Got Photos on Airliners.net? READ THIS!

[DAL767-400ER]

Not if you are Royal King.

Who also just so happens to be a Head-Screener on A.net .

Double standards at its best, but let's keep this site focussed on JPnet, please.

Well, if you insist . You know what I hate about JP.net ?




.




.




.



Sorry, can't think of anything bad, need to go back to bashing A.net .

[Justin_AUS_Spotter]

Very little risk really. Whatever they decide to do in future, you will always be at liberty to demand deletion of all you photos if you so wish.

I am not a fan of A-Net but I do think people are being a little hysterical about the TOU and Pictopia. If you are really concerned that they will misuse your pictures there is only one safe thing to do and that is delete your photos but I do not believe that even A-Net will do anything so stupid that it forces members to start pulling pictures en masse.

Well then I'll keep my photos on there, as long as its under my name I could care less I don't find plane spotting as a way to make money rather an extremely fun and rewarding hobby

[Cloudhopper]

This is some interesting reading material, if only for the fact we learn what DM's "legal counsel" is like
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WIKILEAKS....d_Demand_Media

Wow, thats an interesting read.
If thats an indication of the direction DM is going with their property, we'll have stuff to feed this thread for months.

Thanks for that.

Please don't get me wrong, i never uploaded a pic to AN, but with the above in mind i'm glad about my decision.

[exmanx]

An interesting if confusing read. It does make one wonder at the possible motives and business practices of Demand Media. With the track record displayed there of the major stakeholders you have to question the wisdom of letting them take over the running of A.net.

I don't think selling pictures will be the problem, rather a cessation of activities for the slightest reason, which would signal the death knell of A.net as all the photographers who have kept their pictures on site would be demanding removal. Myself included.

A very dodgy pedigree indeed and this puts a decidedly different face on the whole affair.

Andy

[cja]

An interesting if confusing read. ........
......A very dodgy pedigree indeed and this puts a decidedly different face on the whole affair.

Andy

They are a business and so are in it for the money and I think that they have now realised that the main point of their business model is also its main flaw, (ie it relies on the goodwill of the screeners and contributors to survive). None of these peope are paid for what they do and so Demand have little if any control over them. If they lose the necessary goodwill to keep screeners and contributors motivated their capital investment and revenue will evaporate.

Not a very sound way to invest your money in my opinion. Johan must have laughed all the way to the bank.

[Chris@YYZ]

Johan must have laughed all the way to the bank.

I still wonder how much he made off the sale...

and I'd be interested to hear what he thinks of the whole situation.

[cja]

Chris

He is probably bound to confidentiality as part of the deal. If so he will be keeping his thoughts to himself.

[Bruce]

I still wonder how much he made off the sale...

a lot. but of course if they paid in usd then he got screwed because the dollar is worth crap hahaha

but seriously....I dont think jetphotos would sell for as much, if Chris ever wanted to sell.

[BA747-436]

One has to wonder why a company like DM would purchase A.net for a multi million doller sum. I mean what can they hope to make a substantial return on apart from the obvious advertising revenue? (which would take quite some time to get them into profit on their initial expenditure) There are other minor money spinners on that site but nothing substantial enough to turn them in a profit within quite a number of years.....except of course, the photography database. I have no doubt that their initial business plan had something outlining the commercial possibilities and use of all photos on the site for their benefit as a company. It was just a matter of 'how' to approach telling the thousands of up-loaders that this was going to be put into action. That has now been put in the mixing bowl (not as smooth and subtle a transition as they may have hoped for) and will no doubt spend the next few months being streamlined with legal jargon to make the up-loaders feel less irate about the initial plan of action to exchange pretty much all copyright from their work to DM. Have no doubt though, the overall concept will of course stay the same for DM; Making a substantial turnover using (your) photos. They just have to go back to their board meetings and figure out another strategy. I think they will soon find that hoping that a volunteer based crew will be happy to stay working for a site for (next to) nothing while their new management company finds ways to screw up the site that they have spent many years building to turn a dollar will quite possibly lead to the sites downfall and eventual possible demise if they continue down this road. knowledge and background research into the inner workings and creation and development of sites like Anet and JP are imperative before taking on such projects. It would seem DM has been somewhat 'gun ho' in their approach to the buy out. How Johan could possibly be smiling as he walks to the bank with his wad of cash is beyond me but it takes all types in the world of business and having a conscience is not always imperative.... I continue to think that we are hugely lucky to have someone running this site that not only cares hugely for it, but also its crew and the up-loaders and users. Lets face it without us as a Conglomerative, neither site would be anywhere near what they are today. Not something im sure DM or it would seem Johan has spent much time pondering.

[kukkudrill]

One has to wonder why a company like DM would purchase A.net for a multi million doller sum.

Millions of dollars? Not likely. What's your source?

[paulc]

Well - Anet have just lost my 2312 pictures & 2.3million views over the TOU's

[tommyalf]

Interesting note about Demand Media in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032402199.html

This is a classic dot com story...I'd love to know what their books read if they have turned a profit or not. I've stopped uploading to A.net, I just can't be bothered with the site anymore.

[BA747-436]

Millions of dollars? Not likely. What's your source?

And you know so much about the financial exchange that went on do you? Doesn't take a genius to work out a ball park figure giving the rough net income from advertising, membership payments and other income sources over there etc.... Have a think about it.

[brianw999]

Sooner or later the "volunteer" crew over there are going to catch on that the time they put in for a multi-media profit making company is worth a bit more than a free monitor and they are going to start thinking that they should be on a salary. When that happens I wouldn't hold my breath on Anet lasting much longer.

Yet again, a good example of a multinational conglomerate screwing the little man.

[tommyalf]

Sooner or later the "volunteer" crew over there are going to catch on that the time they put in for a multi-media profit making company is worth a bit more than a free monitor and they are going to start thinking that they should be on a salary. When that happens I wouldn't hold my breath on Anet lasting much longer.

Yet again, a good example of a multinational conglomerate screwing the little man.

I agree Brian. Even though Johan made a mint on A.net he was an enthusiast and you had the sense of you were helping the hobby by being on the crew. I still think A.net is still focused on the hobby but the fact a company owns it will put profit ahead of everything else. You know if A.net doesn't pay off for Demand they'll sell it or shut it down, that biz. I feel bad for the crew over there, the entire TOU debate was a slap in their face.