A friend of mine has come across this photo and wants to get a copy of it and have it framed. Does anyone know who holds the copyright to the picture?

You don't need permission to have it framed, you just cant sell it or claim its your own and distribute it!

Thanks but how does he find an original copy of the photo?

Is it the pic taken from one of the aircraft? If so, was taken by someone who used to post on the board who was then a Red Arrow pilot.

ClaretTony wrote:Is it the pic taken from one of the aircraft? If so, was taken by someone who used to post on the board who was then a Red Arrow pilot.

Hi Tony - Yes, it was taken from a plane flying above the one in the photo.

I remember that poster. He also had a brilliant shot of Buckingham Palace taken from the cockpit of a Lancaster bomber.

MarkGreen wrote:You don't need permission to have it framed, you just cant sell it or claim its your own and distribute it!

You cannot use a photograph for any reason without the permission of the copyright owner. Just because a photo has been published elsewhere doesn't give anyone the right to use it without permission.

I'm pleased to see the image was not reproduced here as that would have been a breach of copyright.

Ambrose wrote:You cannot use a photograph for any reason without the permission of the copyright owner. Just because a photo has been published elsewhere doesn't give anyone the right to use it without permission.

I'm pleased to see the image was not reproduced here as that would have been a breach of copyright.

Spoil sport

Could I get the picture printed on a t shirt?

Targe, wasn't it?

Ambrose wrote:You cannot use a photograph for any reason without the permission of the copyright owner. Just because a photo has been published elsewhere doesn't give anyone the right to use it without permission.

I'm pleased to see the image was not reproduced here as that would have been a breach of copyright.

I may be wrong, but I think I remember Targeclaret allowing permission for it to be used. It would fall under the 'fair use' law if that is the case.

However, I am not 100% on that! I would highly recommend checking first.

MarkGreen wrote:I may be wrong, but I think I remember Targeclaret allowing permission for it to be used. It would fall under the 'fair use' law if that is the case.

However, I am not 100% on that! I would highly recommend checking first.

If the permission is in writing then the use would be acceptable.

I've have just entered into an agreement with the BBC for the use of some of my images. They are allowed to use them for the agreed usages until December 2018 after that date it would be illegal for them to continue using them, even though they would probably still have a copies on file.

That's the way it is, photographers don't work for nothing, just like everyone else.

You mean this one which appeared on this site last year ?

evensteadiereddie wrote:You mean this one which appeared on this site last year ?

If permission was not actually given by the copyright owner, your post is in breach of copyright law.

It's a minefield.

Imagine suing someone for posting a picture on a messageboard.

Picture was posted here:

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... ows#p62632

How is that post a breach of copyright? It’s reporting a previous positing of it.

By the very mechanics of this board, which allows entire posts to be quoted, would anyone quoting targeclaret’s original post also be in breach of copyright, or would you suggest it’s not the individual new poster, but the board itself and therefore it’s owners? It’s theoretical as targeclarets original post was on the other board, but the point is made....

Fabulous shot but he could have opened the window to get rid of the reflections.

Chill out Ambrose. I bet you never taped the top 40 off the radio back in the day either.

Still waiting for a knock on my door for that.

evensteadiereddie wrote:You mean this one which appeared on this site last year ?

red arrows.jpg

That's the one but how can I get hold of an actual photo?

Right Click - Save Image - Print?

Ambrose wrote:You cannot use a photograph for any reason without the permission of the copyright owner. Just because a photo has been published elsewhere doesn't give anyone the right to use it without permission.

I'm pleased to see the image was not reproduced here as that would have been a breach of copyright.

I think the original suggestion was if you already have a print of it you can have it framed, which you can.

That picture is absolutely terrifying.

Pstotto wrote:That picture is absolutely terrifying.

Why? Are we losing?

NRC wrote:How is that post a breach of copyright? It’s reporting a previous positing of it.

By the very mechanics of this board, which allows entire posts to be quoted, would anyone quoting targeclaret’s original post also be in breach of copyright, or would you suggest it’s not the individual new poster, but the board itself and therefore it’s owners? It’s theoretical as targeclarets original post was on the other board, but the point is made....

Very much still a breach of copyright on the quote.

We've had some issues recently on here but simply you should not post any pictures unless you took them or you have confirmed permission from the photographer to use it.

I was Targe's Best Man so I can safely say you'd be good to frame it. He was an Engineer on the reds and was part of the Circus, meaning he flew in the back seat when they went away. He used to fly over my house when he came to Norwich.

