As a result of a complaint to Headscreeners this FlickR user was brought to my attention and so far as I can see every image on it under aviation has been taken from this site. What is weird is that the airliners.net footer is intact on most but the FlickR user has applied his own copyright marks, obviously a nonsense.
I have made a complaint to FlickR about my misused images and in general terms on behalf of other contributors here but take a look and follow the complaints procedures at the bottom of the page

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dwissman/


Mick Bajcar

Mick, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I had to trawl through quite a few pages before I found one of mine. I've completed the complaint procedure as well, mentioning that he had used lots of images from here.

Interestingly, the cheeky bugger includes his email address in his fraudulent copyright notice - dale@wissman.net

Mick - is this not an example where individuals' complaints should be backed up by some 'higher' authority from the site/DM? Clearly his theft of images is to the detriment of the site, as well as individual photographers, because he is enabling A.net-hosted images to be viewed without having to go through the site - hence a cost to the site owners.

The more complaints the better, though I would have thought a legally worded email/communication from DM or their legal guys might have a more powerful effect on his behaviour than those from individual photographers, whom he clearly has no respect for or fear of, otherwise he would not have stolen the images and brainlessly tried to 'copyright' them for himself.

Paul

Paul
The dilemma is that DM do not own the copyright and if a photographer does not mind their photos being so used/abused, that is their choice.
I have however complained on behalf of all and it may be that FlickR will take them all down on that basis but it is better if more people whose images are used actually complain.
DM are in fact in a very similar position to FlickR, they host images with good faith that the photographer holds the copyright and remove any that we find are in breach of it. On this site though, images are screened, on FlickR they are not so we filter a lot out, they act on complaints

Mick

Quoting dendrobatid (Thread starter):

Mick,

thanks for that. We all should file a complain, maybe something will be done. But how weird is it to put his own copyright into the picture   

wilco737
  

He's even posted them with the title "AirlinersnetphotoidXXXXXX". Where's the sense in that?!

Thanks Mick,

I have sent my complaint to flickr and I hope they receive many complaints from those whose copyright has been abused by this individual. If flickr wants to retain any credibility, they must act on this quickly.

John Olafson

Gents,

He has one of mine, so have also followed the Flickr complaint procedure.

Gary

Thanks Mick! I did the same thing I have got one there.

Mehdi.

Quoting beaverhunter (Reply 6): I hope they receive many complaints from those whose copyright has been abused by this individual.

The one issue I can see is that he has a lot of images - I very nearly gave up looking to see if any were mine after about ten pages. I also only used the first one I found for a complaint, hopefully Flikr will shut him down rather than only remove specific images that have been noticed.

I've found one of mine and logged it with Flickr.

Its quite simple to submit a complaint using the Yahoo! Copyright and Intellectual Property Infringement Complaint Form:

http://help.yahoo.com/l/uk/yahoo/copyright/general.html

Mark

There are quite a few blanks now so it looks as though FlickR only take the images down where there are complaints, I guess until a breaking point is reached.
I have actually e-mailed a few dozen people too.

Mick Bajcar

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 11): I have actually e-mailed a few dozen people too.

Thank you Mick for the heads up!

by the way, here is the person ?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dwissman/7152372035/in/photostream

Quoting mkwiat (Reply 10): I've found one of mine and logged it with Flickr.

I've done the same.

Quoting eksath (Reply 12): Thank you Mick for the heads up!

agreed. thanks!

Better watch out... starting on about page 37 is a series of pictures titled "Dale's Collection of Tactical Weapons." This guy looks to be packing some serious heat.

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 14): Better watch out... starting on about page 37 is a series of pictures titled "Dale's Collection of Tactical Weapons." This guy looks to be packing some serious heat.

Jeez, I'll say! Quite a few guns there.

I am beginning to think that perhaps this guy thinks he's being legal, especially given that he left the a.net copyright on. Also, he left the by: ........... tag on too. Perhaps he just wanted to share the images, and wasn't sure how to do so. Now, before ya'll jump down my throat, I think what he is doing is very wrong, and unjust, as well as very muchin violation of the copyright. I don't condone the behavior, nor do I think it is correct. Like I said, maybe he made an honest mistake and isn't sure how to properly share or link the images. He should have taken a look at the link page before doing this, though.

Quoting Psych (Reply 2):

Hi Paul - All

As Mick noted Demand Media host the images and the photographers hold the copyright which limits what they can do. That said I have made a more formal complaint on behalf of all photographers affected by this persons misuse of their images. Additionally I am asking the legal team if there is anything we can do in relation to misuse of the Airliners.net trademark.

Some images still retained the watermark which meant that the person is a member of the site, we have found their account and permanently banned them from the site. Any further accounts found to be owned or created by them will also be removed.

