Is this a violation of IP law?

mercphoto

Some time ago, I was granted access to the observation deck of the control tower of ABIA Airport to take the following photo. Excuse the fact that it is the same photo copied on top of itself (its a panoramic, and hence two copies fit on one 8x12 sheet, I didn't want to waste the paper):



Well, an Intellecutal Property lawyer was watching a buddy race at the track over the weekend and saw this photo. He has offered the friendly advice that we might want to look into whether we need to blur out the Contenental logo on the airplane due to possible IP law violation. Said it might imply an endorsement by the airline for the business.

While I appreciate being informed of potential problems, I find it hard to believe this could be an actual problem. I guess the sticking point is that this isn't public property. Worse, there are times at the track where I can get a taxing airplane in the background of a racing shot.

Anyone have any insight?

JamesJWeg

Does the fact that it's not the focus or point of the photo help? Like that street scene deal where you may have random people walking through it? Or is that totally differant?

James.

mercphoto

JamesJWeg wrote:

Does the fact that it's not the focus or point of the photo help? Like that street scene deal where you may have random people walking through it? Or is that totally differant?

One immediate and important difference is that airports are not public property, unlike a street.

JamesJWeg

mercphoto wrote:

One immediate and important difference is that airports are not public property, unlike a street.

Hmm, yeah, one more thing, if the company logo is a problem what about the shape of the aircraft itself?

James.

P.S. Maybe time to get busy with the clone tool.

mercphoto

JamesJWeg wrote:

Hmm, yeah, one more thing, if the company logo is a problem what about the shape of the aircraft itself?

And I can imagine it getting worse still. Think about it. What if a John Deere tractor was mowing the grass between runways? In other words, where does it end?

Sam

mercphoto wrote:

Some time ago, I was granted access to the observation deck of the control tower of ABIA Airport to take the following photo. Excuse the fact that it is the same photo copied on top of itself (its a panoramic, and hence two copies fit on one 8x12 sheet, I didn't want to waste the paper):



Well, an Intellecutal Property lawyer was watching a buddy race at the track over the weekend and saw this photo. He has offered the friendly advice that we might want to look into whether we need to blur out the Contenental logo on the airplane due to possible IP law violation. Said it might imply an endorsement by the airline for the business.

While I appreciate being informed of potential problems, I find it hard to believe this could be an actual problem. I guess the sticking point is that this isn't public property. Worse, there are times at the track where I can get a taxing airplane in the background of a racing shot.

Anyone have any insight?

My take might be a little different.........(insert negitve comment about lawyers).

I don't know how prominent the logo is in print, but the only way I would know it's a Contenental logo is you told me.

I have seen many, many....airplane photos, and almost all of them have some sort of logo / identifing print in the photo. Ya think their gona sue everyone who has a photo of their plane? (Yes, I know all the lawyers started to drool.) You could ignore it untill if, and when Contenental contacts you.

Does the Wright Bro's heirs know about Contenental using the wing design?

Or you could call up Contenental, and simply ask if it's an issue.

Sam

Option A. $250.00 consultation fee. $150.00 for confirmation letter. $0.72 for postage. $137.50 processing fee.

Option B. $350 phone notification fee. $200.00 follow up letter to Contenental. $9.79 postage with certified mail. $150.00 your confirmation letter. $0.72 postage. $ processing fee, 167.75.

Or do it yourself for $0.00

Angelo

Not sure this will help but you might find an answer:

http://www.intelproplaw.com/

flyingpylon

I think it depends on how the photo is used. In my non-legal-professional opinion, I don't think it would be an issue unless it was used in an advertisement or something of that nature, and the Continental logo was clearly visible. For example, I know that when companies use photos of race cars in ads, they often have to wipe out the sponsor names on certain cars because they do not have permission to display their logos (or didn't feel like seeking permission).

ian408

The easy way out is to simply photoshop the logo into something else.
Like say the race track's logo (who would probably be thrilled with that).

Be easier than waiting for a response from Continental or hearing from
one of their lawyers

Ian

JamesJWeg

Sam wrote:

I don't know how prominent the logo is in print, but the only way I would know it's a Contenental logo is you told me.

To someone like me I can instantly see the Contenental logo. Personally I am really leaning toward the photoshop idea.

James.

wxwax

How are you using the image? That dictates the legal issues.