Airline logos and trademark law: can you use aircraft photos commercially?

You caught a freshly painted long-haul jet perfectly in the evening light, and suddenly someone asks whether they can buy the picture for a calendar, an advertisement or a travel portal. At the latest then, the question arises: may you use photos of painted aircraft with an airline logo commercially? The short answer is: often yes, but not for every purpose. This guide explains what trademark law actually protects, where copyright and house rules come in and how you decide in practice which use is uncritical. It refers to the legal situation in Germany and is orientation, not legal advice.

The short answer: purpose beats subject

The logo on the vertical stabilizer is registered as a trademark for almost every airline. Even so, a photo of it does not automatically make you a trademark infringer. Under Section 14 of the German Trademark Act (Markengesetz, MarkenG), third parties are prohibited from using a protected sign without consent in the course of trade and in relation to goods or services. Both requirements must come together.

For spotters, that means: as long as you photograph an aircraft and show the picture privately, file it in your collection or publish it on a photo platform, you are not using the trademark to label your own goods or services. The logo is simply part of the reality depicted. It only becomes difficult when the picture advertises something or itself becomes a product on which the logo plays the main role.

What trademark law really protects

A trademark is above all an indication of origin. Whoever sees the crane of Lufthansa or a particular lettering should know which company a service comes from. The Court of Justice of the European Union has therefore stressed for years that trademark owners can only defend themselves against uses that impair or could impair these functions – above all the function of indicating origin.

In Section 14(3) MarkenG, the law lists by way of example what can be prohibited: affixing a sign to goods or their packaging, offering goods or services under the sign, using it as a company name and using it in business papers or in advertising. A photo of an aircraft is initially none of these.

The well-known trademark as a special case

Large airlines often hold so-called well-known trademarks. They enjoy extended protection: under Section 14(2) no. 3 MarkenG, even use for entirely different goods can be prohibited if it unfairly exploits or impairs the distinctiveness or reputation of the trademark without due cause. This is exactly the point that matters for merchandise and advertising: anyone who makes their own products more attractive with the good reputation of a well-known airline is on thin ice – even if they sell nothing to do with aviation.

The statutory limits

Section 23 MarkenG names cases in which the trademark owner cannot prohibit a use, for instance when a sign is used to identify the owner’s goods or services or to refer to them. These exceptions apply, however, only as long as the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. Anyone who writes in a specialist text which airline operates an aircraft shown is clearly within that framework.

Editorial, private, commercial: the three types of use

In the picture business, a classification has become established that is also helpful for spotters. It answers the question of what the picture is used for.

Use	Typical examples	Logo on the aircraft	What you should clarify
Private	own collection, photo book for yourself, wall picture at home	not an issue	nothing – except third-party rights such as people in the picture
Documentary and community	photo platforms, forums, social media without advertising	generally uncritical	platform rules, caption, photographer credit
Editorial	trade magazine, news site, nonfiction book, talk	mostly uncritical, part of the reporting	scope of license, fee, credit
Commercial (advertising)	advertisement, travel portal banner, company website	critical if a link to the advertised offer arises	clearance from the airline or remove the logo
Commercial (product)	T-shirt, mug, calendar, poster for sale	critical if the logo defines the product	license, choice of subject, overall impression

What matters is the difference between the question “May I sell the picture?” and “May the buyer use it this way?” As the photographer, you can in principle license a photo. Whether the buyer’s specific use is permissible depends on their purpose. That is why the type of use belongs in every license. How to structure such a license and what else to watch for in a sale is described in the article Selling aircraft photos: the legal side.

When a logo becomes a problem

In practice, the risky cases can be narrowed down quite well. It is almost always about one of three effects.

• The false impression of a partnership. A travel agency that advertises with a large-format photo of an airline jet can give the impression that it is an official partner of that airline. That concerns both trademark law and competition law, which prohibits misleading advertising.
• The logo as a selling point. On a T-shirt, a mug or a key ring, the logo itself can be the reason people buy. Then it is quickly perceived as a mark of the goods – exactly what Section 14(3) MarkenG describes.
• Disparagement or distortion. Montages that ridicule an airline or put its logo in foreign contexts can, in the case of well-known trademarks, count as impairing their reputation once they are used commercially.

Models, merchandise and the Opel case

Airlines sell their own fan items in their airline shops and therefore have an interest in controlling their trademarks on goods as well. For merchandise with aircraft motifs, we are not aware of any specific aviation case law, but there is a much-cited case from the car world. In 2007, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in the proceedings Opel/Autec (C-48/05) on scale model cars with the Opel logo. The logo was also registered for toys. The court clarified that affixing the logo to a faithful replica is not necessarily a prohibited use: what matters is whether the public understands the sign on the model as an indication that the toy comes from Opel or an affiliated company.

Applying that to aircraft photos is obvious: a calendar with twelve aircraft pictures of different airlines will hardly be understood by buyers as an official product of a particular airline. A poster that stages only a single logo large, rather more so. This line is not certain, because well-known trademarks enjoy extended protection against the exploitation of their reputation. For small runs, that means: the more varied the subject and the more the aircraft rather than the logo is the focus, the lower the risk.