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 11):

It appears images are being removed and I encourage those who are affected to contact any of their friends if their images are also being misused. There are some who may not read the forum and I'll write to them as well.

Thanks and regards

Paul

Found one of mine as well. Has anyone filed a complaint via Yahoo Canada? The page it takes me to says I have to physically mail them a letter detailing the copyright infringment. Seems a little unusual.

I found a few belonging to friends and gave them a heads up. Over on FB there was a discussion about this, and someone found this from May 2012...

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/pos...ifestory&pid=157774754#fbLoggedOut

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 14): Better watch out... starting on about page 37 is a series of pictures titled "Dale's Collection of Tactical Weapons." This guy looks to be packing some serious heat.

Yeah, I wouldn't really worry about it at this point.....
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/pos...ifestory&pid=157774754#fbLoggedOut

Oops you beat me to it Moose. Thanks Joe for bringing this to our attention. I was ready to start a witch hunt.

All the flickr photos have this on them: Request to license DWissman's photos via Getty Images. Hopefully a professional agency would be smart enough to realize there are 2 different copyrights on the photos.

[Edited 2013-01-02 21:39:48]

Quoting moose135 (Reply 18): http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/pos...edOut

Thanks for the info.


I guess that puts a new twist and damper on things. His last upload is on May 07th. The obituary states a May 12th demise.

However, i still think the pictures need to be taken down. I certainly don't want my pics getting "rebranded" and circulated by others - dead or alive.

Quoting Dazed767 (Reply 19): All the flickr photos have this on them: Request to license DWissman's photos via Getty Images. Hopefully a professional agency would be smart enough to realize there are 2 different copyrights on the photos.

All that means is that a Flickr user is allowing Ghetty to invite the photos for licensing through their service. If Ghetty was interested in them, they would contact the photographer with an invitation to join their service.

I had that request to license thing set on my photos and eventually 6 of my photos were selected. I had to go through a formal process that involved uploading high res versions. So really, that request to license thing you see on his page doesn't mean much in this situation. No ones stolen photos are being licensed out through Flickr.

There are rather more important things to worrry about than one of my photos being on someone else's Flickr account.

Over it already.

2 derekf :

Maybe so, but one of my pictures ended up in an online article with the logo of this person on it and credited to him.

[Edited 2013-01-03 15:31:57]

So what can you about it? Nothing, the person's dead now. Did he ever make any money out of it? I doubt it.
Is it important in the grand scheme of things? No.

Thanks to Mick for flagging it up but I can't get excited about it. Slightly flattered by it though.

I don't care if he made any money out of it. I just want to have my photos with the name of another person (dead or alive) on them removed.

Derek
By him displaying the work as his own he has allowed (copied from his conditions on FlickR)

You are free:
to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
to make commercial use of the work

I give masses of my images away (most days) to enthusiasts groups etc but ALWAYS charge for commercial use. The point is that for MY images, that is MY choice under MY control. He took my control over my work away by putting his copyright and conditions on MY work. Andrei has already had his work used without his control and there must surely be others.

I want to retain that control and wrote to you personally to give you the option to do the same.
So you were mildly flattered?

I most certainly am not. I was and remain offended on my own behalf and of those whose work he also stole. Why should someone paying for a helicopter to fly over LAX then have someone else saying that it is okay for them to be used freely ? It has happened on more than one occasion on this FlickR account.

Paul McCarthy has tried to get the account closed on behalf of us all but it looks as though FlickR are only acting on complaints and perhaps soon yours will be the only one on that FlickR account, but that will also be your choice.

Mine have gone now.....

Mick Bajcar

I haven't got the time or inclination get botherd by this- its only one photo. One photo that has appeared all over the internet so far. I found the same image in a Powerpoint presentation of cool aeroplane images that went round the web a few years ago - now that was flattering. What could I do about it? Absolutely nothing.

If you don't want your photos stolen, don't upload them to the internet.

Quoting derekf (Reply 27): What could I do about it? Absolutely nothing.

Yes, there is a lot you can do. And simply ignoring photo theft is not the correct thing in my opinion.

Quoting derekf (Reply 27): If you don't want your photos stolen, don't upload them to the internet.

Well, if you take pictures, you want to share them with people, and the internet and social media are good ways in doing so. But people simply ignore it. And if ALL photographers file a complaint everytime they see stolen pictures, there is a chance it actually helps.

My 2 € cents.

wilco737
  

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 28): And simply ignoring photo theft is not the correct thing in my opinion.

And you are, of course, entitled to it.

I tend to concur with Derek on this one. Images uploaded to the internet are prone to theft. It's the price you pay for the ego boost   . You either accept it, or don't upload.

You can mitigate any impact of the theft by only uploading low resolution files or watermarking etc. but as we've seen in this example it doesn't stop some from simply adding their own claim to copyright.

Quoting Jez (Reply 29): And you are, of course, entitled to it.

