197aerial
New member
> Long time lurker, first time poster.
Welcome. Prepare for incoming (and try to keep a sense of humour.)
> @197aerial I'm no lawyer or web designer or anything special but surely you should follow procedures and legalities to have address etc on your site
I work regularly with Trading Standards. They support me in every case I pursue. I have checked with them in Ayr, Glasgow and Edinburgh, all different council areas. There is NO obligation to publish a street address on a website UNLESS you are selling DIRECTLY to the public. Ask your own local T.S. office - it's only a phone call away.
> which by my limited legal knowledge would make you a business.
Indeed I am. But not seling direct. Whan I DID sell direct, in another incarnation, I had my street address on my site, as required.
(Whisper Mode ON) I'm a photographer, I have cameras and lenses, there are burglars in the world. Capiche? (WM Off)
> Looking at Dylans' site it does state it use to charge a sub fee for 3 months access but the model changed with the times and now goes with donations,
Sales of DVDs, sales of his book. On his front page he asks for cash for items he sells. Donations? AKA begging? For what, he seems pretty well-heeled to me.
> as he hasn't done in "the pursuit of financial gain". (You mean "as he hasn't done (it) in "the pursuit of financial gain".)?
It's your first post and as an old time Common Room user on Fidonet (steam-powered modems) I'll give you some space here. See above. Books, DVDs etc, for cash if possible.
> IMO it does seem a bit like "entrapment" by taking individuals to court over illegal use of copyright material unless all avenues were exhausted,
Yes. But most of my cases involve direct use of my images on websites and servers and false claims of copyright and moral rights ownership.
> Like a naughty kid who was told not to do something but does it regardless, made me chuckle I must admit.
What sort of reaction do you think a Sheriff/Judge would have? Chuckling? I doubt it, big time.
> I would say that this image could fall under exception for "fair and resonable" as it doesn't from what I can see "conflict with copyright owners normal exploitation of their work".
In legal terms "normal use of my work" involves my name on it. So that falls at the first hurdle. CDPA Section 80 will help.
> He hasnt sold the image or made profit from the use of it and wonder how much can actually be made from a 600x400 image "useless for anything but websites".
Well, he was using it on a website (two, actually) so it's very useful indeed. He even said it was an excellent* picture, though from his website his judgement seems faulty.
* Excellent? I can't be bothered looking it up but some such word was used.
> I also pressume you took the image on your own time and not for a client so no loss of earnings on that part.
Dear oh dear. I still have to use £15K worth of gear AND drive to the location which, in this case, was 140 miles away, quite a lot on rough single track roads. Fuel, car insurance, wear and tear, flight insurance, CAA permits, lobster for lunch at the Oystercatcher at Otter Ferry - damn - Ruined it!
> I know a good handful of professionals who sell their work with a beautiful watermark.
And when I was using text overlays (to give them the correct name) I used to get emails from people asking if they buy a copy of an image will it have the watermark on it? The public are often less than bright.
> I am intrigued by the actual process that is involved in your photography and have viewed your page since this has came to light,
When I had the idea for the business I had just seen some aerial photos being framed in a pal's worksop and they were crap. Really bad. I've been a pro photograpger for many years and I know shoddy work when I see it. Half an hour later I was driving down to the coast and a seagull flew over me, dropping its feet to balance in the wind. I saw it as a kite with a camera under it. You know that cartoon thing where dollar signs roll round in the hero's eyes? Like that, but with Scots pounds. Took me ten years and £12K to get the first rig working properly and reliably enough for professional use.
That was after a course in aerodynamics (the maths was horrendous!) as well as a quick refresher in electronics, some pipe brazing instruction and a safety course for gas cylinder use. I already knew how to use a sewing machine (ran a shop selling them for many years) and of course all the kit is home made. Originally the camera frame was all aluminium but 3D printing - the proper stuff in nylon using a sintering process - has helped a lot. Cut the weight by 40% and the time to construct by a full day. It all just screws together these days.
> maybe if it doesn't reveal all your tricks and secrets could you maybe post a brief intro into how you go about taking the snaps, would love to see the balloon or kite in action.
That's the snag. There are many trade secrets involved, to use the legal term. Briefly, the kite (with one, two or three wings) lifts the camera which is attached to it directly. The camera is in gimbals to set the vertical correctly and has a pan and tilt function as well as shutter operations. A video image from the camera (Canon EOS with modified firmware) is amplified and sent to the ground and shows on a 7" video screen. I see exactly what the camera is looking at and when I aim it right, I press the shutter button. Easy.
So here's a question? Would YOU put a £300+ camera and an £800 lens, along with £200 of radio gear onto a kite? I do it all the time. Accidents? SHHH!
Anyone here know the Crinan Canal at the western end? It's a nice spot but the canal bends round a tree-covered rounded hill and it plays merry havoc with the wind. I was flying off the towpath on the seaward (north) side taking photos of the hotel in an easterly-ish wind. A young lady walked past and it being a breezy day with a slight chill in the wind she was a little distracting. In stereo. So, I took my eye (both eyes, in truth) off the kite and the line caught the top of a yacht on the canal. When I pulled the line to control the kite, it just waggled the mast a little and the kite ended up in the water.
Ouch! That was in the old days of a film camera and miniature video camera so it wasn't too expensive. All the radio gear dried out and worked fine as did the video unit. The camera was dead.
I blame the sailors. And me being heterosexual, of course.
> PS can everyone start behaving like mature adults that we all are.
Speak for yourself! I'm off to try my new boots in a puddle.
Welcome again. Be warned, it's addictive.
