Hot photo

[UNWW]

I ask the screeners to help me figure it out. I posted a photo marked hot photo (a new type in the airline). Twice there was a rejection as incorrectly hot. Here is the link https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11488555 . The comments indicated that "the livery has not changed." What am I doing wrong?

[dlowwa]

I ask the screeners to help me figure it out. I posted a photo marked hot photo (a new type in the airline). Twice there was a rejection as incorrectly hot. Here is the link https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11488555 . The comments indicated that "the livery has not changed." What am I doing wrong?

Could you specify how the livery/appearance has changed since the most recently accepted image?

[UNWW]

Could you specify how the livery/appearance has changed since the most recently accepted image?

The livery has not changed. The ownership of the airline's aircraft has changed.

[ErwinS]

Sorry to say but this does not qualify as hot. Livery did not change. And to be fair she will never fly again, so preserved and or wrecks are also not hot.

[UNWW]

Sorry to say but this does not qualify as hot. Livery did not change. And to be fair she will never fly again, so preserved and or wrecks are also not hot.

Hello! I accepted that these are not hot photos. But when I posted it as hot, I was guided by the point:
(2.5 Hot Photo. 2. New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force. (including roll-outs or test flights at the factory).
The screeners' refusals were indicating that the livery had not changed. Although I did not declare it.
The refusal due to not changing the livery, I asked for clarification.

[dlowwa]

Hello! I accepted that these are not hot photos. But when I posted it as hot, I was guided by the point:
(2.5 Hot Photo. 2. New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force. (including roll-outs or test flights at the factory).
The screeners' refusals were indicating that the livery had not changed. Although I did not declare it.
The refusal due to not changing the livery, I asked for clarification.

There is no need for hot screening if the livery has not changed. Thank you for understanding.

[UNWW]

There is no need for hot screening if the livery has not changed. Thank you for understanding.

Thank you for clarifying. It would be nice to add this wording to section 2.5 so that there are no misunderstandings in the future.

[ErwinS]

Hello! I accepted that these are not hot photos. But when I posted it as hot, I was guided by the point:
(2.5 Hot Photo. 2. New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force. (including roll-outs or test flights at the factory).
The screeners' refusals were indicating that the livery had not changed. Although I did not declare it.
The refusal due to not changing the livery, I asked for clarification.

I did some further research and it seems she was allready since a long time owned by Intel Avia, ot Intal... so again also a reason not to be hot

[UNWW]

I did some further research and it seems she was allready since a long time owned by Intel Avia, ot Intal... so again also a reason not to be hot

I agree. But the photo I posted on JP was the first with this airline (and the only one). Right?
I added this airline to the JF database.

[Victor The Aviator]

The livery has not changed. The ownership of the airline's aircraft has changed.

Hi, as advised even if the owner changed if there is no change to the livery then is not hot.

[UNWW]

Hi, as advised even if the owner changed if there is no change to the livery then is not hot.

I repeat once again, I agree. I don't pretend to be a hot photo. Only this exception should be added to section 2.5, paragraph 2.

If this exception ("if the livery has not changed, then this is not a hot photo") is in the download rules, then show where?

[ErwinS]

Again, since 2005 she is or was with Intal Air. No livery change, no change if owner, stored for years, so zero reason for it to be hot.

[UNWW]

Again, since 2005 she is or was with Intal Air. No livery change, no change if owner, stored for years, so zero reason for it to be hot.

When I posted the photo, this plane did not have an airline (Airline: Untitled).
Now he has an airline listed.
Therefore:
either I made a mistake and did not pay attention to the fact that the airline is listed,
or during the screening process, the data under the photo was changed (airline affiliation was added).

I was also confused by the fact that I was told that the livery had not changed

I think the issue is closed. Sorry, I was wrong.