From: nospam on
In article <b8h4v5lslqnpcd6fvrs1m9vn2u5m8ok288(a)4ax.com>, Bruce
<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >But I don't think the OP is from the USA. I think he wants to take
> >pictures on Cathay Pacific flights. I think if I wanted to take
> >pictures on a Cathay Pacific flight, I would just take pictures until a
> >crew member asked me to stop.
>
> Only a complete fool would do that.

why?
From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-05-18 00:40:24 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:37:14 -0700, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-05-16 13:30:09 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Shawn <shawn0706(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I would like to take picture in airplane cabins.
>>>> http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=cathay+pacific+business+class&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Some

flights
>>>>
>>>> are red-eye, and I would like to use a fast lens to take
>>>> first/business class pictures.
>>>>
>>>> Which of the following lenses sould I use?
>>>> http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/nikon
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this an assignment where you have been commissioned by the airline?
>>> If not you will need to obtain the airline's prior express permission.
>>> You will also need a release or releases from the airline if you wish
>>> to sell or publish any of the shots - that includes placing them on a
>>> personal web site.
>>
>> I think most lawyers would disagree with that. It depends on use, such
>> as whether the pictures are taken for editorial or for commercial (i.e.
>> advertising) purposes.
>
>
> And you really think someone posting such elementary questions on a
> Usenet newsgroup is likely to be shooting "for editorial purposes"?
>
> How charmingly naive. ;-)

You do know the meaning of "editorial purposes," do you not? Apparently not.

"Editorial" is photography for purposes other than "commercial."
Commercial is where you endorse or imply endorsement of a product --
advertising. Editorial is for publication elsewhere, whether that is in
a big city newspaper, on television, or on a personal web site.
Everyone is entitled to free speech, not just large newspapers.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-05-18 00:41:41 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:45:41 -0700, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You have confused "private property" with "private place." An airplane,
>> cruise ship, restaurant, sports stadium, or garden might well be
>> private property. But they are public places -- open to the general
>> public. As such, the burden of proof is on you to show that you have a
>> reasonable expectation of privacy in such places.
>
>
> Everyone should beware amateur "legal experts" who post on Usenet
> newsgroups.

ROFL! Such as yourself, you mean?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: Bruce on
On Tue, 18 May 2010 04:11:32 -0700, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2010-05-18 00:40:24 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:37:14 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-05-16 13:30:09 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Shawn <shawn0706(a)gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I would like to take picture in airplane cabins.
>>>>> http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=cathay+pacific+business+class&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
>
>Some
>
>flights
>>>>>
>>>>> are red-eye, and I would like to use a fast lens to take
>>>>> first/business class pictures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which of the following lenses sould I use?
>>>>> http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/nikon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this an assignment where you have been commissioned by the airline?
>>>> If not you will need to obtain the airline's prior express permission.
>>>> You will also need a release or releases from the airline if you wish
>>>> to sell or publish any of the shots - that includes placing them on a
>>>> personal web site.
>>>
>>> I think most lawyers would disagree with that. It depends on use, such
>>> as whether the pictures are taken for editorial or for commercial (i.e.
>>> advertising) purposes.
>>
>>
>> And you really think someone posting such elementary questions on a
>> Usenet newsgroup is likely to be shooting "for editorial purposes"?
>>
>> How charmingly naive. ;-)
>
>You do know the meaning of "editorial purposes," do you not? Apparently not.



Unfortunately for you, I do.



>"Editorial" is photography for purposes other than "commercial."


Nonsense. Most editorial shots are paid for - all of mine are, and it
makes up a small but significant percentage of my income.


>Editorial is for publication elsewhere, whether that is in
>a big city newspaper, on television, or on a personal web site.
>Everyone is entitled to free speech, not just large newspapers.


I would love to see you argue that one in court. You cannot, repeat
cannot, use the editorial "excuse" to publish images on web sites,
except in your vivid imagination.

But as always, you are arguing theoretically and not from practical
experience. If you actually *did* any of the things that you are
giving "advice" about on here, you would soon get to know just what
nonsense it is. You are not even wrong.

From: Bruce on
On Tue, 18 May 2010 04:12:29 -0700, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2010-05-18 00:41:41 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:45:41 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You have confused "private property" with "private place." An airplane,
>>> cruise ship, restaurant, sports stadium, or garden might well be
>>> private property. But they are public places -- open to the general
>>> public. As such, the burden of proof is on you to show that you have a
>>> reasonable expectation of privacy in such places.
>>
>>
>> Everyone should beware amateur "legal experts" who post on Usenet
>> newsgroups.
>
>ROFL! Such as yourself, you mean?


On the contrary, because I shoot images for a living, I have to know
where I stand in relation to the law. As a result, I pay for, and
take account of, specialist legal advice.

You, on the other hand, can give all the BS advice you want, because
you haven't any experience to tell you just how wrong you are. You
are completely out of touch with reality.