PDA

View Full Version : Where did all the snow go?? Is it time for "plan B?"



John Kasaian
5-May-2004, 08:49
At long last, I've got some 7" wide aerial film on order so that I can pursue my mountain aerial photography project, but...but...the snow on my "targets" is melting away! While the prospects for a "mission" seem pretty bleak right now(in the lower 48 states, anyway) I've been thinking of an alternative warm weather subject so I can hopefully get some aerial images this year and came up with this: Aerials of amusment parks at night! In particular the few of the "old fashioned" variety on the west coast. For low altitude access over the water, I am thinking of those parks like Santa Monica and Santa Cruz which are located on the seashore. I'm not sure how I'll figure out exposure---I thought I'd do some tests on the ground first(its cheaper!) to see if I can get a fast enough shutter speed, but my question for now is this: What other seaside amusement parks do you know of that are located on the west coast of the U.S.?

Sharon S.
5-May-2004, 08:53
Belmont Park & Sea World in San Diego?

Jim Galli
5-May-2004, 09:58
There'll be plenty of wildfires this year in your area. See if you can talk your way on board some tankers. That 7" is color isn't it? :{))

John Kasaian
5-May-2004, 10:20
Sharon: Thanks!

Jim: I wish I could(it would be a bumpy ride, thats for sure!) FWIW, The Dept. of Forestery is auctioning off a couple a Chevy C70 "hot shot" crew vehicles next week---hey with a little work, they'd make a pretty neat "darkroom on wheels!" If anyone won the lottery recently and is interested, email me off line for auction details;-)

jonah
5-May-2004, 10:51
John,

One thing to be aware of is the Santa Monica Pier Amusement Park is not very generous on usage of their "recognizable" image. Even if the park is in the distant background of a shot they want the location fee (not cheap). I am sure they are up tight about it because of the amount of filming around here. Other parks might not care.

This probably is not an issue for you unless you are selling the image or using it commercially and someone from the city notices. And I doubt if they will notice you shooting from the air.

It sounds like a fun project - good luck!

Jonah

Tom Jones
5-May-2004, 13:58
I don't think the Santa Monica Pier folks have anything legally to say if it's shot from a public place. And Federally controlled airspace is certainly public!! (Or used to be prior to 9/11). Barbara Streisand had to be reminded of that a little while back...

The biggest worry is to make sure you have the required clearance between your aircraft and people, structure, boats, etc. 500' minimum. Then there is the "open air gathering" limits which are higher still.

Given the current security climate with the TSA, and the general FAA recommendation to avoid circling " high value" kinds of things, you might be careful how much time you spend in the area. You just might find a fighter sitting off your wing, impolitely asking you to land, and NOT because you took the Pier's photo!

Still, a little care in how you do it, and it should be great fun!

jonah
5-May-2004, 14:33
Legally it is a bit of a gray area. Most of the time you can shoot most things from a public place without much worry. However, in this case the Santa Monica Amusement Park claims that their park is a recognizable place and has value. The shot I was working on was a commercial car shot that was going to have the pier in the distant background. This is obviously for a fairly high profile image, for commercial use - so they wanted the money. They made it clear that they were willing to go after people using images of the park. Maybe the person I spoke to was feeling feisty that day, maybe they bluff to get the location fee. If they would win in court, who knows - and who wants to go through the hassle of finding out?

But like I said, I don't think it will have much impact on John's plan -just something to be aware of.

Jonah

Mark Sampson
5-May-2004, 15:00
"Bluff" would be the word here. ASMP went to federal court over a case where the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame (in Cleveland) went after a photographer who had photos of their building, taken from a public place. The court ruling supported the photographer. Can't remember other details but ASMP used the situation, including a contested image, in one of their own ads, within the last year or two. Don't be bullied!

jonah
5-May-2004, 15:40
Mark,

Thanks for that info, I recall that case but I don't think I ever heard the verdict. Its good to know. I know in our shooting we ususally play it safe for our clients sake and our own. We are used to paying location fees to shoot and budget accordingly, it makes everything run smooth. I just recall the park people being less than friendly.

I'm curious-what area are you from? I am originally from MI and the ASMP is big there, but here everyone I know is in APA. Both are great organizations fighting for photographers rights.

Jonah

mark lindsey
5-May-2004, 21:35
wouldn't the aerial shots of the amusement parks be really cool if there was a little bit of fog on the ground.

tim atherton
5-May-2004, 22:01
""Bluff" would be the word here. ASMP went to federal court over a case where the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame (in Cleveland) went after a photographer who had photos of their building, taken from a public place. The court ruling supported the photographer. Can't remember other details but ASMP used the situation, including a contested image, in one of their own ads, within the last year or two. Don't be bullied!"

it certainly is a grey area though - RRHoF vs Chuck Gentile is, in some ways, still the major case law on this - and the Hall of Fame lost fairly resoundingly. However, it was a complicated case. One (the) major strand of their case was that they believed they had trademarked the building and Gentiles photographs and posters violated that. As I recall, the court found that you can't trademark a building or object, rather the trademark is secondary to the building etc and only resides in the particular form (ie graphic drawing etc) derived from the building. So Gentile photographed the building. The Hall of Fame got a graphic designer to design their trademarked logo based on he building. But it was the logo itself that was the trademark, not the building it was derived from - however recognisable. So Gentile wasn't violating their trademark with his photographs. The Hall of fame felt that trademark was the strongest leg of their case and so focussed on that - and lost badly. So they didn't push other arguments as strongly, such as the commercial usage and control of their building as a "recognizable" image - so that aspect wasn't tested as much in this case - which is why it is still something of a grey area. I don't think there have been any other major cases since testing that area in the same way or to the same extent (as has been explained to me, because there is a good chance someone doing so to control commercial usage of images of their building might well lose in the same way as the RRHoF - i.e. badly).

And the end result of the case basically was - Gentile was found by the courts to be free to sell poster of a photograph he had taken of the RRHoF and they couldn't stop him. But that could be mainly because they argued on and bet on the wrong point of law.... (there is more to the case than just the trademark issue - so it's worth reading if you photograph buildings and use those photos in some way)

Mark Sampson
6-May-2004, 10:25
Tim, thanks for supplying the correct information. I do believe that Mr. Kasaian would be within his rights to photograph, and sell, pictures of private property from the air, or from public property. That's the way I've always understood it. Perhaps someday a court will uphold or deny that idea; may it never come to that. Jonah, I live in Rochester NY, where there is an active ASMP chapter, but I found out about the court case in PDN; either a news story or the ASMP ad I mentioned earlier.