have strict rules in the T&C's we sign up to to be members regarding the use of images, to prevent them as 'publisher' being penalised.

The use of copyright depends on the photographer, sometimes it will be to make money from it, a professional photographer is a business just like any other, and is very often used to prevent someone else making money from an image, either selling it or using it in different media for advertising or editorial matter.

As I say the above is a simple guide, the easiest way to prevent problems is to ask. i.e if you see an image you like send an email to the site owner asking permission to use or link the image. It's not often you get a refusal in my experience.

hth

It would thus appear that a model release is unnecessary if the photo of the person is taken in a public place.

Is that correct?

Quote:

IO540
It would thus appear that a model release is unnecessary if the photo of the person is taken in a public place.
Is that correct?

Simple UK version below
It varies, and varies from country to country depending on how the image is to be used inc context, and the content. If I snap Mr 540 preflighting his aircraft as I wander round the airfield, I don't have to get an MR. If I post the image on this thread again I won't need an MR. If I decide to place that image with a picture agency/library to make money from then it is strongly reccomended that I get an MR signed by Mr540. If I don't the majority of image publishers are unlikely to take the image for onward sale. Again if I have a flying club/school and I want to use that image to promote my business, I would need an MR to protect myself.
The main requirement for an MR is within advertising and publishing, mags/books, where the image of the clearly indentifiable individual is key in establishing the context of the use of the image. In this type of thread showing a picture of a preflight is unlikely to need an MR. As a snapper I would have asked Mr540 if he minded me taking the piccy in the first place, most people don't mind, but it costs nothing to ask, and frequently will get you a better image.

Surely the picture would be better if you asked Mr 540 to please just step out of shot for a minute :} :p

Quote:

If I decide to place that image with a picture agency/library to make money from then it is strongly reccomended that I get an MR signed by Mr540.

OK, but why?

The fact that a library may require it is a separate issue. They can ask for what they like.

Quote:

As a snapper I would have asked Mr540 if he minded me taking the piccy in the first place, most people don't mind, but it costs nothing to ask, and frequently will get you a better image.

Possibly, but a verbal agreement means nothing. The subject could claim he never gave consent.

Not wishing to pick holes, and I know zero about the law in this area, but a public place is a public place, and any recognisable face is a recognisable face. This would prevent pictures of a crowd being taken and used.

Or is there a separate requirement to not use images containing recognisable people in a context which might make them appear as dishonourable, etc? I could well understand that. But even if a photo library had a MR then anybody using that picture later needs to watch that. The MR does not consent to having oneself degraded, so to speak, at some later date, I assume.

Quote:

Surely the picture would be better if you asked Mr 540 to please just step out of shot for a minute

Hohoho :)

Just because you have more hair than I have...

Ah, but at least you have an airplane :ok: I'm still saving for mine :}

Quote:

JS If I decide to place that image with a picture agency/library to make money from then it is strongly reccomended that I get an MR signed by Mr540.

540 OK, but why?

The fact that a library may require it is a separate issue. They can ask for what they like.

Quote:

Quote:
JS As a snapper I would have asked Mr540 if he minded me taking the piccy in the first place, most people don't mind, but it costs nothing to ask, and frequently will get you a better image.

540 Possibly, but a verbal agreement means nothing. The subject could claim he never gave consent.

Not wishing to pick holes, and I know zero about the law in this area, but a public place is a public place, and any recognisable face is a recognisable face. This would prevent pictures of a crowd being taken and used.

Or is there a separate requirement to not use images containing recognisable people in a context which might make them appear as dishonourable, etc? I could well understand that. But even if a photo library had a MR then anybody using that picture later needs to watch that. The MR does not consent to having oneself degraded, so to speak, at some later date, I assume

The MR requirement is pretty much an industry standard requirement. A MR basically allows the image to be used in almost any context, the 'model' is agreeing to its use, and if the image became 'iconic', the model can't return to ask for increased fees. If the image becomes 'iconic' Mr540 could instigate procedings to get recompense for his 'modeling fees' if he hasn't signed an MR. The athena tennis girl poster being an example in case. The photographer retained the copyright and made a substantial amount of money from its publication as a poster, the girl, scratching her bum, didn't, having signed an MR as far as I'm aware. The MR protects the image library and the photographer, the same applies in the case of a book/magazine editorial team.