If you like to offer your own prints, you will find more tips on printing and formats in Printing aircraft photos and in Photo book, calendar and wall picture.

Copyright: when the livery is itself a work

Besides trademark law, there is a second level that many overlook. Under Section 2 of the German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG), personal intellectual creations are protected, expressly including works of applied art. A plain lettering usually doesn’t reach this threshold. An elaborately designed logo or an artistic special livery, on the other hand, can. This concerns above all advertising liveries, retro liveries and designs created by artists.

For spotters, there are two reliefs here:

• Incidental accessory (Section 57 UrhG): A work may be reproduced and shown if it is only an accessory next to the actual subject. A small logo on an aircraft that is only visible at the edge of an apron picture can fall under this. The courts interpret the provision narrowly, however: as soon as the work visibly contributes to the picture’s effect, it is no longer an incidental accessory.
• Freedom of panorama (Section 59 UrhG): Works that are permanently located on public paths, streets or squares may be photographed and the photos distributed.

The AIDA Kussmund case

Whether an aircraft is “permanently in public places” sounds doubtful at first. In 2017, in the proceedings AIDA Kussmund (I ZR 247/15), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that freedom of panorama can also apply to works on vehicles that move between publicly accessible places. It concerned the kiss-mouth motif on the bow of a cruise ship, which was visible from publicly accessible land. In doing so, the BGH built on its earlier 2002 decision “Stadtbahnfahrzeug” (light-rail vehicle).

There is no decision of its own for aircraft liveries. But the reasoning transfers well if you photograph from the public path along the fence. Two limits remain: freedom of panorama is a copyright rule and does not protect against trademark claims. And it only applies to pictures taken from publicly accessible places. More on copyright in your own pictures is in the guide Copyright in aircraft photos.

The shooting location counts: house rules instead of trademark law

An airline cannot use its trademark to forbid you from photographing its aircraft. A property owner can, however, regulate what happens on their grounds. In the proceedings concerning the gardens of the Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation, the Federal Court of Justice held that the owner may decide on the commercial exploitation of photos taken from their property – even if they allow access for private purposes. They do not, however, have a “right to the image of their own property.” If photos are taken from outside, that authority is missing.

At the airport, this means:

• On the Düsseldorf observation deck or in the terminal, the operator’s usage rules apply. They can make commercial shooting dependent on a permit.
• On public areas such as the Munich Airport visitors’ hill or on paths along the fence, it depends on who owns the area and which rules are posted there.
• When photographing on the apron, for example on a guided tour, written conditions almost always apply that restrict exploitation.

How house rules work in detail is explained in the article The airport operator’s house rules. The general rules around spotting are summarized in Is plane spotting allowed?.

More stumbling blocks in aircraft photos

The logo is rarely the only point a commercial buyer checks. Three other aspects come up regularly:

• People: Apron staff, passengers on the stairs or other spotters on the deck. For commercial use, you practically always need consent for recognizable people. Details are in People in spotter photos.
• Third-party trademarks in the picture: Catering vehicles, fuel trucks, advertising spaces at the terminal and manufacturer lettering such as the house liveries of Airbus or Boeing – more on that in House liveries of Airbus, Boeing and Embraer.
• Advertising liveries: If an aircraft carries a third party’s campaign, further rights holders join the airline – such as a sports club in the case of football special liveries.

The registration itself, by contrast, is not a trademark but an official registration. Showing and naming it is part of normal documentation. Where it has to appear on the aircraft is explained in Where the registration has to appear on the aircraft.

Step by step: can I use this photo this way?

Many picture agencies work with exactly this distinction and accept photos with recognizable trademarks only for editorial use. What else matters when selling through agencies is covered in Selling aircraft photos through stock agencies.

Social media, monetization and watermarks

A borderline area is accounts that earn money with aircraft photos. An Instagram profile with collaborations or a YouTube channel with ad revenue operates in the course of trade. That does not automatically mean trademark use, though: whoever shows which aircraft they saw at the airport is reporting. It becomes problematic when a logo is taken over into your own channel design or a sponsored post gives the impression that an airline recommends the advertised product. You will find tips for the platforms in Instagram for plane spotters and Starting a plane spotting YouTube channel.

Your watermark, too, shouldn’t look like an airline. Anyone who imitates an airline’s colors and logo to label their own pictures creates exactly the likelihood of confusion that trademark law protects against. More on this in Watermarks and image rights.

Austria, Switzerland and abroad

Within the EU, the basic principles are largely harmonized through the Trade Mark Directive and the EU Trade Mark Regulation: there too, use in the course of trade is required, and there too, well-known trademarks enjoy extended protection. For copyright, by contrast, the rules on freedom of panorama differ from country to country. Switzerland has its own laws. If you photograph abroad or license pictures to foreign buyers, check the local legal situation separately – a starting point is Spotting abroad.

Conclusion

An airline logo in your photo is no cause for concern as long as you document, collect or report. Trademark law protects the origin-indicating function of a sign in the course of trade, not the appearance of an aircraft. It gets tricky where your picture advertises something or becomes a product whose appeal lies mainly in the logo. With artistic liveries, copyright comes in, which freedom of panorama often covers under BGH case law, and at the shooting location, house rules decide on commercial exploitation.