Feel free to remove my post/pic, CT.

It's a legal minefield, I know, Tony - I use imagery all the time on my professional work on a day-to-day basis.

That said, if this is to be debated on the legality, then let's not be simple about it, per Ambrose. For example
- Tage is/was a government employee at the time he took the photo, utilizing government property to do so. As such the taking of the photo would probably fall under the category of "work-for-hire" and therefore not belong to Tage
- Taking the photo itself is possibly a violation of "trust" from his work employer, so (and not that Tage has any intent), he could technically have been reprimanded for taking the photo
- if we agree the image is therefore owned by the government, typically "works of government" fall into public domain
- if Tage HAD been inclined to gain from the photo's appeal, then BFC as a commercial company could sue as their own rights would have been abused as the property owners of Turf Moor

All-in-all this particular photo has the potential to infringe multiple and complex rights that nobody would gain from materially at all IF a case could be proven, even then it would probably be actual and not statutory damages. I'd suggest the furthest this would ever get to would be BFC asking for accreditation of their property, and/or the government doing the same vis-a-vis the Red Arrows

ClaretTony wrote:Very much still a breach of copyright on the quote.

We've had some issues recently on here but simply you should not post any pictures unless you took them or you have confirmed permission from the photographer to use it.

Not true, quoting the copyright holder's post (including the picture they hold the copyright to) would be fair use if you are commenting upon the work in question.

What if you got the image tattooed? Who would be in breach of copyright then; you for having it tattooed on your body, or the tattooist for making money from it?

Asking for a friend.

NRC wrote: - if Tage HAD been inclined to gain from the photo's appeal, then BFC as a commercial company could sue as their own rights would have been abused as the property owners of Turf Moor

Only if it was sold to be used commercially, and even then unlikely as I doubt the design of the Turf is protected. If this held true then photographers would only be able to sell pictures of their own houses and you wouldn't be able to buy postcards of Big Ben.

duncandisorderly wrote:What if you got the image tattooed? Who would be in breach of copyright then; you for having it tattooed on your body, or the tattooist for making money from it?

Asking for a friend.

If you want a tattoo of a Hawk flying over Turf Moor then you're nuts and should be sectioned.

I typically use Snapfish to print my images. Might be worth a gander.

That's not a hawk, it's an aeroplane.

the IMAGE of Turf Moor doesn't need to be protected. Nothing after 1989 doesn't have to have gone through a registering process. As such it's their image rights as a private company.

Big Ben falls under my point of government for the main part (obviously not military installations) being public domain, and therefore commercial fair game.

To your response to Tony, that's exactly the point I was making in my first response

NRC wrote:the IMAGE of Turf Moor doesn't need to be protected. Nothing after 1989 doesn't have to have gone through a registering process. As such it's their image rights as a private company.

Big Ben falls under my point of government for the main part (obviously not military installations) being public domain, and therefore commercial fair game.

To your response to Tony, that's exactly the point I was making in my first response

In response NRC how does that compare with all the issues that surrounded the Eifel Tower and taking photos of it's lights at night? I'm sure there was a big shebang surrounding it's protected rights? Is that not a similar situation with Big Ben and the likes or is it specific to the Eifel Tower? Just curious if you had any insight.

duncandisorderly wrote:That's not a hawk, it's an aeroplane.

It's a Hawk T1 jet.

NRC wrote:the IMAGE of Turf Moor doesn't need to be protected. Nothing after 1989 doesn't have to have gone through a registering process. As such it's their image rights as a private company.

Big Ben falls under my point of government for the main part (obviously not military installations) being public domain, and therefore commercial fair game.

To your response to Tony, that's exactly the point I was making in my first response

You are free to take and sell photographs of buildings that were taken from a public place.

deanothedino wrote:You are free to take and sell photographs of buildings that were taken from a public place.

Unless it's the Eifel Tower at night?

Copyright law provides an exclusion for photographing buildings located on property, but not for statues or other items that may have separate copyrights. The Eiffel Tower is privately owned, not government-owned like Big Ben. Hence the difference, and as an icon, its owners have rights to protect its image rights, particularly if the photograph taker is looking to gain commercial advantage, for example website usage or t-shirt printing etc.

I don't know the circumstances around the Eiffel Tower, but it may fall to the above. If the tower had minimal presence in the image, it may fall under the exclusion due to fair use. Otherwise, you must get permission to take an image and to use it for any purpose.

