Airshow pics - may we sell them ?

Digital101Digital101 Registered Users Posts: 9 Beginner grinner
edited May 28, 2010 in Mind Your Own Business
Hello - i read through some of the stickys on copyright, and had a question. If i pay a fee to see a public airshow, may i sell the pictures that i take ? Specifically in this case, the photos would be pics of planes in the air or static displays with no general public in the photos

Does the situation change if they are military planes (like a Blue Angels team,etc...) ?

thanks for any of your feedback !

Dave
«1

Comments

  • run_kmcrun_kmc Registered Users Posts: 263 Major grins
    edited May 22, 2010
    My answer is: "I don't know." That's code for: "Probably," which means the only way to know for sure is to ask the airshow's management/owners/whoever.

    Besides, even if you did have the right to do so free and clear, that doesn't mean you can't be taken to court anyway.
  • hgernhardtjrhgernhardtjr Registered Users Posts: 417 Major grins
    edited May 23, 2010
    Certain venues do NOT allow such sales and it is, in effect, a contractual part of your admission agreement (tickets).

    For example, as a member I go to the week-long EAA Airventure in Oshkosh each year at the end of July. They specifically disallow selling those photos and lay claim to all photos taken on the grounds. It is clearly stated here: http://www.airventure.org/media/airventure_photo_policy.pdf

    I would suspect, lawyers being what they are, the rules are similar for virtually all public airshows here in the US.
    — Henry —
    Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited May 23, 2010
    I went to the EAA website and could not find anything with regard to photography. The policy hgernhardtjr refereed to is not posted.

    This policy as stated could not fit on the back of a normal sized event ticket.

    Also I believe the terms are referring to commercial use which is pretty normal fore any business or event, but you can sell images as fine art or for editorial use. I have found images on the web from EAA events for sale as fine art. They can not claim ownership to your images.

    Sam
  • ivarivar Registered Users Posts: 8,395 Major grins
    edited May 23, 2010
    Sam wrote: »
    I went to the EAA website and could not find anything with regard to photography. The policy hgernhardtjr refereed to is not posted.
    what do you mean, it is not posted? I'm confused, I can find it there ne_nau.gif
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,934 moderator
    edited May 23, 2010
    I found it too.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited May 23, 2010
    Your right. I was looking in the wrong place, headscratch.gif but I still say they can't prevent you from selling images you took at an event as fine art prints or editorial use.

    Sam
  • hgernhardtjrhgernhardtjr Registered Users Posts: 417 Major grins
    edited May 23, 2010
    Sam, as the others mentioned, it IS posted and it IS enforced ... just think of all the photos you did NOT see of the mid air collision between two vintage Mustangs three years back. And there were hundreds, if not thousands, of us who got shots with all kinds of cameras, including some of the biggest Canon lenses (provided free on an as-come availability basis by Canon) you've ever seen.

    While I personally do disagree with their stance, as a long-time EAA member, I and most other members and visitors respect the organization's published rules on photography and try to abide by them.
    — Henry —
    Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
  • Digital101Digital101 Registered Users Posts: 9 Beginner grinner
    edited May 23, 2010
    Isn't it true the policy mentions written permission. Maybe one can write them to see if its ok (even if it is unlikely) maybe they just want a portion of the proceeds,etc...
  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited May 24, 2010
    Glort wrote: »
    Being an Airshow, you could probably get some good shots from outside the fence. You weren't admitted to the show so you don't have to abide by their rules. :D

    If the law is remotely like it is here over there, they can't stop you doing whatever you want with pics taken on public land.

    This is a grey zone.

    I doubt anyone would ever take you to court whatever they write on their ticket, web-site, whatever. Lawyers are expensive and courts unpredictable.

    When this is a big feature of your business then you should create a grey zone of your own and do your sales via a limited liability company. I believe in US these are cheap and easy to set up and run. I believe when there is one owner only you do not even need to do a company tax return and can do it via your personal taxes. You can even deduct reasonable costs - reasonable in relation to your revenue, not what you might imagine is reasonable :)

    The business related risks are only transferrable to you personally when fraud is an issue or when it can be proved you are running some kind of criminal enterprise under an alter-ego. So in the highly unlikely event you are sued, do not not settle out-of-court someone's reasonable claim to share your profits, and get hit with big bills - your LLC is bankrupted and not you. In practice nobody in their right mind would ever sue this kind of LLC because a naked chicken has no feathers.

