Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No Photo Sales Of Alaska Airlines Aircraft?  
User currently offlineXpfg From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 633 posts, RR: 7
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5396 times:

Well, I just got this e-mail, and find it somewhat twisted. I know Johan tried, but is it really within Alaska's right to say who can and can't sell their own photos?

Here is the email:

"I am sorry to say that Airliners.net has been contacted by Alaska Airlines
and Horizon Air requesting that we remove all photos of their aircraft from
our photo print sales section. I initially refused but they then contacted
Photobox, the UK based company that handles the printing and shipping for
us and they were not as willing to fight this as I am.

Therefore, all photos showing an Alaska Airlines or Horizon Air aircraft
have been removed from the print sales section. They are still in our
photo database but the ability to buy a print of them has been removed.

You are receiving this email because one or more of your photos were
effected by this change. I am very sorry for the inconvenience.

Best Regards,
Johan Lundgren
Airliners.net
http://www.airliners.net"

76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5397 times:

I just got this email as well.

I am going to ask Alaska to provide a legal basis for their request. The best I can figure, they were in a public place when the photos were taken. I cannot see how any privacy laws would protect their claim.


User currently offlineEK20 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5378 times:

Quoting Xpfg (Thread starter):
is it really within Alaska's right to say who can and can't sell their own photos?

It seems like a harsh reaction but I guess so. It's no different to say, taking the photo of a pilot. Without that pilot's permission then you don't really have the right to sell a photo of them. The difficulty here is that you are taking pictures from a public place. However, it's still their property. But I guess we would never see a photo of Britney Spears in the news if this was ever enforced by the law.

Difficult subject. Personally, I feel they are over-reacting but what can you do? Are you prepared to test the law?
 Confused


User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5380 times:

I wish I could get some contact information for Alaska. I really don't want to call them and I would love to know who specifically would be best to contact...

User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5379 times:

Quoting EK20 (Reply 2):
However, it's still their property.

... Their property which they actively put into a public place. Also, it is not like a 739 is a celebrity which can be the target of harassment or undue media attention.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5355 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I believe they can make a legitimate case by saying that you are profiting from their copyrights, IE logo, and that would be in their right. There has been talk of this for a while, look for more airlines to follow suit.

And don't confuse a photo being run in the press as being the same thing as selling prints of a photo.

Royal


User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5350 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
profiting from their copyrights

I think that would hedge on intent. The photos are not designed to rip-off their trademark; rather, the photograph has artistic merit.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5346 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

such an argument could probably be made for a 'one-off,' but not if you are mass producing...

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11422 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5348 times:

Quoting EK20 (Reply 2):
Without that pilot's permission then you don't really have the right to sell a photo of them.

This isn't the law. At least, it is not the law in the US.

Quoting EK20 (Reply 2):
However, it's still their property.

The plane is their property. The photograph of the plane is certainly not their property. The copyright belongs solely to the photographer that took the photo, unless he assigns ownership in whole or in part to a third party.


I just sold a print of an Alaska Airlines jet to an Alaska Airlines pilot, btw.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5332 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
such an argument could probably be made for a 'one-off,' but not if you are mass producing...

That is the thing, it is a per-print sale. It is not like anyone has gone down to Costco and printed out 10,000 photographs to sell on the street.  Smile


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11422 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5333 times:

There are cases in copyright textbooks that discuss this. When I get home from work, I'll look them up. I'm pretty sure this is slam dunk.

People have tried to argue copyright infringement against photographers who have taken photographs of people, buildings, and other objects in public. These arguments have been shot down.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5321 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
People have tried to argue copyright infringement against photographers who have taken photographs of people, buildings, and other objects in public. These arguments have been shot down.

For what it's worth, I wrote a very polite email to the Seattle PI earlier.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5320 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html

Here is the part that gives you the right to take a picture of (as an example) an Alaska Airlines jet

(e) Infringing Article Defined. - As used in this section, an "infringing article" is any article the design of which has been copied from a design protected under this chapter, without the consent of the owner of the protected design. An infringing article is not an illustration or picture of a protected design in an advertisement, book, periodical, newspaper, photograph, broadcast, motion picture, or similar medium. A design shall not be deemed to have been copied from a protected design if it is original and not substantially similar in appearance to a protected design.

IE you can take a photo.

But, you can't manufacturer it...

(a) Acts of Infringement. - Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be infringement of the exclusive rights in a design protected under this chapter for any person, without the consent of the owner of the design, within the United States and during the term of such protection, to -

(1) make, have made, or import, for sale or for use in trade, any infringing article as defined in subsection (e); or

(2) sell or distribute for sale or for use in trade any such infringing article.


User currently offlineLOCsta From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 306 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5320 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was told that airline shots can't be used as stock photography because of copyright infringements due to logo's.


Missed 4 chasing 1
User currently offlineXpfg From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 633 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5320 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
I believe they can make a legitimate case by saying that you are profiting from their copyrights, IE logo, and that would be in their right. There has been talk of this for a while, look for more airlines to follow suit.

Firstly, it's not like sales on here are worth making a living off of. Sales produce more cash through magazine sales on here than they do in an overall sell amount for any one photo. I've been here for 3 years now, and am barely about to make the $50 mark for a.net photo sales. Magazine sales on the other hand...that's a different story.

