Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:45 pm
It has long been the habit of ALL IP lawyers to jump up and down and scream the minute they find something they can intimidate someone else with. That Disney lost a suit has less to do with the law and more to do with their own arrogance. Now Ed Russell and krewe are acting the same way.
I would say that this only shows what a louse Russell is, and how much the warbird community needs to avoid dealings with him. He may have won one copywrite suit against a lumbering, moronic giant (which assumed he would back down in the first place) but that doesn't mean his motives are so pure that they justify this sort of behavior.
For those of you who don't get it, I live in Hollywood. Disney is known around town as a company you don't want to work for. Their legal department is the next best thing to Hitler's little tea party. They bully, steal, defraud and generally act contemptably towards anyone they think they can get away with mistreating. That Russell beat them isn't surprising. Generally if you have deep enough pockets, you can beat them. They have a habit of breaking the law and then waiting for someone to sue them so they can smile, drag their victim into court, cost him millions in legal fees, and then accede to the charges, which earn him less than he spent in lawyers. This teaches other idiots not to sue them
And now He's acting the same way. Well screw that. I say we boycott his scruffy ass.
I would say that this only shows what a louse Russell is, and how much the warbird community needs to avoid dealings with him. He may have won one copywrite suit against a lumbering, moronic giant (which assumed he would back down in the first place) but that doesn't mean his motives are so pure that they justify this sort of behavior.
For those of you who don't get it, I live in Hollywood. Disney is known around town as a company you don't want to work for. Their legal department is the next best thing to Hitler's little tea party. They bully, steal, defraud and generally act contemptably towards anyone they think they can get away with mistreating. That Russell beat them isn't surprising. Generally if you have deep enough pockets, you can beat them. They have a habit of breaking the law and then waiting for someone to sue them so they can smile, drag their victim into court, cost him millions in legal fees, and then accede to the charges, which earn him less than he spent in lawyers. This teaches other idiots not to sue them
And now He's acting the same way. Well screw that. I say we boycott his scruffy ass.
Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:10 pm
How are you profiting again? Maybe they should be suing Photobucket for selling photographs they have no copyright claim to? Did you sign an agreement with Photobucket giving them a license?Ontario-Warbird wrote: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.
Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:03 pm
PeterA wrote:DB2 wrote: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
Yep, that's the first thing I thought of when I started reading this very intersting thread, I'll finish later, enough computers for the day.
John
Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:21 pm
Reading some of the stuff you guys say about the law, lawsuits and lawyers is like listening to Paris Hilton advise Gary Austin on changing a B-24 engine. Carry on though, I always enjoy it.
August
Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:29 pm
Paris knows nothing about changing an engine. I believe she specializes in hydraulics ! 
Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:39 pm
Lots to say and a short time to say it all.
Generally (in the USA) if you shoot the image, you own the copyright to it. Unless its "work for hire" and its spelled out in the contract hiring you to shoot something. HOWEVER WHAT you can do with that image is another story. You may or may not be able to sell it. Shoot a pic of Jeff Gordon at a NASCAR race in Victory Lane standing next to his car and offer to sell posters of it. For a number of reasons, there will be a LOT of excitement about and you will get some very interesting letters from lawyers. But you can stick the same pic in your photo album, give it to a few friends, or put it on the web (for personal use, not to sell something) without a lot of trouble.
The problem here may well be the PHOTOBUCKET part. From reading on Photography sites, I understand that when you set up your account on a lot of photohosting services you GIVE THEM rights varying fromt eh right to sell your pictures, to the copyrights to them. That is in the fine print of the agreement you clicked on. That may be the problem the RG has right there.
HOWEVER, there are places you cannot take pics and sell them, if they are restricted. EXAMPLES, Oshkosh, Reno Air Races, GML in Columbus. NOW you can go to those entities and ask their permission and for some price they may let you sell your pics. The restrictions are on the ticketstub or posted next to the entrances.
Now if you want to POST the pics you took at OSH for example on the web, its OK. If you want to give away copies, fine. If you sell them, the formerly NICE people at the EAA will come after you. WHY? They produce the event and spend TONS of money developing it and promoting it (even if there are LOTS of volunteers). Thats why their show isn't in a cow pasture with 6 airplanes and 20 people attending it..........
If you took Bill Greenwood's (I'll pick on him since he's a nice guy) pic and had HIS permission to sell pictures of him (there are things called rights of PUBLICITY that APPLY TO PEOPLE) standing in front of his Spitfire with his new Best Spit trophy at OSH, You still can't sell them unless you have the EAA's permission since they own the venue AND its restricted.
