What about copyrights in Hangar 360 app?

All,

As mentioned by others, Hangar 369 is well within the law to take ownership of your images. You may not think it is fair, but it is legal. If you are lucky enough to own Photoshop, it has excellent photo stitching capabilities, for all manner of image splicing including panoramas.

As well note that stealing photo images or video is very easy on today's world. Few of us take the time to copyright our work, but it is the only and best way to protect your intellectual property without getting into a big, expensive legal tangle if you spot your image being used by an unauthorized party.
 
All,

As mentioned by others, Hangar 369 is well within the law to take ownership of your images. You may not think it is fair, but it is legal. If you are lucky enough to own Photoshop, it has excellent photo stitching capabilities, for all manner of image splicing including panoramas.

As well note that stealing photo images or video is very easy on today's world. Few of us take the time to copyright our work, but it is the only and best way to protect your intellectual property without getting into a big, expensive legal tangle if you spot your image being used by an unauthorized party.

Just a small correction to your post...

Your images are automatically copyright protected the very second you press the shutter. What many photographers do NOT do (guilty here too) is REGISTER your copyrighted images.

What is the difference? As far as the law goes, unregistered copyright infringements can only be litigated for actual damages. Ie., if someone uses an image of mine without my permission and the image is NOT registered, the law says I am due what the licensing fee would have been.

If the image is registered, then there is a much higher figure for statutory damages. We are talking about the difference between a WILLFUL infringement of an unregistered image being a few hundred dollars for the actual damages OR, for a registered work, 150,000.00.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfphoto
The premise of this thread is confusing. Hangar 360 is a free app, and you are not obligated to use it. Furthermore, if you do want to use it, you are not obligated to upload the photos for processing. If you are looking to retain ownership, you can either let Hangar 360 capture the photos for you and decline to upload, or purchase Autopilot and use Pano mode for similar results, but with more options for controlling the camera settings.

Is the general idea that Hangar, as a company, should be obligated to incur the development, transfer, processing, and storage costs and receive no compensation in return in the case where you opt-in to uploading the images from Hangar 360?
 
The premise of this thread is confusing. Hangar 360 is a free app, and you are not obligated to use it. Furthermore, if you do want to use it, you are not obligated to upload the photos for processing. If you are looking to retain ownership, you can either let Hangar 360 capture the photos for you and decline to upload, or purchase Autopilot and use Pano mode for similar results, but with more options for controlling the camera settings.

Is the general idea that Hangar, as a company, should be obligated to incur the development, transfer, processing, and storage costs and receive no compensation in return in the case where you opt-in to uploading the images from Hangar 360?

Maybe It would be better in that case then to charge a fee for the App to cover your costs regards storage/processing and then leave ownership of the stitched photo to the person who took it??
 
Last edited:
Is the general idea that Hangar, as a company, should be obligated to incur the development, transfer, processing, and storage costs and receive no compensation in return in the case where you opt-in to uploading the images from Hangar 360?

Nobody is obligated to develop software for free. The problem here is that the currency being used to PAY for it is in a form that many PAYERS do not understand, lack the ability to assess its real value and in a form of value that I would wager the majority of users don't even know they POSSESS it.

The developer, OTOH, is aware of these values. Their motivation is simple, IMHO. Develop a cool piece of software that serves as a Trojan Horse that ends up constructing a conduit of rights transfers from unsuspecting photographers to a very expecting recipient. That is the only reason this thing exists.
 
Maybe It would be better in that case then to charge a fee for the App to cover your costs regards storage/processing and then leave ownership of the stitched photo to the person who took it??
Again, we already offer both free and paid alternatives (on the capture side) that allow you to retain ownership. We may consider offering a paid alternative on the processing side but there are plenty of other options out there that offer this service and Hangar 360 is not intended to compete with those offerings at this time.

Nobody is obligated to develop software for free. The problem here is that the currency being used to PAY for it is in a form that many PAYERS do not understand, lack the ability to assess its real value and in a form of value that I would wager the majority of users don't even know they POSSESS it.
Hangar 360 is a product for casual, consumer drone owners who just want to post a piece of engaging content to social media, nothing more. There are no conspiracies here. If you are a professional photographer looking for tools to enhance your workflow, it is your personal responsibility to make sure that the tools you choose to use give you exactly what you need, from both a feature set and licensing perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BragiAV
Like most other "free" online services, if you are not paying for the service you are the PRODUCT, not the CUSTOMER.

This is not unique to Hangar 360, those that use pretty much any free Google service, any online (cloud) storage services, any photo sharing services, etc should take a few minutes to read their TOS, or maybe not. You almost invariably give the service provider free reign on all your data.

Edit: As an example, from photobucket.com:
  • When you make your Content public, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-revocable, right and license to copy, sell, convey, distribute, stream, post, publicly display (e.g. post it elsewhere), reproduce and create derivative works from it (meaning things based on it), whether in print or any kind of electronic version that exists now or is later developed, for any purpose, including a commercial purpose with the right to sublicense such rights to others.
 
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this business model. Maybe they could make it a little bit more apparent to the new user? I don't think it's right to expect a company to spend resources on software development and run servers for free.

If someone doesn't want to or can't spend money on software to put together their panoramas, that's totally fine and there's options to do that. You can position the aircraft and camera manually and run free stitching software. The free stitching software isn't nearly as good or feature rich. The paid software can be expensive though.

As a photographer, I've always found it hypocritical when photographers will charge a client for a shoot while keeping the copyrights but complain about a company offering a free service to us while wanting a way to pay their employees. When I do paid shoots I give the client full copyrights. When I don't charge, I keep the copyright. The models know I can sell the shots and they don't complain. How is that any different to what Hangar does? There's only 3 realistic options we have here: Paid, the model that Hangar chooses (for example) or having ads.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,357
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31