I ask the individuals I'm snapping out of politeness, it costs nothing and is often appreciated rather than shoving a camera in someones face. 'Recognisable' generally means its a close up or specific shot of an individual/s rather than a crowd/general scene. If you are in group of people it wouldn't normally be considered 'recognisable', however if that shot is cropped to show just you, then that's changing the context to 'recognisable'.

Your last point is one of the reasons for the use of MR's. Eg. a picture is taken of you holding a bottle of voddy sitting in the cockpit. The image is used in an article about 'drunk pilots' with a caption along the lines of 'Is boozing and cruising common amongst private pilots?' readers could make the link between your image and the bottle of vodka and assume you are a 'drunk pilot', the image and article could potentially be very damaging. Obviously the bottle may not be yours, it could be a gift you're taking to a mate, or any other reasonable reason for having a bottle of alchohol, unopened, that you're not drinking, with you in the aircraft. It'd be a foolhardy editor to run that image in that context with no MR. They may however run it without the MR if there was other evidence that the picture was a true reflection of the individuals behaviour.

With an MR you'd have signed that the editorial use could be unrestricted. Game over if you don't like the context the image is ultimately used in in that instance. So assuming you'd signed an MR an editor could use the image of you holding the voddy with the caption above. The MR means an editor when they buy/agree the use of the image that the model is agreeing to its use. Like any other commercial contract there are different types of MR to cover various uses, eg children, multiple/single use etc etc.

As I mentioned in my previous posts these are very general guides to the UK, based on my experience as a freelance snapper who has done magazine and newspaper editorial/sports coverage. If you need specific guidance seek legal professional counsel.

I am suprised that the tennis girl scenario would have required an MR since she is not identifiable. Her bum is nice but there are millions of identical bums (not so many in the Uk nowadays ;) ).

Quote:

540 I am suprised that the tennis girl scenario would have required an MR since she is not identifiable

She doesn't need to be identifiable.

OK, but if she is not identifiable, and the picture was taken without her knowledge, she would have a hard time proving it was her :)

Just gone in for her annual. Missing her already :{ :{

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../3/1039348.jpg

We got some awesome looking planes here, nice pics guys keep them coming.

I didnt realise this thread had got to 4 pages, i only just spotted it today. Personally i thought it had died.

Just gone for CofA renewal:{

Air-Britain : Beagle A.61 Terrier 2

Quote:

540 OK, but if she is not identifiable, and the picture was taken without her knowledge, she would have a hard time proving it was her

She is, it wasn't, she won't/hasn't.

Shall we see some more aeroplane pics now?:ok:

I agree jumpseater more pics please.
The photographer who took the pic of my aircraft did not ask my permission and the aircraft was on a private airfield so I will use the pic if I choose. Let him moan if he wants to, however I am sure he is a reasonable and pleasant fellow like most aviation enthusiasts.
T10

If he's got a pic of you sucking your tailwheel, he will claim the public interest defence :)

that is an after dark past time:O

Quote:

Originally Posted by T10 (Post 6648440)

I agree jumpseater more pics please.
T10

Less talking, more action indeed…….let me see what I can do:

Again, not my aircraft……..but a plane I flew the other day (right hand seat), a fellow club member:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3820316/Fant...0kopie%202.jpg

MXP 800 Fantasy, Rotax 912S powered.

###Ultra Long Hauler###

A plane I had the pleasure to fly X-country, bringing it back to the club; only last week:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3820316/U0029%20kopie.jpg

###Ultra Long Hauler###

DAR, those are some great pictures. Might have to pop over to see you sometime!

Pilot DAR - those are spectacular shots - please, tell me it's always like that!