    I suspect most pros in US have a legal entity for their business to protect their personal assets. Otherwise you might lose everything when someone trips over your powercord at a wedding, breaks their neck, and your insurance company pays out little or nothing.
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited May 24, 2010
    You can sell art prints of pretty much anything you like, no permission or releases needed, at least in the US.

    You can license any "newsworthy" images you like on an editorial basis.

    Commercial licensing would require releases/permission from some, such as the Blue Angels (you won't get it), etc.

    Rules printed on tickets are not necessarily enforceable in any way. Once you have the images, you are free to do with them as you like (keeping in mind the commercial use restrictions).

    See here for more:
    http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited May 24, 2010
    "EAA retains all worldwide rights to AirVenture and to any Recordings that are taken at or of AirVenture, either on or off EAA grounds."

    Ha! That's quite the ridiculous statement. The shooter always retains their rights to the images.

    The rest of their bit about enforcing their trademarks is fine. But you just can't run about claiming you own people's images.
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited May 24, 2010
    Orljustin, has it right. Just because someone / lawyer, business, etc writes down some unilateral policy doesn't make that policy legal or enforceable.

    It's not about violating others rights, but about protecting yours.

    Sam
  • ChrisNChrisN Registered Users Posts: 25 Big grins
    edited May 25, 2010
    orljustin wrote: »

    Commercial licensing would require releases/permission from some, such as the Blue Angels (you won't get it), etc.

    I'm curious why you think that pics of the Blue Angels would require a release. Since they are a military demonstration team I don't believe that any release is necessary, similar to how pictures of national monuments don't need a release. Private aircraft are a different story though.
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited May 26, 2010
    ORLJUSTIN is correct and we've discussed this so many times before!

    Please note the pertinent verbage in the very notice referenced earlier in this thread and recognize this discussion is a moot point:

    ...The sale or use of any Recording of any aspect or activity connected with AirVenture (including but not limited to aircraft, crowds, air shows, forums, exhibits, etc.) for commercial purposes without EAA’s written permission is strictly prohibited, not only during the event but on a continuing, perpetual basis, except as may be expressly permitted by a written agreement with EAA. This includes, but is not limited to, “Non-linear” use such as archived television content on the Internet, television content available on a video-on-demand basis, and television content made available via PVR downloads is prohibited without expressed prior written permission by EAA. This also includes images distributed through formats that include (but are not limited to) cellular, personal communications services and other methods of providing content to handheld digital devices pages, specialized mobile radio and wireless internet (including WIFI).
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    ChrisN wrote: »
    I'm curious why you think that pics of the Blue Angels would require a release. Since they are a military demonstration team I don't believe that any release is necessary, similar to how pictures of national monuments don't need a release. Private aircraft are a different story though.

    The US Navy owns the trademark on the logo and design of the aircraft. Trademark: 89000070 , which you can find on the US Trademark site. Trademarks are protected for commercial use, even if owned by the government. How's that?
  • ChrisNChrisN Registered Users Posts: 25 Big grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    Angelo wrote: »
    ORLJUSTIN is correct and we've discussed this so many times before!

    Please note the pertinent verbage in the very notice referenced earlier in this thread and recognize this discussion is a moot point:

    ...The sale or use of any Recording of any aspect or activity connected with AirVenture (including but not limited to aircraft, crowds, air shows, forums, exhibits, etc.) for commercial purposes without EAA’s written permission is strictly prohibited, not only during the event but on a continuing, perpetual basis, except as may be expressly permitted by a written agreement with EAA. This includes, but is not limited to, “Non-linear” use such as archived television content on the Internet, television content available on a video-on-demand basis, and television content made available via PVR downloads is prohibited without expressed prior written permission by EAA. This also includes images distributed through formats that include (but are not limited to) cellular, personal communications services and other methods of providing content to handheld digital devices pages, specialized mobile radio and wireless internet (including WIFI).

