Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Got Photos on Airliners.net? READ THIS!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DAIRD
    I don't trust them. They did it once and there is no guarantee they will do it a second time with a refined version of a new TOU based on the now withdrawn TOU.
    And you surely shouldn't.

    US companies value nothing, absolutely nothing, in the world except their bottom line.

    I know because i work for one.
    Where can i get one of those stylish JP.net banners? - Got it!

    Comment


    • Yea, they enter a revolving door after you and exiting it in front of you.


      get FRA spotting informations here:
      www.Frankfurt-Aviation-Friends.eu

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cloudhopper
        Garry you think such a clause would hold up in court?
        If you have willingly accepted those terms then absolutely.
        Or at the very least you would need a seriously good lawyer to argue your way out of it.
        Garry Lewis

        Air Team Images - www.airteamimages.com
        Air Traffic Controller - Toronto ACC (West Low)

        https://flic.kr/ps/AAWk8

        Comment


        • Originally posted by atco
          Hi Gabe,

          I doubt many people even looked at them to be honest.

          You are right, just browsed their forums and not on reference to the TOU.

          żAnybody seen Gary Watt's post in A.net? This comming from the oldest crewmembers in A.net, quite disturbing.

          Comment


          • Garry you're somewhat right.
            However if T&Cs (or ToUs for that matter) are interfering with actual law (like in this case copyrights maybe) they can become invalid, completely or in parts. Thats why i was asking.


            @Gabe
            Could you give a link?
            THis is quite interesting.
            Thank you.
            Where can i get one of those stylish JP.net banners? - Got it!

            Comment


            • Part II of the discussion

              http://www.airliners.net/discussions...d.main/300757/

              User currently offlineGranite From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 1999, 5148 posts, RR: 53
              Reply 145, posted Thu Feb 14 2008 12:31:24 your local time (1 hour 6 minutes 16 secs ago) and read 99 times: AIRLINERS.NET CREW
              PHOTO SCREENER

              Hi all

              I've been very quiet over the past few days. The reason........total embarrasement over the ToU situation.

              Not one of the crew knew about these new terms and just like the photographer community it was a bit of a shock. I am probably the longest serving crew member and this has to be the lowest point in my career here.

              This has been a total and utter balls up by Demand Media. I have made my feelings clear to Paulo and still expecting to be given my cards any day now. If I am asked to leave I will put up a fight.

              When all is said and done I still think that this was a genuine mistake by them, inexperienced you could say. While those terms may relate to their other websites, they do not and cannot apply to Airliners.net. Did they think that they would get away with controlling our images?

              Demand Media may have put a lot of money into Airliners.net but what they need to realise is that it's the Crew that run the website, the Crew that issue the rules and the Photographers that keep the website going. If Demand Media balls it up, it's bye bye!

              We have lost some photographers already. I was unhappy to see that. This needs to be turned around and I am hoping that I can do something.

              I won't be responding to any comments on the forum but please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] or my personal mail address via my profile. All communication will be treated in confidence.

              I am really sorry for what has happened.

              Regards
              My photo editing guide - updated and improved Feb. 2010
              My Nikon D100,D200,D300, D800, D7200 basic spotting settings guide
              ACIG - the best resource for military aviation information

              Comment


              • Nice to see a site owner that has contact with their team...

                Honestly this new fiasco is just another step in this downward spiral they have gotten themselves into.

                PS- Great to see you back in our midsts Garry.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cloudhopper
                  Garry you're somewhat right.
                  However if T&Cs (or ToUs for that matter) are interfering with actual law (like in this case copyrights maybe) they can become invalid, completely or in parts. Thats why i was asking.
                  Copyright law allows you to assign your copyright, or simply usage rights to your work, to somebody else, so I don't see in what sense DM's TOUs would have gone against the law.

                  That said, the TOUs have been pulled so it's an academic question. Now we have to wait and see whether the forthcoming replacement TOUs will safeguard photographers' rights like DM have promised.

                  Charles


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BA747-436
                    Nice to see a site owner that has contact with their team...
                    In real business new management would change most of the people in charge to people of their confidence. It seems DM does not have the confidence in their current crew; they just might get rid of most of them in put in people who suck up to them. Maybe we will be seeing NikV as a head screener, and probably a bunch of people who would suck up to DM just to become a screener there.

