NetJets Photography Policy?

[Chris102]

Has anyone ever heard of NetJets having a no-photography corporate policy?

I've shot tons of their aircraft in the past without any problems, but when I attempted to get a Global 5000 recently, the pilot told me that they have a corporate policy prohibiting any photography of their aircraft. I didn't challenge him on this of course, but I'm wondering if there is such a policy in place. I'm also wondering if this had something to do with it being a Signature Series aircraft.

Anyone here in-the-know about NetJets' policies?

[RWB]

OOPS!
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3774/8759110854_34083d5cd0_c.jpg
I had heard that from a netjet pilot back in 08 when I had ramp access.

[megatop412]

I don't see how that is even remotely legal.

[airaos]

If you ask thats going to be the obvious reply one would suggest.....You could not ask but then you might get into trouble for example if you're airside.
As always discretion rules ok

[jerslice]

It wouldn't be surprising, though I haven't heard it specifically about NetJets. An FBO at BFI has been notorious for lobbying the city to close down a once popular spotting location at the field because it had a direct view of their ramp and they wanted to protect their clients and their clients passengers. The spot was ultimately converted into GA parking, though it's unclear how much of a role the FBO played in the decision.

[lijk604]

OOPS!

Oops is right RWB!

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3591/3321500824_d4123c6d41.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnklos/3321500824/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3451/3186730702_58248587be.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnklos/3186730702/)

[Zee71]

Nice shots John! If there are passengers which may be VIP in nature I would probably not shoot. Wait till the bird is locked up.

[RWB]

If there are passengers which may be VIP in nature I would probably not shoot. Wait till the bird is locked up.
Bwahhhhh, Just go for it!
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2633/4004955459_e47ed0c789_o.jpg

[megatop412]

I don't care who their clients are or how much the FBO's receive from them. Once you step outside you are not entitled to expect to not be photographed. What an outlandish, and elitist, assumption. They aren't in their homes, they're out in public. Nobody's closing down the sidewalks so the paparazzi can't photograph 'J-Lo'.

I wouldn't go out of my way to photograph anyone in particular, but I wouldn't not take a shot I wanted just cause there was a person in it. They can go screw

[NickPeterman]

The only place I could see where they would have sway is on airport grounds. If you are on private airport property, they can probably get away with it. The other thing is this, I know many airport spotting groups request that you honor such requests as it keeps the blood from going bad between spotters, the operators, and the airports. Is that shot of a biz jet or its passengers really worth not being allowed to shoot at that airport going forward?

That, of course, is up to the individual.

[threeholerglory]

though I agree from the legal standpoint, and wouldn't actively push any spotters away who aren't breaking any rules, I can understand why high-profile or high-wealth people are very cautious. I fly a number of incredibly powerful people and their families, and the last thing I want is for the wrong people to be tracking them for the wrong reasons. I can see both sides of the fence here, but I definitely lean on the spotters' side when clearly in the right for shooting from public spots. Obviously spotters' intentions are to capture the airplanes. The FBO's interest is in protecting the privacy of the airplane owners. Security and privacy is a huge matter to their clients, and the business is invaluable. To that degree, I can appreciate their desire to maintain that privacy.

[megatop412]

though I agree from the legal standpoint, and wouldn't actively push any spotters away who aren't breaking any rules, I can understand why high-profile or high-wealth people are very cautious. I fly a number of incredibly powerful people and their families, and the last thing I want is for the wrong people to be tracking them for the wrong reasons. I can see both sides of the fence here, but I definitely lean on the spotters' side when clearly in the right for shooting from public spots. Obviously spotters' intentions are to capture the airplanes. The FBO's interest is in protecting the privacy of the airplane owners. Security and privacy is a huge matter to their clients, and the business is invaluable. To that degree, I can appreciate their desire to maintain that privacy.