If you shot the THUNDERBIRDS in flight a NELLIS AFB last week, Sell all of them that you want. Have fun, no restrictions at all, its on govt property.
I don't know what you signed with the RG. I would venture to say that you signed something that limited what you can do with your pics.
Also USUALLY if you get in with a PRESS PASS (Really MEDIA CREDENTIALS), you still can't sell the pics except to media sources as NEWS and then you are usually limited to the Organization that sent you. So if the Turner Town Gazette sent you to OSH and you got pics of a great crash, the only entity you can send them to is the TTG. Now if the TTG is part of the AP network, they can put them out on the wire and they will be everywhere. Do you get more $$$? Usually not, since you just happened to have a day where you got some really lucky once in a lifetime shots.
Start looking at the fine print in museum's websites (Evergreen in McMinville OR comes to mind). No publishing images from there without their permission. You can't shoot inside or from on their property and sell images without their permission. BUT You can stand on the highway and shoot images with a long lens and sell those. (If they didn't want people to do that they should plant Evergreen trees in front of the museum).
It get complex, Got a question? Send me a PM, I'll behappy to tell you everything I know..............
Mark H
Generally (in the USA) if you shoot the image, you own the copyright to it. Unless its "work for hire" and its spelled out in the contract hiring you to shoot something. HOWEVER WHAT you can do with that image is another story. You may or may not be able to sell it. Shoot a pic of Jeff Gordon at a NASCAR race in Victory Lane standing next to his car and offer to sell posters of it. For a number of reasons, there will be a LOT of excitement about and you will get some very interesting letters from lawyers. But you can stick the same pic in your photo album, give it to a few friends, or put it on the web (for personal use, not to sell something) without a lot of trouble.
The problem here may well be the PHOTOBUCKET part. From reading on Photography sites, I understand that when you set up your account on a lot of photohosting services you GIVE THEM rights varying fromt eh right to sell your pictures, to the copyrights to them. That is in the fine print of the agreement you clicked on. That may be the problem the RG has right there.
HOWEVER, there are places you cannot take pics and sell them, if they are restricted. EXAMPLES, Oshkosh, Reno Air Races, GML in Columbus. NOW you can go to those entities and ask their permission and for some price they may let you sell your pics. The restrictions are on the ticketstub or posted next to the entrances.
Now if you want to POST the pics you took at OSH for example on the web, its OK. If you want to give away copies, fine. If you sell them, the formerly NICE people at the EAA will come after you. WHY? They produce the event and spend TONS of money developing it and promoting it (even if there are LOTS of volunteers). Thats why their show isn't in a cow pasture with 6 airplanes and 20 people attending it..........
If you took Bill Greenwood's (I'll pick on him since he's a nice guy) pic and had HIS permission to sell pictures of him (there are things called rights of PUBLICITY that APPLY TO PEOPLE) standing in front of his Spitfire with his new Best Spit trophy at OSH, You still can't sell them unless you have the EAA's permission since they own the venue AND its restricted.
If you shot the THUNDERBIRDS in flight a NELLIS AFB last week, Sell all of them that you want. Have fun, no restrictions at all, its on govt property.
I don't know what you signed with the RG. I would venture to say that you signed something that limited what you can do with your pics.
Also USUALLY if you get in with a PRESS PASS (Really MEDIA CREDENTIALS), you still can't sell the pics except to media sources as NEWS and then you are usually limited to the Organization that sent you. So if the Turner Town Gazette sent you to OSH and you got pics of a great crash, the only entity you can send them to is the TTG. Now if the TTG is part of the AP network, they can put them out on the wire and they will be everywhere. Do you get more $$$? Usually not, since you just happened to have a day where you got some really lucky once in a lifetime shots.
Start looking at the fine print in museum's websites (Evergreen in McMinville OR comes to mind). No publishing images from there without their permission. You can't shoot inside or from on their property and sell images without their permission. BUT You can stand on the highway and shoot images with a long lens and sell those. (If they didn't want people to do that they should plant Evergreen trees in front of the museum).
It get complex, Got a question? Send me a PM, I'll behappy to tell you everything I know..............
Mark H
Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:02 pm
RickH wrote:Paris knows nothing about changing an engine. I believe she specializes in hydraulics !
PSI
Lynn
Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:03 pm
Is the aircraft design as far as the paint scheme copyrighted??
Lynn
Lynn
Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:08 pm
Lynn Allen wrote:RickH wrote:Paris knows nothing about changing an engine. I believe she specializes in hydraulics !