                    Cheers,

                    Gabe

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gbasco
                      In real business new management would change most of the people in charge to people of their confidence. It seems DM does not have the confidence in their current crew; they just might get rid of most of them in put in people who suck up to them. Maybe we will be seeing NikV as a head screener, and probably a bunch of people who would suck up to DM just to become a screener there.

                      Cheers,

                      Gabe
                      Now, that IS a scary thought! NikV is not what I would call a flexible person. But, having said that, you do know where you stand with him - you're wrong!! lol!

                      I'm hanging fire pulling my pics until they have reissued the T&C's and I have read them thoroughly. If I think they are in my best interests I will stay on A.net. Already this week I have had 2 enquiries about pictures, so I would be a fool to jump yet. But, If they are simply a rehash of the latest ones then I'm orf!!

                      Anyway, it does provide some interesting goings on and certainly made me sit up and take notice!

                      Andy

                      Comment


                      • And Paulo still refuses to answer my questions about the risks that legal mentioned. I quote from post 116 in the Terms of use thread in A.net's Av-Photography:

                        Originally posted by Me
                        Originally posted by Deeplight
                        Legal: Hey Paulo we HAVE to get new TOU up ASAP because Johan's TOU leaves both the community/photogs AND DM at risk.
                        Question: what risks? Airliners.net did just fine with the current TOU for many years. Where's the explanation about these so-called risks? I sincerely doubt there were any risks asociated with the TOU unless Demand Media's interests were the ones actually at risk and not that of the photogs and of the community, with legal just making up that excuse.
                        Audentes Fortuna Imperii

                        Comment


                        • Management talking about "risks" rarely invovles 'risks' as in "legal risks" or "hazardous risks".

                          It usually refers to "investment risks" and thats a completely different piece of cake. This isn't determined by the management themselves, often they have to adhere to certain outside consultants, usually the investment banks behind the investor himself, which give them certain ratings and expectations.
                          The management then has to manage all factors involve to exceed the expectations to further attract investors (which then have expectations again).

                          The "risks" he seems to be talking about, seem to be referring more to the company risking to not show the maximum utilizaion of company assets (the pictures) to leverage the maximum potential of the investment against the expectations of the investors.
                          And ultimately "risking" to fail the targets of the financial year.

                          And to be quite frank, the old ToU aren't really suitable to minimize the "risks" i'm talking about here.
                          Where can i get one of those stylish JP.net banners? - Got it!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cloudhopper
                            Management talking about "risks" rarely invovles 'risks' as in "legal risks" or "hazardous risks".

                            It usually refers to "investment risks" and thats a completely different piece of cake. This isn't determined by the management themselves, often they have to adhere to certain outside consultants, usually the investment banks behind the investor himself, which give them certain ratings and expectations.
                            The management then has to manage all factors involve to exceed the expectations to further attract investors (which then have expectations again).

                            The "risks" he seems to be talking about, seem to be referring more to the company risking to not show the maximum utilizaion of company assets (the pictures) to leverage the maximum potential of the investment against the expectations of the investors.
                            And ultimately "risking" to fail the targets of the financial year.

                            And to be quite frank, the old ToU aren't really suitable to minimize the "risks" i'm talking about here.
                            I see your point, but then why didn't Paulo come clean about it? When he just mentions "risks" and possibly for whatever reason leaves out some thing legal may have told him, why does he fuel the speculation by not even hinting at the true risk he's talking about?
                            Audentes Fortuna Imperii

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by LTU932
                              I see your point, but then why didn't Paulo come clean about it? When he just mentions "risks" and possibly for whatever reason leaves out some thing legal may have told him, why does he fuel the speculation by not even hinting at the true risk he's talking about?
                              Hard to tell without really knowing the person tbh.
                              Well my post is pure guess work, and i might be terribly wrong.

                              Just to continue with the thought, maybe its because he is thinking that way?
                              There's a topic in the aviation discussion here called "Landing Light", when i opened that thread i thought about an illumination thing.
                              But the quiz was about landing a lighter-then-calculated aircraft.

                              Hope you see what i'm trying to say?
                              Where can i get one of those stylish JP.net banners? - Got it!

                              Comment


                              • Why does this even need 180 posts of debating?

                                The moment the term "legal" is even mentioned, leave!

                                Nobody should have to deal with anything with "legal" in it, unless one is paid to do it it.

                                This situation only arose in the first place because there are leaches around trying to benefit from your photos. It's either hobby or business; it can't be both.

                                But it was good while it lasted!
                                One who got away

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X