Thanks   

Quoting Jez (Reply 29): You can mitigate any impact of the theft by only uploading low resolution files or watermarking etc. but as we've seen in this example it doesn't stop some from simply adding their own claim to copyright.

On facebook I add a huge watermark with my name on it. But that ruins a lot of the picture as it is distracting, but this is the only way to act at the moment. Sad, but true. Even on my website I added that watermark. Pretty much in the middle of the picture, but that is the only way to make it a little harder for photo thieves.

Quoting Jez (Reply 29): It's the price you pay for the ego boost

Nothing to do with ego boost. But I guess every artist want to share his work somehow. I don't consider myself as an artist, but it is my work and I want to share it with people.

wilco737
  

The page with the stolen photos is gone now.

Case closed, I'd say.

Thierry

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 30): Even on my website I added that watermark.

I do the same. It's just what you have to do. I don't consider watermarking as ruining the image either - in rare cases my sensibilities, as somebody who does graphic design for a living, have actually led me to frame a photo that intentionally creates a natural space for a watermark. But often times when I'm not photographing planes, I'm intentionally creating lots of negative space around my subject so I can put text and design elements around it.

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 26): Paul McCarthy has tried to get the account closed on behalf of us all but it looks as though FlickR are only acting on complaints and perhaps soon yours will be the only one on that FlickR account, but that will also be your choice.

As of this morning, the account appears to have been deactivated. A couple of my images were up there and I had them open in tabs yesterday but was too busy to deal with it (and have been too busy or in transit or whatever since Mick sent me a message about it - thank you, btw), looking at the tabs this morning, they auto-refreshed to "this member is no longer active."

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 30): I don't consider myself as an artist, but it is my work and I want to share it with people.

Maybe you should, maybe we all should.

Years ago I actually did manage to make a small amount of money doing only fine art - screen prints, lithos, painting - but not enough to live on. That is a hard life if you aren't already wealthy, and I wanted to do more conventional things. I think with nearly 2 million views on my photos here (a paltry sum compared to those who've been doing this longer and are better at it), it's fair to say more people have seen my airplane photos than have seen all of my more "traditional" artwork combined, although those views are still far outnumbered by people who've seen advertisements or publications I've worked on. But that's not the same. Those things are only partly what I wanted to do, mostly what the client wanted. The airplane photos are what I wanted to show, framed on my terms. And I just love taking the pictures. The airplane photos have been more enjoyable "artwork" than anything I've done in years.

I've also done reproduction photography for art galleries, and I've personally handled artwork by people like Renoir, Miro, or Picasso, and photos by people as diverse as Man Ray, Nan Goldin, Eikoh Hosoe, etc. What qualifies as "fine art" is necessarily up to the artist - and I've seen many photos here that would really impress some much more traditional artists and art experts who I know well. I was a bit let down this year when an art book of plane photos (all taken directly under the planes, seen in plan form) came out and people liked - I found it dull and derivative. Much more exciting and compelling stuff to be seen here.

All my friends, including some who are professional artists, like and respect my enthusiasm for the airplanes. I don't think that a sunny side-on (and I've done plenty of those) reflects much "artistry" necessarily, but others certainly do. I uploaded one photo recently that I felt was more of an art shot than a documentarian shot, and it made me very happy to share it.

We're a subset of artists, to be sure.

Quoting derekf (Reply 27): I haven't got the time or inclination get botherd by this-

You seem to be bothered by the fact that WE do care about what happens to OUR photos, or else, why would you be participating in this discussion. You spoke your peace in reply 22. What else can you bring to this conversation?

[Edited 2013-01-04 09:50:12]

Well pardon me for joining in a discussion. On a discussion forum.
I wasn't sure whether you wanted a reply or not as obviously once I've said my piece, that's it.

I couldn't care less what you do with your photos, in much the same way that that I don't much care about what some sad (now deceased) person did with them on Flickr. If that's all you have to worry about then fair enough - I've got got more important things to be concerned with - like my "art"  

Quoting derekf (Reply 34): Well pardon me for joining in a discussion. On a discussion forum.

Quoting derekf (Reply 34): I've got got more important things to be concerned with

You keep saying that, yet you're still here, discussing the fact that you have more important things to be concerned with.

Stop claiming that you are better than everyone because you have important things to be concerned with and we are slack jaw idiots who have nothing better to do with our time than hunting photo thieves.

I'm heading back to finish working on world peace. I would have finished by now, but I've been concerned with this discussion.

Quoting derekf (Reply 34):

For someone who doesn't care, you are spending a lot of effort saying so and you're coming off as condescending towards the folks who do care.

Anyway, it appears the case is now closed.

The vast majority of people were upset to see this guy displaying their images as his own and the intention of this thread was to get them removed.
That has satisfactorily been achieved and this thread will now be locked
Mick Bajcar