New A.net upload terms Photogs need to read

All of my shot's although there were only 5, that's 5 less for them. This is just rediculus. And to go into this shareholder thing, we are not shareholders, but we, we meaning the photographers could be see as them for the reason that if they start selling our photographs the money they make would essesntially be coming from our pockets. We spend $3000+ on equipment and then when we want to make some small revenue on our photo, they can just go to the all-mighty overpower and just make the sale and claim it as there own as if we were DM's children, and making shoes, just to have our parents sell them and we see no return. I'm done. My $.02

I posted the following editorial on the whole Anet TOU issue: http://nycaviation.com/editorials#derner021208

I've been the biggest of Anet fans and supporters for many years, but I hope those of you that might be somewhat passive in regards to this issue read what I wrote and see the importance of it for our hobby as a whole.

I still love the site, but part of me feels the place we've come to enjoy is not going to be the same.

I'm sorry but I did see a typo in the article. Coming from me who cares, as my grammar is the worst on any aviation site.

I'm sad that there was an omission in alternatives to a.net which my bias aside are plenty. A.net deserves to loose it's clientèle because it broke the cardinal rule and transformed from hobby to business. EDS used to be a great company until Ross Perot sold it and now it's steadily declining for a lack of un-enthused participants from the CEO to the lowest of the lowly employee. DM is under the delusion that they will be able to recover from this, and while for the next few months and maybe even years it will appear that the users will try to keep it going. The sad reality is that a.net had it's day in the sun, and now it's twilight. It's time for people to move to sites like this one, JP.net and my site and force airwhiners to re-invent itself. While it's sad to see an 'old friend' in a.net go, it's time to realize like Old Yeller, the body of our friend is there, but the friend we knew has long since died.

Please feel free to E-mail me TedTAce at gmail dot com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuart schechter

All of my shot's although there were only 5, that's 5 less for them. This is just rediculus. And to go into this shareholder thing, we are not shareholders, but we, we meaning the photographers could be see as them for the reason that if they start selling our photographs the money they make would essesntially be coming from our pockets. We spend $3000+ on equipment and then when we want to make some small revenue on our photo, they can just go to the all-mighty overpower and just make the sale and claim it as there own as if we were DM's children, and making shoes, just to have our parents sell them and we see no return. I'm done. My $.02

---

i too chose to remove my name from the site. you jsut can't trust anyone after they drop a bombshell like that one. anyone else here remove thier pix from the site? i don't regret making that decision, just am glad that the best of my work is still available for anyone to view.

having been mum for a while, I think most of you are over reacting to a degree.

They posted this thing to be read and right up front, they said nothing would take affect until it was read.

So they had the good sense to have their users, who in turn acted as lawyers, scrutinize the document.
Therefore the matter of "trust" is nonsense.

Further, people dog Anet/DM for trying to run a business. Meanwhile, Kilroy took advantage of a business opportunity and further HIS business. Yet no one is dogging Kilroy.

Both sites will prosper. Its nothing more than a BA vs Virgin competition. And JP is Virgin, taking advantage of a screw up.

No need for the melodramatics by some!

On the Anet boards, MANY people are dogging Kilroy.

I do not feel the same as you Mario. My views also differ from Moose. But what I found out that what they tried to do was flat out illegal and it could not holdup in court if Anet did use the image of a user that did not know about it. Anet can not take away the copyright from a user simply because they needed to contact them within 30 days. In Most countries, this will go against copyright laws. You can not change the wording of a contract after the fact to change a copyright. They can have a disclaimer that they can change the rules at any time without notice, but the copyright is not a rule and can not be changed without a new contract PERIOD. My question still stands....DO NEW USERS still have to agree to the contract? It would be legal for the new users to sign a contract.

On a side note, just because you post a picture on a website that says any photos that you post are property of the forum and or website and can be reused. I found out that if the said site does use the picture to make a profit, the person who took the picture and has a copyright will have legal recourse. You can not transfer a copyright or share a copyright that way. IT DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT and it will NOT hold up in any court with an elcheapo lawer in you corner.

I think I would have used more fireworks and color If I made Chris Kilroy's email. Anet this turned the aviation photography community on its head an almost all Anet users were upset.....I do not understand how you were upset by this as anyone in his shoes would have done the same exact thing. Why would he not want to plug his website 24/7. If he did not, Jetphots would suck because he would not have put enough effort in to make it half as good. I am sure that he was just as upset as Me, Tommy, Phil, and many others that posted they were "Upset" about not knowing what a company that was discussing "STEALING" the rights from the photographer (according to the letter of the Copyright law). DM Lawers are not that smart as this just takes one picture with very wide distribution to create a lawsuit to "change the wording".

I spoke to a Copyright Lawer and got facts. If you do not believe me, you too can speak to one for a little more clarification on why what they did requires a contract to be done over...not just a "were taking your photos in 30 days for what ever we want....but WERE NICE and will do the right thing.....TRUST US!"


Mario, Someone taking control over any other photographers photos and getting upset is photography community is NOT overreacting in my book. Every Anet user was about to loose control over their own Copyright and I feel STRONGLY that being upset and voiceing their opinion was not even close to an overreaction. I also think Moose off too. I like that we can take our views here and voice them....but I still love you guys....IN A MANLY BEER DRINKING WAY.