Welcome. Prepare for incoming (and try to keep a sense of humour.)
> @197aerial I'm no lawyer or web designer or anything special but surely you should follow procedures and legalities to have address etc on your site
I work regularly with Trading Standards. They support me in every case I pursue. I have checked with them in Ayr, Glasgow and Edinburgh, all different council areas. There is NO obligation to publish a street address on a website UNLESS you are selling DIRECTLY to the public. Ask your own local T.S. office - it's only a phone call away.
> which by my limited legal knowledge would make you a business.
Indeed I am. But not seling direct. Whan I DID sell direct, in another incarnation, I had my street address on my site, as required.
(Whisper Mode ON) I'm a photographer, I have cameras and lenses, there are burglars in the world. Capiche? (WM Off)
> Looking at Dylans' site it does state it use to charge a sub fee for 3 months access but the model changed with the times and now goes with donations,
Sales of DVDs, sales of his book. On his front page he asks for cash for items he sells. Donations? AKA begging? For what, he seems pretty well-heeled to me.
> as he hasn't done in "the pursuit of financial gain". (You mean "as he hasn't done (it) in "the pursuit of financial gain".)?
It's your first post and as an old time Common Room user on Fidonet (steam-powered modems) I'll give you some space here. See above. Books, DVDs etc, for cash if possible.
> IMO it does seem a bit like "entrapment" by taking individuals to court over illegal use of copyright material unless all avenues were exhausted,
Yes. But most of my cases involve direct use of my images on websites and servers and false claims of copyright and moral rights ownership.
> Like a naughty kid who was told not to do something but does it regardless, made me chuckle I must admit.
What sort of reaction do you think a Sheriff/Judge would have? Chuckling? I doubt it, big time.
> I would say that this image could fall under exception for "fair and resonable" as it doesn't from what I can see "conflict with copyright owners normal exploitation of their work".
In legal terms "normal use of my work" involves my name on it. So that falls at the first hurdle. CDPA Section 80 will help.
> He hasnt sold the image or made profit from the use of it and wonder how much can actually be made from a 600x400 image "useless for anything but websites".
Well, he was using it on a website (two, actually) so it's very useful indeed. He even said it was an excellent* picture, though from his website his judgement seems faulty.
* Excellent? I can't be bothered looking it up but some such word was used.
> I also pressume you took the image on your own time and not for a client so no loss of earnings on that part.
Dear oh dear. I still have to use £15K worth of gear AND drive to the location which, in this case, was 140 miles away, quite a lot on rough single track roads. Fuel, car insurance, wear and tear, flight insurance, CAA permits, lobster for lunch at the Oystercatcher at Otter Ferry - damn - Ruined it!
> I know a good handful of professionals who sell their work with a beautiful watermark.
And when I was using text overlays (to give them the correct name) I used to get emails from people asking if they buy a copy of an image will it have the watermark on it? The public are often less than bright.
> I am intrigued by the actual process that is involved in your photography and have viewed your page since this has came to light,
When I had the idea for the business I had just seen some aerial photos being framed in a pal's worksop and they were crap. Really bad. I've been a pro photograpger for many years and I know shoddy work when I see it. Half an hour later I was driving down to the coast and a seagull flew over me, dropping its feet to balance in the wind. I saw it as a kite with a camera under it. You know that cartoon thing where dollar signs roll round in the hero's eyes? Like that, but with Scots pounds. Took me ten years and £12K to get the first rig working properly and reliably enough for professional use.
That was after a course in aerodynamics (the maths was horrendous!) as well as a quick refresher in electronics, some pipe brazing instruction and a safety course for gas cylinder use. I already knew how to use a sewing machine (ran a shop selling them for many years) and of course all the kit is home made. Originally the camera frame was all aluminium but 3D printing - the proper stuff in nylon using a sintering process - has helped a lot. Cut the weight by 40% and the time to construct by a full day. It all just screws together these days.
> maybe if it doesn't reveal all your tricks and secrets could you maybe post a brief intro into how you go about taking the snaps, would love to see the balloon or kite in action.
That's the snag. There are many trade secrets involved, to use the legal term. Briefly, the kite (with one, two or three wings) lifts the camera which is attached to it directly. The camera is in gimbals to set the vertical correctly and has a pan and tilt function as well as shutter operations. A video image from the camera (Canon EOS with modified firmware) is amplified and sent to the ground and shows on a 7" video screen. I see exactly what the camera is looking at and when I aim it right, I press the shutter button. Easy.
So here's a question? Would YOU put a £300+ camera and an £800 lens, along with £200 of radio gear onto a kite? I do it all the time. Accidents? SHHH!
Anyone here know the Crinan Canal at the western end? It's a nice spot but the canal bends round a tree-covered rounded hill and it plays merry havoc with the wind. I was flying off the towpath on the seaward (north) side taking photos of the hotel in an easterly-ish wind. A young lady walked past and it being a breezy day with a slight chill in the wind she was a little distracting. In stereo. So, I took my eye (both eyes, in truth) off the kite and the line caught the top of a yacht on the canal. When I pulled the line to control the kite, it just waggled the mast a little and the kite ended up in the water.
Ouch! That was in the old days of a film camera and miniature video camera so it wasn't too expensive. All the radio gear dried out and worked fine as did the video unit. The camera was dead.
I blame the sailors. And me being heterosexual, of course.
> PS can everyone start behaving like mature adults that we all are.
Speak for yourself! I'm off to try my new boots in a puddle.
Welcome again. Be warned, it's addictive.
Last edited:
