Warbird owners taking legal action against photographers

[Tim Savage]

by DB2 Here's the de facto rule, and I've seen it held up in disputes: unless you have an understanding (written contract or otherwise) beforehand that allows you to take pictures for multiple parties(yourself included) at a specific event, whoever is paying you to be at an event has sole ownership of any picture you take at that event.

The above is most correct. If they paid you any compensation for the work you performed, all of those images belong to them.

I did some illustration while I was on active duty. I looked into the copyright stuff and found, that if I was doing the drawings/illustrations/photography while working, the copyright belonged to the employer, so I opted to do my work when off duty.

My understanding is that the photographer owns the rights to the photo even if he is paid to take them, unless they are employed by the compay requesting the pictures. This is what my copyright lawyer as advised me in the past. In our case if one of the folks we use to take photographs wants to sell them for other purposes, we have no issues, but we do ask that we be allowed to publish them first. After a certain amount of time has passed they have the right to do whatever they wish.

We work with one of the biggest names in the aviation photography business and we have had several discussions about this as well. Unless there is a specific agreement between the hired photographer and the customer, the photographer owns the images.

[gary1954]

you are so funny.........

[DB2]

Like any dispute, I think in the end it depends on who has the best lawyers.

I was close to one case in which Sports Illustrated paid a (contract) photographer to shoot a college football game. SI got the picture they wanted and published it that week. The photographer sold some extra pictures from that game to SEC Sports Weekly for the next weekend's edition, thinking that SI only wanted the pictures for that week's edition and after that they were his.

SI's lawyers jumped in and said that the pictures were still considered "current" until the next season started, which meant SI had the rights to them until then. In that case, the photographer got off but SEC Sports Weekly had to pay SI $500 a piece for the photos used.

So what is "current" regarding aircraft images? Until the paint scheme gets changed? That could be a slippery slope.

[gary1954]

My understanding is that the photographer owns the rights to the photo even if he is paid to take them, unless they are employed by the compay requesting the pictures. This is what my copyright lawyer as advised me in the past. In our case if one of the folks we use to take photographs wants to sell them for other purposes, we have no issues, but we do ask that we be allowed to publish them first. After a certain amount of time has passed they have the right to do whatever they wish.

We work with one of the biggest names in the aviation photography business and we have had several discussions about this as well. Unless there is a specific agreement between the hired photographer and the customer, the photographer owns the images.[/quote]

Well now....this brings a different ap-it-ture on the subject....causes one to think....makes sense

[PeterA]

Like any dispute, I think in the end it depends on who has the best lawyers.

Remember the 'Mickey Mouse' on the Spitfire.

Successful litigation against the Disney Corporation, if I remember correctly, that funded the Russell collection.

PeterA

[BLR]

Like any dispute, I think in the end it depends on who has the best lawyers.

Remember the 'Mickey Mouse' on the Spitfire.

Successful litigation against the Disney Corporation, if I remember correctly, that funded the Russell collection.

PeterA

I was thinking the same!

I think the RG laywers should spend less time surfin’ the net looking for lawsuits.

Years ago when I did a lot of photography for work my employer, they owned the images outright since they paid my salary. Photo shoots or pics taken on my own time had a contract or photo release with them stating the how’s, where and when the buyer could use them and who owned them at the end of the day.

In the case of volunteer photo work we had an agreement of some sort in place but from the sounds of it, it wasn’t anything as serious as the RG contract, usually credit for the photo was good enough. It worked pretty well and only got screwed once by a local helo company who wouldn't pay me.

Any way, don’t let the RG scare you off and keep doing what you enjoy doing. If they don’t want your help, there’s lots of other museums or group who would appreciate it.

Brian

[skybolt2003]

Like any dispute, I think in the end it depends on who has the best lawyers.

SI's lawyers jumped in and said that the pictures were still considered "current" until the next season started, which meant SI had the rights to them until then. In that case, the photographer got off but SEC Sports Weekly had to pay SI $500 a piece for the photos used.

So what is "current" regarding aircraft images? Until the paint scheme gets changed? That could be a slippery slope.

He had a contract with SI that stated an embargo period for which he couldn't sell the images - that's pretty standard in the editorial world. There is no such thing as an automatic embargo - it has to be spelled out in a purchase agreement, or contract which you stated he had. I am not a lawyer, but I am a professional photographer. I don't sell photographs, I license rights to my copyrighted photographs. If I am commisioned by an ad agency to shoot for Absolut vodka, I negotiate a price based upon the usage and the period of use. I own the copyright always. If I give Absolut an exclusive license for example, I can't sell that image to anyone else until that period is up. I retain the right to use it for self-promotion. If you sign a work-for-hire agreement, stating that you are doing a photograph as an employee of a company, the copyright is theoretically transferred to the company. I say theoretically because there have been cases where it didn't hold up because the photographer wasn't truly an employee, but a freelancer. You don't need a release to use a photo of an object or place to use it either, although some people think you do, or will try and tell you you do. (You do if its a person) So unless a work-for-hire agreement was signed, or some type of contract that stated the images could not be sold then it is fine to sell them. And you do not automatically lose the copyright if you are paid to shoot an event.