Fred, simply stated, this was the opening line by flyheligril on Anet, before the TOU/PP came out:

The new Terms of Use and Privacy Policy for Airliners.net will be live tomorrow. I want to start this thread as a platform to ask any questions related to the new Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. I'll post when they are live tomorrow.

So even before it posted, she gave a heads up and put it out for discussion. I think some have the false perception that DM is trying to pull the shades over our eyes when its clear they didn't.

Did they make a mistake? It seems clearly so.
Are they fixing in? " " " "

Otherwise, yes, most photographers would be gone and that is not what they are looking for.

A.net has posted new terms for review, with a 7 day comment period. Here are the new terms:
http://www.airliners.net/reviewtermsofuse/

And here's the thread with the photo-specific terms, as well as a place to comment or ask questions:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/av ... in/302115/

Quote:

---

1. Procedure. At any time Airliners.net may change these Terms, which includes the Privacy Policy and any other agreement that is incorporated by reference into these Terms. We will provide notice to you of any material change in the Terms by posting notice to the Site and sending you an email to your Airliners.net email account or to the non- Airliners.net email address that we have on record for you. Your continued use of the Service 30 days after our notice to you of a change in the Terms will mean that you have agreed to be bound by the amended Terms. As used in this Agreement, "Terms" means and includes these Terms of Use as amended from time to time in accordance with this Section 2(a).

---

Seems like a complete 180° here.

The whole thing is pretty much opposite of the first revision.

Quote:

---

1. Procedure. At any time Airliners.net may change these Terms, which includes the Privacy Policy and any other agreement that is incorporated by reference into these Terms. We will provide notice to you of any material change in the Terms by posting notice to the Site and sending you an email to your Airliners.net email account or to the non- Airliners.net email address that we have on record for you. Your continued use of the Service 30 days after our notice to you of a change in the Terms will mean that you have agreed to be bound by the amended Terms. As used in this Agreement, "Terms" means and includes these Terms of Use as amended from time to time in accordance with this Section 2(a).

---

I read the new TOU and it seems acceptable to me, but this one paragraph makes me shudder to think that they have adjusted the terms to calm everyone down for now. I presume the above paragraph was inserted so that they can change the TOU again at a later date without too much uproar...as we were "warned" this might happen.

That does protect us, too. Any TOU will say that they can change it at any time, but unlike most, this one actualyl says that we will be notified and have 30 days to bow out if we don't like it. That's actually a good thing.

I didn't read all of it, but everything I did see looked good.

Frankly, even with this new TOU I do not feel I would like to continue to contribute to the daabase at Airliners. To me when Johan sold out to Demand the website lost it's appeal to me. To me it is nothing more than a site I go to so I can enjoy the armchair banter of the Forum's. It is no longer a hobby site to me but another coorperate asset. Let the 15 year olds have it to themselves. Jetphotos has my business for now on. As much as they say that they are an aviation loving company it is sheerly a profit for them. I understand it is also a business but it is not a passion to those people. Sorry Mario but Airliners is no more what it once was. It is a shame because without that site the community would be a very spaced out and un established community really. NYCA and JP will be my two hobby sites for now on.

Frankly, even with this new TOU I do not feel I would like to continue to contribute to the daabase at Airliners. To me when Johan sold out to Demand the website lost it's appeal to me. To me it is nothing more than a site I go to so I can enjoy the armchair banter of the Forum's. It is no longer a hobby site to me but another coorperate asset. Let the 15 year olds have it to themselves. Jetphotos has my business for now on. As much as they say that they are an aviation loving company it is sheerly a profit for them. I understand it is also a business but it is not a passion to those people. Sorry Mario but Airliners is no more what it once was. It is a shame because without that site the community would be a very spaced out and un established community really. NYCA and JP will be my two hobby sites for now on.

Has anyone noticed JP.net is about a couple months from 'closing the deal' on a.net?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedTAce

Has anyone noticed JP.net is about a couple months from 'closing the deal' on a.net?

---

Proof?

Sounds like opinion anyway, so no proof is needed.

It was just really out there, abstract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedTAce

Has anyone noticed JP.net is about a couple months from 'closing the deal' on a.net?

---

What do you mean, 'closing the deal?' Do you mean surpassing A.net in terms of the amount of photos in the database? If so that is true, not opinion, and not a secret. Based on the number of uploads we are seeing at JP.net we expect this to happen by December if not sooner (we hope sooner ;) ). Yes of course we don't hold our users to the same standards as A.net but traffic at JP.net has surged by over 50% in terms of both visitors and uploads in the last year. As an example in the last 24 hours there were approx 1600 photos uploaded to the queue at Jp.net. I think the days of the queue being at 0 are gone; it’s a struggle to keep it below 6000 lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

As an example in the last 24 hours there were approx 1600 photos uploaded to the queue at Jp.net. I think the days of the queue being at 0 are gone; it’s a struggle to keep it below 6000 lately.

---

That said, even with 6,000+ in the JP queue, I still get my photos screened in no more than 4 days. The folks there keep the line moving.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the "deal closed" decisively soon after (if ever) JP moves its forums away from Avatars & the like.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuart schechter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedTAce

Has anyone noticed JP.net is about a couple months from 'closing the deal' on a.net?

---

Proof?

---

In the words of the 'wizard', pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Some users jsut pop in here after 2 posts with merely an axe to grind.