    The OP asked a general question about airshows, not specifically about EAA. Overall I agree with ORLJUSTIN except that I don't believe that photos of government owned planes need special permission to be used for any lawful purpose. I do believe that privately owned planes would need a property release for commercial usage and other aspects of the airshow may require a release if it is private property.
  • ChrisNChrisN Registered Users Posts: 25 Big grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    orljustin wrote: »
    The US Navy owns the trademark on the logo and design of the aircraft. Trademark: 89000070 , which you can find on the US Trademark site. Trademarks are protected for commercial use, even if owned by the government. How's that?

    Just saw your reply. Thank you for that. I will have to look into it further. My main experience is editorial work but this issue interests me since the Thunderbirds will be performing at an airshow near me soon and it is helpful to know what markets I can sell into.
  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    Don't waste your time researching further. Nobody will give you permission.

    I have been working in the Intellectual Property field for 20 years. The only time anyone gets sued is when there is a massive amount of money at stake and then legal arguments can become arcane. Most companies will never go to court even when you infringe patents because the courts are a lottery and the knock-on effects of a negative ruling too severe. They rely instead on legal intimidation - like the stuff cited above.

    The chances of your taking a photo which brings you in the danger zone are vanishingly small. And, as said before, doing your thing via a limited company will make it even more unlikely and ensure you have almost no downside risk. You maybe need to be prepared to not answer lawyer's letters - not difficult.

    Just don't do silly stuff like shoot a model without permission and sell the pics in a national ad campaign. The courts will not side with you and rightly so. The prospect of the US Navy prosecuting anybody for shooting Thunderbirds (with a camera) is inconceivable.
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,934 moderator
    edited May 26, 2010
    The prospect of the US Navy prosecuting anybody for shooting Thunderbirds (with a camera) is inconceivable.

    It is indeed. But if you tried to make money off of their property, the Blue Angels, you might find them to be a little more sensitive (sorry, couldn't resist. The AF is the Thunderbirds).
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • cbbrcbbr Registered Users Posts: 755 Major grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    I would be more worried about the USN tha about a priviate company/individual because the USN has "prepaid" legal. They do not incur any extra costs...
    Chad - www.brberrys.com
    If I post it, please tell me how to make it better. My fragile ego can take it.
  • promoguypromoguy Registered Users Posts: 58 Big grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    Glort wrote: »
    So your saying that it is your serious belief that a government department (Navy) with a multi billion dollar a year budget is going to worry themselves about 1 single shooter selling some pics ( even if he makes 10K from them) of what is wholly and solely a PR exercise they put on and maintain which is aimed at winning them Public support and pulling in new recruits?

    I cannot fathom in my wildest dreams them even contemplating doing this for the potentially negative PR damage alone. rolleyes1.gif

    The thing about forums is whenever anyone asks a question, they always get the moral high ground, gloom and doom answer no matter how improbable or removed from any real world likelihood.

    If people were as scared and weak in their business dealings as much of the advise given on forums would suggest they should be, then it's no wonder so many shooters can't make a quid.

    Sure if you take a pic of a plane and sold it, say the blue angels, technically there may be a chance you could get sued, but in reality the common sense and logical chance of that happening is a million to 1, then why the hell even bother thinking about it?

    If people are that worried and sweat the little things so much they should stay locked in their homes lest they trip on the sidewalk and fall into somones prize rosebush and damage it and the home owner sues them. rolleyes1.gif

    I noticed you're in Australia.
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,934 moderator
    edited May 26, 2010
    Did you see that part where I said "sorry, I couldn't resist"? That was humor/sarcasm/funny stuff.

    Next time, I'll use a smiley deal.gif
    Glort wrote: »
    So your saying that it is your serious belief that a government department (Navy) with a multi billion dollar a year budget is going to worry themselves about 1 single shooter selling some pics ( even if he makes 10K from them) of what is wholly and solely a PR exercise they put on and maintain which is aimed at winning them Public support and pulling in new recruits?
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    Glort wrote: »
    So your saying that it is your serious belief that a government department (Navy) with a multi billion dollar a year budget is going to worry themselves about 1 single shooter selling some pics ( even if he makes 10K from them) of what is wholly and solely a PR exercise they put on and maintain which is aimed at winning them Public support and pulling in new recruits?