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't know what a legal ruling would be,, but I would try to avoid as lawsuit with them. It seems if they hired you or you took photos through their efforts or at their property, they may have some claim. Why not either try to discuss it with them by phone or at least don't sell those shots. If their plane is on the ramp at a public facility or show, then any photos could be taken and used by anyone. It is hard for me to say anything negative about someone who trusted me with his airplane, and who preserves and displays at least 4 historic warbirds to the public. I hope you can work it out to suit both parties, I am sure you had good intentions.

[skybolt2003]

Of course, someone can still sue you if they think the picture in some way defames or injures them. Then its up to a judge or whoever blinks first. A few years ago I had a partner who took a photograph that was a still life of a bunch of kitschy props meant to evoke a famous singer/songwriter that had become quite cliched. He used it in an ad to promote his photography and one of the singer's lawyers saw it and sent out an immediate cease and disist letter, saying the photo disparaged the singer as he was in the midst of resurrecting his career. We were told that this guy was particularly litigious and decided that prudence was best and pulled all the ads.

[muddyboots]

I was thinking of emailing them this:

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17260&highlight=

Are you people really this stupid?
I'll be sure to tell all my friends and family to avoid you from now on.
I'll also make sure that everyone I know in the warbird community (mechanics, owners, pilots, and parts people) to stick it to you every chance we get.
And you can bet we will. Pissing on a community of veterans isn't a very good idea, I wouldn't imagine.
As for your "ownership" of those images...Better find a copywrite lawyer before you start making claims and threats you can't stand behind.

[skybolt2003]

I never had any agreement with them prior to the 2007 Air Show. They did make me sign a agreement for the 2007 Air Show stating that i would not profit from the images from that show and it was discussed that some images would be submitted to Flypast for a artical to promote the show and organization.
Dave C

So you did have an agreement not to sell images from 2007. You've taken them down and in fact did not sell them. Let them know that and you should be fine.

[JDK]

Very odd and / or poor by the Russell Group.

Some good advice above.

A couple of additional points. What you've said you've done so far is sensible and reasonable. If I were you, I'd have a quiet word with the volunteer coordinator (or whoever your main contact is) initially, and establish if this is how they wish to work with their unpaid volunteers. Presumably they didn't pay you?

If you don't get any sense or a decent discussion, or 'not in my hands', ask if it can be taken higher, as you don't appreciate getting lawyers letters for publicising the group. Next, suggest there could be some interesting publicity which by their current actions would be negative. You've had responses from two magazine editors in this thread, and I know a couple more look in. Don't bother responding to the lawyers directly, except to tell them you've removed the material as requested. Any change will come from the organisation who would instruct the lawyers to drop the case. There's no point in meeting the lawyers head on.

As has been said, it's not worth contesting legally yourself; even though it's hardly a defensible case they're trying to bring. If it gets heated or to court it's not going to resolve with everyone shaking hands and a group hug, it's not going to be an environment you wish to remain involved in.

So if you don't get a good response from your contact (or their boss) within the organisation I'd just walk away and be involved with a group with more respect for their supporters. Tell them why you've left, in writing, politely, expressing disappointment, and address it to Mr Russell.

Finally, and critically, most of the advice you've had is generally good. However, as both you and the RG are in Ontario(?)) it would be Canadian copyright law that applied (if anything does) and that's the law you'd need to go to court within. US or other is not admissible, although it's essentially the same - you could get caught out.

Keep us posted, I for one want to see how this develops.

Regards,

[BLR]

For those with trouble sleeping at night.....

The Canadian Copyright Act

two sources, same info.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html

Brian

[k5083]

Dave

All the responses about your rights are pretty much correct, but a lawyer knows that legal rights are just the background to any dispute. Consider the following questions. Was your relationship with RG good up until this? Do you think that if you apoplogize and explain the mistake you could patch it up and continue as before? Is that relationship of value to you? if the answers are Yes Yes Yes, you may want to eat whatever pride and rights you have and carry on as before. If for some reason the relationship has soured beyond repair, your response may be different.

One other thing to bear in mind. This owner owns his warbirds because of an intellectual property lawsuit! So he knows the value of enforcing his rights aggressively.

August

PS you can bet that Russell doesn't rate his IP lawyers, who got him those nice rides after the mouse ripped him off, alongside lizards and toasters. But everyone is entitled to his ignorant opinion.

[hang the expense]

Hey jack, what did he sue you guys for if you dont mind my asking? I will say it does not surprise me.