Aerial images of private property - legalities

aerialphoto

I've been kicking this subject around with some folks and I thought I'd toss it out for the collective d-grin opinion!

I'm in the aerial photography business. The vast majority of my commercial work is done on a custom basis for individual clients. I do very little stock or spec work, and even then it doesn't really consist of any specific subject or piece of property.

One other local aerial photo guy warned against selling detailed oblique images of business properties that can be easily recognized, particularly amusement parks (at least for commercial sales purposes). His explanation parallels the kind of situation you could get into if you were on their property taking pictures commercially (ie: shooting commercially on private property without their permission).

My view is a little different though; if you're shooting an overall view of a place from a public area then their complaints (if any) aren't worth much.

A particular image I'm interested in using for a charity fund-raiser was shot from 4500ft, and features a prominent Florida amusement park. To me it's a gray area, and while I'm not overly concerned about using the image I'm curious what people think about the situation.

Thanks!

Blaker

Just a wild guess-WDW?
Don't they have a no-fly zone?

aerialphoto wrote:

I've been kicking this subject around with some folks and I thought I'd toss it out for the collective d-grin opinion!

I'm in the aerial photography business. The vast majority of my commercial work is done on a custom basis for individual clients. I do very little stock or spec work, and even then it doesn't really consist of any specific subject or piece of property.

One other local aerial photo guy warned against selling detailed oblique images of business properties that can be easily recognized, particularly amusement parks (at least for commercial sales purposes). His explanation parallels the kind of situation you could get into if you were on their property taking pictures commercially (ie: shooting commercially on private property without their permission).

My view is a little different though; if you're shooting an overall view of a place from a public area then their complaints (if any) aren't worth much.

A particular image I'm interested in using for a charity fund-raiser was shot from 4500ft, and features a prominent Florida amusement park. To me it's a gray area, and while I'm not overly concerned about using the image I'm curious what people think about the situation.

Thanks!

Sam

I think your in real trouble here. Now that Mickey is a registered voter her can sue you himself.

Sam

aerialphoto

Blaker wrote:

Just a wild guess-WDW?
Don't they have a no-fly zone?

That's one location, yes.

There's a TFR around WDW up to 3000ft. That doesn't mean you can't fly over it. I regularly shoot overhead verticals of their property and others all over the area (ala google earth stuff).

This is from 4500ft, for example

aerialphoto

Sam wrote:

I think your in real trouble here. Now that Mickey is a registered voter her can sue you himself.

Cygnus Studios

**This isn't legal advise** but in my own checks of this subject, it is perfectly legal to take aerial images of whatever you like, if in public airspace.
Commercially selling images that are subject to trademark is a different story.
As some of the amusement parks in Florida are quite famous and have very specific views on what their trademarks are, your question may be best answered by an attorney.