Photoshop cut and paste aviation "art"

This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

And the nerve some of them have to put a copyright mark in the corner. Now they are worried about someone stealing their work without permission? Apparently they want the law to apply to them only selectively. Funny.
I'm not sure your first example would violate copyright as it was only used for the shape of the aircraft in a normal setting. The markings and background are substantially different. If that is the case then most artists that look at photos to draw basic shapes would be violating it as well.

The 2nd example if I am following you correctly it looks like the original photo came from a US Government Photo which would mean there is no copyright but I am a firm believer in listing sources.

That last there might be a concern.
there is another joker out there doing the same thing with screen shots of high detail 3D model flightsim screen shots, before you laugh, here is one of my screen shots unedited except for cropping

Assam air.gif
Are we also violating the law by making siggies?
Not mine, as that is a photo I made myself, but I and several others have made siggies in the past from images found on the Internet.
yeah i am having deja vu....this isnt the first go round for this.

marcel if you profited from them probably yes....but most use them for a personal reason and not gain.
Last edited:
using part or all of an image for a "sig" is not going to be much of an issue, since it's a non-commercial, not-for-profit situation.

But when a person takes an image, modifies it (modification being anywhere from 0 % to 100%), strips any copyright information and then tries to market it as thier own works...this is where there is serious trouble.

Several years ago, I got all over a certain website that had taken one of my Martin Mars (JRM) Hawaii photographs and stuck a copyright notice on it, saying it was propietary to their website and was not to be reproduced without their permission. (several websites will do this and it pisses me off) and I told them to replace the image with my info or else I'd see to it that they were hauled into court. Their reply was that it was on the internet, therefore public domain and I said bullsh!t, that's like saying my car is parked at the mall, therefore in public domain and free to the first person that comes along and takes it. I told them that if they wished, we could go to court and see who can provide the EXIF data and additional photos of that aircraft from that same date and location...and they would also be liable for my attorney fees and court costs.

They took the image down.
A word of caution with siggies too. Depending on the copyright owner, they can still come after you for copyright violation. I will usually let it go if it is a personal thing or a siggie, etc. But if they are using the image to advertise a product or service, I have to draw the line. If they are altering my image and using it, that's a no-no, especially if they remove my watermark. And for anyone who has pics out there, don;t ever be fooled by the "We will give you photo credit, which is great exposure". Does photo credit work to buy groceries?
Copywrite law is a minefield, with different laws in different countries.

Im no expert in this field, but in Australia, you are liable if you use an image that "belongs" to someone else. Taking the picture does not necessarily mean you "own" that image. Manipulating an image no owned is no breach of copywrite. if a picture is taken of some sort of public icon, like say the habour bridge, can never be a breach of copywrite, regardless of all the trademarks or copywrite symbols you might put on that image.

Using an image in this country for a non-profit reason in this country is no breach of copywrite. If you take an image and use it in a school assignment, the owner of that image can moan all they like, there is no breach of that copywrite.

The line is crossed if an image is stolen, with even the intent of using that image for profit or direct financial gain. If you do that in this country you can be held liable generally to the extent that image has derived gain for you.

If an image is of personal or emotional importance, and it is stolen, the thief can be held liable for punitive damages. Thats a hard case to prove however.

Government and corporations have different rules again, generally much stricter with higher penalties.

Pretty sure of that stuff, but not so sure of images that have already been poached and reposted on the internet. I dont think you can re-copywrite an image that has already been taken, except if it the result of a special permission. Using an image of a famous painting is no breach of copywrite.

What confuses the hell out of me, are where, in cyberspace, national laws can be applied to international situations.
First, it is copyright, not copywrite.

There is no "international copyright law", however, if you hold a copyright in a country that is part of the international copyright convention, then the laws of your country carry to the member countries. This is the Berne convention. "One of the basic principles of the Berne Convention is that of “automatic protection”, which means that copyright protection exists automatically from the time a qualifying work is fixed in a tangible medium (such as paper, film or a silicon chip)."

International Copyright Basics | RightsDirect
As a fan of the photographers, artists that are good enough to share their work on this (or other) websites; I always find these discussions very helpful. As stated earlier, this is a complicated topic. My youngest is a new HS English teacher and she found this neat infographic as an aide for her students when they are crafting papers/presentations:
Can I Use that Picture? The Terms, Laws, and Ethics for Using Copyrighted Images

I'd be interested in what folks think of this information. I know its fairly basic and may only be applicable to US Copyright Law.
I'm getting ready to build a model using as Claveworks graphic for reference. H e gave me permission to do it. More people should obtain consent beforehand.

Users who are viewing this thread