Some companies have tried to prevent the use—both commercially and editorially—of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark protection or contract law. Eiffel Tower could be one of them I know the Lone Cypress tree on the 17 Mile Drive at Pebble Beach, CA is another.

Whiffa wrote:Unless it's the Eifel Tower at night?

NRC wrote:Copyright law provides an exclusion for photographing buildings located on property, but not for statues or other items that may have separate copyrights. The Eiffel Tower is privately owned, not government-owned like Big Ben. Hence the difference, and as an icon, its owners have rights to protect its image rights, particularly if the photograph taker is looking to gain commercial advantage, for example website usage or t-shirt printing etc.

I don't know the circumstances around the Eiffel Tower, but it may fall to the above. If the tower had minimal presence in the image, it may fall under the exclusion due to fair use. Otherwise, you must get permission to take an image and to use it for any purpose.

Some companies have tried to prevent the use—both commercially and editorially—of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark protection or contract law. Eiffel Tower could be one of them I know the Lone Cypress tree on the 17 Mile Drive at Pebble Beach, CA is another.

Great dit but the Eiffel Tower isn't in the UK, so isn't a relevant example.

NRC wrote:Copyright law provides an exclusion for photographing buildings located on property, but not for statues or other items that may have separate copyrights. The Eiffel Tower is privately owned, not government-owned like Big Ben. Hence the difference, and as an icon, its owners have rights to protect its image rights, particularly if the photograph taker is looking to gain commercial advantage, for example website usage or t-shirt printing etc.

I don't know the circumstances around the Eiffel Tower, but it may fall to the above. If the tower had minimal presence in the image, it may fall under the exclusion due to fair use. Otherwise, you must get permission to take an image and to use it for any purpose.

Some companies have tried to prevent the use—both commercially and editorially—of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark protection or contract law. Eiffel Tower could be one of them I know the Lone Cypress tree on the 17 Mile Drive at Pebble Beach, CA is another.

That might be the case in the US but UK law is quite different, we don't have a concept of image rights like they do. From the Government guidance:

I want to take photos of sculptures and
buildings located in public spaces
You do not need permission to photograph buildings,
sculptures and similar works on public display in
public spaces. The photographs you take are afforded
full copyright protection. This means you, as the
photographer, are able to commercially use your work.
However, as outlined above, care should be taken when
taking photos of two-dimensional graphical works such
as posters or commissioned murals which are located
in public places. Making copies of those works
could harm the interests of creators, and could be an
infringement of copyright.

There is the famous(ish) Rihanna v TopShop case where the prosecution claimed that they were "passing off" the items as endorsed by Rihanna but I'd be surprised if that was applied in the case of something like this.

You must be an Injun, Coates. Apparently the don't have a sense of perspective and consequently no fear of heights. The built the first skyscrapers in NYC didn't they?

There's no football match going on, anyway. I've just had a look with my magnifying glass.

evensteadiereddie wrote:Feel free to remove my post/pic, CT.

No,leave it on a while so people can copy it..

well, I had thought various bi-lateral agreements were in place https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf

however, to the specific of the Eiffel Tower it turns out its centennial lighting was upheld in court as a work of "original visual creation" and has been under copyright ever since

ClaretTony wrote: If so, was taken by someone who used to post on the board who was then a Red Arrow pilot.

some fans'll do owt to see the Clarets without paying the admission!

Surely photoshop is all over this photograph with the jet aircraft being superimposed over an aerial shot of Turf Moor.

No. That's not Photoshop. look at the cockpit reflection. One would struggle to superimpose that unless they had a Red Arrows Photo from above the clouds with a perfect white background.

Not only that but the perspective geometry looks exact.

In my opinion, while it's nice to see a Red Arrow and our hallowed Turf, the picture isn't exactly 'get it framed' quality is it?

I agree, it's too magazine-like. With regard to whether fake or real, one could burn in that cockpit reflection and have enough source material to match up the perspective, but why go to such lengths to create such a 'poor quality' image? Perhaps the 'poor quality' is a give-away, to being a fake inasmuch as covering a multitude of sins, but I doubt it.

True in the movies we all believe scenes of paint and cardboard, I've actually seen an RCA Degree Show room that was totally fake and I had to be told it was all a mock-up. In effect it was too good, it just looked like a boring everyday study.

Photoshop seems to have become a dirty word for non photographers. It's very powerful software and you can achieve all sort of effects but in reality most photographers just use it to process their RAW files into quality images. It is nice to play occasionally though.