    I cannot fathom in my wildest dreams them even contemplating doing this for the potentially negative PR damage alone. rolleyes1.gif

    I would say it is exactly for this reason they would be protective, not for the money. If the Blue Angels are a marketing and PR force to be reckoned with, if you license an image for commercial use that goes against their public image, they might not be so happy. ie "Join the Navy and become a Blue Angel... Oh yeah, and kill people too." or something.
  • promoguypromoguy Registered Users Posts: 58 Big grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    I don't think there was an inference that this happens every day. I don't quite frankly know if it ever happened. But the pointing out the possibilities may require on the part of the photographer to do a bit of digging before publishing or better yet attempting to sell.

    In the land of the free and the home of the brave we sometimes say, better safe then sorry. Too many lawyers in this part of the world. That's a big problem. So safe then sorry goes a long way in the USofA, especially when it might involve the interactions with attorneys
  • W.W. WebsterW.W. Webster Registered Users Posts: 3,204 Major grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    Digital101 wrote: »
    If i pay a fee to see a public airshow, may i sell the pictures that i take ?
    Are there any terms and conditions on the ticket, or referred to on the ticket, that forbid this? Otherwise, there can be no restriction, surely.
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited May 26, 2010
    ChrisN wrote: »
    The OP asked a general question about airshows, not specifically about EAA. Overall I agree with ORLJUSTIN except that I don't believe that photos of government owned planes need special permission to be used for any lawful purpose. I do believe that privately owned planes would need a property release for commercial usage and other aspects of the airshow may require a release if it is private property.

    precisely, which is what glort, sam, orljustin and I have said here and in dozens of other threads regarding releases and sales
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited May 26, 2010
    "I don't recommend reckless disregard for rules and laws at all but I also think if one spends all their time worrying about possibilities that have never happened before and are highly unlikely ever to, then they are not going to get too far."

    Trust me, I'm not one of those cowering in fear. But I'm also not the type that would blatantly license content for commercial usage where the clear subject is a trademarked entity, especially backed by the government.
  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited May 27, 2010
    orljustin wrote: »
    "I don't recommend reckless disregard for rules and laws at all but I also think if one spends all their time worrying about possibilities that have never happened before and are highly unlikely ever to, then they are not going to get too far."

    Trust me, I'm not one of those cowering in fear. But I'm also not the type that would blatantly license content for commercial usage where the clear subject is a trademarked entity, especially backed by the government.

    The trademark is not likely to be the issue.

    Say you shoot someone in a Nike tee relaxing on a beach with a beautiful girl - is Nike going to take action? No way, they might even license your shot.

    Say you shoot someone in the same tee hacking a vagrant to death with a big axe. Might Nike take offense - probably. They might pull out all legal stops to prevent you distributing widely but more likely they will buy you off.

    Same with the government.
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited May 27, 2010
    The trademark is not likely to be the issue.

    Say you shoot someone in a Nike tee relaxing on a beach with a beautiful girl - is Nike going to take action? No way, they might even license your shot.

    Say you shoot someone in the same tee hacking a vagrant to death with a big axe. Might Nike take offense - probably. They might pull out all legal stops to prevent you distributing widely but more likely they will buy you off.

    Same with the government.

    You can shoot whatever you like. It is how you license it that companies will take issue with. Were your 20 years of IP experience in licensing imagery?
  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited May 28, 2010
    orljustin wrote: »
    Were your 20 years of IP experience in licensing imagery?

    A straight question deserves a straight answer.

    I am a commercial VP for more than 20 years - global consumer companies and venture capital start-ups. Plus I run my own business for 10 years with some creative stuff. Does this involve licensing images? - sometimes, but not day-to-day and not by me unless it has gotten tricky. Most of my IP engagement is with technical patents where the money involved is much greater but the principles are broadly similar. Check my web site which contains almost no photos and gives a partial, accurate, and modest (they know me) cv for my corporate clients (www.chrisjohnson.nl). They hire me for my strategic marketing and not for my amateur photography.

    My general advice would be to avoid trying to be "clever". Do not ask permission. Rely on your constitutional rights to act as a free citizen in a free society, acting in the public interest. Treat others fairly - including the government and people who organize events, and people you snap in the street. Make sure your core assets are protected - legal liability protection and be a small target. You will generally stay out of court.

    Anybody running a business must anticipate legal actions, whether justified or not.

    What do you do?
Sign In or Register to comment.