I totally, 100% agree with that reasoning. As a plane photographer, I try to keep people out of my scenes anyway, because they just muck up my shots!:cool:

I just think that once you aquire power, you agree to surrender the requisite amount of anonymity. That, as you mentioned, does open one up to attention from nasty people. What a great world we live in!

[threeholerglory]

I totally, 100% agree with that reasoning. As a plane photographer, I try to keep people out of my scenes anyway, because they just muck up my shots!:cool:

I just think that once you aquire power, you agree to surrender the requisite amount of anonymity. That, as you mentioned, does open one up to attention from nasty people. What a great world we live in!

It does.....some of the planes I fly are blocked on Flightaware. Apparently the site pings your IP address and associated email (if you're a registered member) back to the managing party of that particular tail number account. Not a bad place to start looking in case someone ends up going missing.

But again, I'm an aviation enthusiast at heart and though I understand both sides, will continue to pursuit both! Happy shooting!

[MarkLawrence]

I wonder what that pilot would do if I was standing at the end of the taxiway at FLL taking shots and he comes past - is he going to stop the plane, come over and ask me to delete the pictures??? :) :)

[threeholerglory]

of course...and he'd have to site various 9/11 statutes and non-existent photography laws. And then give you a business card asking you to send some copies!

[PhilDernerJr]

I completely understand a clients' WANT for privacy and security, but ultimately...it's kinda...too bad.

I'd love for someone from an FBO or NetJets to try to stop me from taking photos from a public location and see what they plan on doing about it.

[lijk604]

I completely understand a clients' WANT for privacy and security, but ultimately...it's kinda...too bad.

I'd love for someone from an FBO or NetJets to try to stop me from taking photos from a public location and see what they plan on doing about it.

An FBO parking lot is not public property. Now some FBO's are more easy going, and "get" the whole public aspect of things, while others are very strict and will chase you from their parking lot. Now, if you find another spot just a few hundred feet away that is not their lot..... :)

[PhilDernerJr]

Yes, that "public location" being the driving factor of course.

[Chris102]

I was really surprised that NetJets would enforce a policy like this. It's not like you can identify owners from the tail numbers or aircraft markings--they all look the same! This guy was acting like photos of his GL5T do not and cannot exist. Doesn't he know that you can find thousands of photos of EJA GL5T's with a simple Google image search? :confused:

I've shot planes with unique and identifiable paint schemes and corporate planes belonging to huge high-profile companies, and those people only ask that I don't take photos of their passengers and that I remove the tail number if I use the photo for anything. A far cry from NetJets!

[RWB]

Landmark at SAT has stated they don't allow any photos on their property OR of their property. They have called Airport Police numerous times on me since 2006, and last year even resorted to sending employees out to confront me while in public areas. Their ramp is bordered by a public sidewalk and road, several business across the street have even a better view
http://goo.gl/maps/89Gwv you can make out N#s from google street view (seems to be a issue with them), and I have seen numerous people taking photos ON their ramp, example:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5339/8829339362_0cc08f25d4_b.jpg
So if they are going to let some guys jump off a Mexican registered jet and have a photo shoot with our defense assets, leave me the heck alone!

[snydersnapshots]

I was really surprised that NetJets would enforce a policy like this. It's not like you can identify owners from the tail numbers or aircraft markings--they all look the same! This guy was acting like photos of his GL5T do not and cannot exist. Doesn't he know that you can find thousands of photos of EJA GL5T's with a simple Google image search? :confused:

I've shot planes with unique and identifiable paint schemes and corporate planes belonging to huge high-profile companies, and those people only ask that I don't take photos of their passengers and that I remove the tail number if I use the photo for anything. A far cry from NetJets!

I think the policy may be somewhat of a marketing ploy too. Their customers know they discourage photography of their airplanes, so they're more willing to use NetJets. I flew with a guy who used to fly for them--if I fly with him again, I'll ask him about the policy.

[Delta777LR]

Whoops! Cought it from a public place, oh well, no one told me nothing

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/488.jpg