PSI
Lynn
I am embarassed to ask, but is your plumbing long line or short line?
Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:08 am
As they say in the south "I don't have a dog in this hunt", and I don't care about the Russell Group or any faction involved, enough to get involved in the specifics of the legal argument. Like most of the previous posts, I don't know the legalities well enough to comment.
However,
I would like to address it from this stand point, I have done quite a number of photo shoots, air to air, with my airplanes, and with the exception of Tim Savage's people and (yes) Mike O'leary and Nick Blacow, they have all been a generally poor experience. For the most part,now, I only do shoots, with one of my planes as the photo ship and my camera, my people shooting etc.
Why? , you ask. Well, it costs a lot to fly these shoots probably (3000 - 4500 per hour, all in) and with the exceptions noted above, I don't get a darn thing out of it. Over and over, I have had people beg to go up and shoot, and then either try to sell me the right to use the pictures of my own airplane or just plain never give up the photos that were promised to be shared.
I'm sure most of you wouldn't behave that way, but I would just suggest that you think of it from the owners perspective as well.
On the other hand, I have have also had several people who have took pics from the ground, that have contacted me and offered them to me gratis, for my personal use. Very cool.
So, it cuts both ways.
However,
I would like to address it from this stand point, I have done quite a number of photo shoots, air to air, with my airplanes, and with the exception of Tim Savage's people and (yes) Mike O'leary and Nick Blacow, they have all been a generally poor experience. For the most part,now, I only do shoots, with one of my planes as the photo ship and my camera, my people shooting etc.
Why? , you ask. Well, it costs a lot to fly these shoots probably (3000 - 4500 per hour, all in) and with the exceptions noted above, I don't get a darn thing out of it. Over and over, I have had people beg to go up and shoot, and then either try to sell me the right to use the pictures of my own airplane or just plain never give up the photos that were promised to be shared.
I'm sure most of you wouldn't behave that way, but I would just suggest that you think of it from the owners perspective as well.
On the other hand, I have have also had several people who have took pics from the ground, that have contacted me and offered them to me gratis, for my personal use. Very cool.
So, it cuts both ways.
Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:35 am
EDowning wrote:As they say in the south "I don't have a dog in this hunt", and I don't care about the Russell Group or any faction involved, enough to get involved in the specifics of the legal argument. Like most of the previous posts, I don't know the legalities well enough to comment.
However,
I would like to address it from this stand point, I have done quite a number of photo shoots, air to air, with my airplanes, and with the exception of Tim Savage's people and (yes) Mike O'leary and Nick Blacow, they have all been a generally poor experience. For the most part,now, I only do shoots, with one of my planes as the photo ship and my camera, my people shooting etc.
Why? , you ask. Well, it costs a lot to fly these shoots probably (3000 - 4500 per hour, all in) and with the exceptions noted above, I don't get a darn thing out of it. Over and over, I have had people beg to go up and shoot, and then either try to sell me the right to use the pictures of my own airplane or just plain never give up the photos that were promised to be shared.
I'm sure most of you wouldn't behave that way, but I would just suggest that you think of it from the owners perspective as well.
On the other hand, I have have also had several people who have took pics from the ground, that have contacted me and offered them to me gratis, for my personal use. Very cool.
So, it cuts both ways.
Well said Eric, every year there are air-to-air photo's taken at airshows for calendars that meant the aircraft was fueled, flown for several hours of flight out of there own pockets and for what. Its best to have the only dog in the hunt...
Lynn
lawyers
Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:59 am
Guess who Ed Russel's lawyer was vs Disney? It was Johnnie Cochran. Yes he did civil law back in the old days, so at least one of his clients was not a bum.
Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:38 pm
Thanks to all for the advice, I followed the request from the Russell's and removed all of the images of their aircraft and while was at it deleted everything off Photobucket and closed the account due to the fact that i never wanted to sell these photo's in the first place.
Obviously in the future i won't be dealing with the Russell's and will be looking for another organization in the area that might need some help.
Thanks again
Dave C
Obviously in the future i won't be dealing with the Russell's and will be looking for another organization in the area that might need some help.
Thanks again
Dave C
????
Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:49 pm
Make sure they know!!!!
Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:12 pm
No, don't burn your bridges. Eager photographers are a lot more common than warbird collectors, and warbird collectors talk to each other. From your description it seems RG were heavy handed, especially given that you had a relationship with them, but such things happen sometimes. It's too bad you've lost the relationship, I hope you tried to save it, but if you must end it, end it on the nicest terms possible. Venting ain't worth it sometimes.
August
August