24left

Given all the news coverage Air Canada has received of late....

I've noticed that the media outlets seems to like to post semi-ancient photos of Air Canada planes.

I mentioned this in another post, wondering why a photo from 2013 was being used and why it was completely irrelevant to the current story/article.

Well, today we have this and the photo is from 2004

Not only is the story not about AC, why use this photo?
Did the writer or editor just go into an old shoebox and randomly pick this?


Yes, I know FT is not the place to complain about stupid media stuff (oh, wait), but here is my question:

Does a media outlet have to get Air Canada's permission to use a photo of it's aircraft or airport facilities etc, or are they all considered public domain?

(also, not to be picky but other than those who know their aircraft, how would anyone else know this belongs to AC?)


http://globalnews.ca/news/3457751/tr...urance-canada/

.

Bohemian1

It could be worse, they could be using old TCA photos.

Wpgjetse

News room cut backs and reports with lack of knowledge?

Low Roller

My guess is that they already paid for a photo of an airplane, so why pay for another one when hardly anyone will notice if they just keep using the same old ones. Although I'm not sure why they're using a caption telling everyone that it's a 13 year-old photo

heraclitus

Would it make any difference whatsoever if the photo had been taken this week?

The picture is simply there to catch the reader's eye and make the point that the story is about travel.

yyznomad

Probably not, but that's not what the OP is asking about with regarding to making a difference.

24left

Exactly, thanks.

flyquiet

I doubt it is a permissions issue with respect to depicting the equipment, but more so as Low Roller indicated in post 4, a rights to the photo. They could not be bothered to acquire a new photo, and they did not differentiate any purpose to the photo other than symbolic of "travel" (as per post 5). It would not occur to them that the media readership for travel articles would have more nuanced impressions of what is represented by the image. I notice a lot of media outlets use stock photos just for eyecatchiness and frankly, it annoys me. There is all kinds of symbolism inherent to a photo that quite often conflicts with the explicit text of the accompanying article, but like headline writers, the photo-pickers appear to just be there to fill a certain amount of space and are not all that editorially attuned.

heraclitus

The title of the thread is "Why are old Air Canada photos used by the media?" with the implication being that newer pictures would be more appropriate.

robsaw

A few reasons why an old photo would be used:
- lazy and cheap: time is money, paying someone to find the "perfect" photo takes time; paying someone to source a new photo is even more costly.
- copyright: a publisher must know that they have rights to publish, so that means a "stock photo" they've paid a license fee for; a staff or freelance photo they have paid for and thus own the rights; a privately submitted photo that they have a received a license agreement for and actually have it tracked to that photo. Note that the rights issue is not the subject matter in most cases but the copyright of the image owned by the photographer unless assigned or licensed.

24left

And this photo in the middle of the article in the other thread about the Portugal ticket mess.

And I would ask the CBC how this relates to the story in anyway?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...lict-1.4115596


Filler fluff indeed.

.

The smallest state

Because CBC is shining the light on AC and their little tricks. CBC is reporting when AC screws people over. Using AC logos', planes and video adds colo(u)r to the story.

CBC is doing a great job BTW.

24left

The title of the thread is the way is it because there is limited space.

Thus, my OP pretty much asks the questions.

My title does not imply that newer pictures would be more appropriate, but you certainly can interpret it the way you like.

I suppose because I am detailed and my work is connected to the media, this stuff is a wee bit annoying and reeks of lazy.

I appreciate all the posts here that

1. explain my intent (thanks Nomad )
2. explain issues of licensing - which I am aware of
3. explain issues of lazy, or part time staff or those not trained in journalism etc..

No wonder millions of people can't tell the difference between real news, fake news and just plain stupid news

DaveObee

To answer several questions, not necessarily in the order they were asked:

1. Photos are used to draw the reader into a story, whether in print or online. Video is important for television. Do not believe anyone who says visual elements do not matter; if I had the time, I am sure I could come up with a thousand examples to prove that they do. (Here is one, not related to air travel. Newspapers and magazines had dozens of stories on migrants dying on the beaches of Europe. Very little buzz. Then a photo is taken of a young boy, dead on the shore. People got all excited, and said, why has nobody told us about this migrant stuff?)

2. Photos taken by a staff member at a newspaper or magazine or TV station belong to that news outlet. No permission is needed from the airline, unless the photo could only be taken on private property belonging to the airline. Photos taken by freelancers fall under different rules; their usage depends on the deal made. Photos provided by the airlines are generally free for use without limit.

3. Some news people are into air travel, most are not. Some can tell you the seating capacity of that plane over there, most can't tell a Q400 from an A380. (That is not a shot, that reflects reality. Journalists need to know about a massive amount of things; by necessity, that knowledge is wide but not very deep.)

4. Photos and video shot at airports and of airplanes are filed away for future use. Until the system breaks and the backups are all corrupt, that is.

5. So, a story about air travel breaks and needs to be posted online ASAP. Or it breaks with an hour to go before deadline. File art or file footage is pulled out. The person handling the story may or may not know anything about airplanes. (Again, not everyone in the average newsroom is as up to speed as people on FT.) There are other balls being juggled, there is no time to confirm that this is the right type of plane, or that it shows the current livery. Does the plane say Air Canada on the side? Well, good enough. (Does this make the media lazy and cheap? You've got 20 minutes to get a photo. The airport is 30 minutes away, in light traffic, probably 35 at this time of day. The plane in question might not even be there. If someone believes that in a case like this, the journalist "could not be bothered," then we need to spend some time discussing physics.)

All of this is meant to explain the process, and why mistakes are made. Bear in mind as well that every day, journalists are given incorrect information by people who they believe they can count on. And yes, I can cite examples of that relating to airports and air travel.

I hate seeing file art used badly. It takes away from the story, and puts the credibility of the story in doubt. But there is perfection, and there is reality.

(Now, we do so few travel magazines include maps? That is why I quit reading Conde Nast.)

24left

@ DaveObee

AWESOME post and thank you so much for the insight. ^