We are technically a form of media...artistic or not, and hobby or not. How we utilize it (sales or not) may vary. I guess I just really don't see where AS is coming from, or any airline for that matter. There's no grounds here, and as said, many cases that have gone to court or been argued have pretty much always gone in favor of the photographer.

I'm not a genius, but I'm pretty sure I understand the law in this matter. I've read up on this stuff a lot mainly due to the 9/11 aftermath of thoughts regarding legal vs. not for taking airline photos, etc.

[Edited 2007-03-08 22:57:09]

User currently offlineXpfg From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 633 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12):
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html

Here is the part that gives you the right to take a picture of (as an example) an Alaska Airlines jet

(e) Infringing Article Defined. - As used in this section, an "infringing article" is any article the design of which has been copied from a design protected under this chapter, without the consent of the owner of the protected design. An infringing article is not an illustration or picture of a protected design in an advertisement, book, periodical, newspaper, photograph, broadcast, motion picture, or similar medium. A design shall not be deemed to have been copied from a protected design if it is original and not substantially similar in appearance to a protected design.

IE you can take a photo.

But, you can't manufacturer it...

(a) Acts of Infringement. - Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be infringement of the exclusive rights in a design protected under this chapter for any person, without the consent of the owner of the design, within the United States and during the term of such protection, to -

(1) make, have made, or import, for sale or for use in trade, any infringing article as defined in subsection (e); or

(2) sell or distribute for sale or for use in trade any such infringing article.

So are you saying that pretty much every sale we ever make to a magazine is deemed an infringement? Something seems fishy, and too simple there. If that was the case, I think the magazine publishers would be a bit more hesitant.


User currently offlineEK20 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5305 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
don't confuse a photo being run in the press as being the same thing as selling prints of a photo.

It's exactly the same as far as I'm concerned since I have had photo's from this site sold to the press.
I can't really see how airlines can do this. The more worrying concern I see is people not declaring their earnings from any photo sales and therefore not paying tax on them but that all depends on how many you sell. But for most of us this is just a hobby not a career. The amount of photo's we sell hardly covers a cup of tea at the airport!


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12):
But, you can't manufacturer it...

(a) Acts of Infringement. - Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be infringement of the exclusive rights in a design protected under this chapter for any person, without the consent of the owner of the design, within the United States and during the term of such protection, to -

(1) make, have made, or import, for sale or for use in trade, any infringing article as defined in subsection (e); or

(2) sell or distribute for sale or for use in trade any such infringing article.

Not sure I get your drift. If you're saying you can take photos but not reproduce them, that's not my interpretation. If a photo does not count as an infringing article, then this passage simply does not apply to photos.



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12):
But, you can't manufacturer it...

(a) Acts of Infringement. - Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be infringement of the exclusive rights in a design protected under this chapter for any person, without the consent of the owner of the design, within the United States and during the term of such protection, to -

(1) make, have made, or import, for sale or for use in trade, any infringing article as defined in subsection (e); or

(2) sell or distribute for sale or for use in trade any such infringing article.

I really don't see how that applies. None of us manufactured an article in its original form or in whole. We did not get a plane and slap an AS logo on it.

By the way, photographs ARE protected:

Quote:

e) Infringing Article Defined. - As used in this section, an "infringing article" is any article the design of which has been copied from a design protected under this chapter, without the consent of the owner of the protected design. An infringing article is not an illustration or picture of a protected design in an advertisement, book, periodical, newspaper, photograph, broadcast, motion picture, or similar medium. A design shall not be deemed to have been copied from a protected design if it is original and not substantially similar in appearance to a protected design.


User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5291 times:

Quoting EK20 (Reply 16):
It's exactly the same as far as I'm concerned since I have had photo's from this site sold to the press.
I can't really see how airlines can do this. The more worrying concern I see is people not declaring their earnings from any photo sales and therefore not paying tax on them but that all depends on how many you sell. But for most of us this is just a hobby not a career. The amount of photo's we sell hardly covers a cup of tea at the airport!

As I quoted above, see § 1309(e).

By the way, "§ 1321. Remedy for infringement" empowers everyone with an AS photo for past sale with courses of remedy.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5291 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Well. first of all, I am not saying anything...the government is. And Alaska, or any other copyright holder, is simply asking that we follow the law(s). A photo, be it on a website or a magazine, isn't going to catch the wrath of a company, after all, it is advertising. But, when you take a photo, and mass produce it, some companies, Alaska in this case, feels that crosses the line.

There have been plane owners that have contacted this website and had photos of their stuff pulled off, due to copyright laws.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5285 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

the use of the word "article" means something tangible, not a press story  Smile

A photograph is protected. That is why Alaska hasn't said "Remove photos of all Alaska Airlines from your website" but when a copy of said photo is made, you are selling a "copy" not a "photo" therefore it is not protected.


User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5282 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20):
But, when you take a photo, and mass produce it, some companies, Alaska in this case, feels that crosses the line.



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20):
There have been plane owners that have contacted this website and had photos of their stuff pulled off, due to copyright laws.

One's interpretations of the law is a far cry from how the law can actually be applied.

If you re-read section (e) though, I am still very confidant that a photo, even for sale, is not an "infringing article" which means the aforementioned sections would not apply.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5275 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Well, read the first chapter, it will set you straight:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Can't really see what the big deal is, but if it is important to you why not hire a copyright lawyer?


User currently offlineXpfg From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 633 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 23):

Can't really see what the big deal is, but if it is important to you why not hire a copyright lawyer?

It's not necessary, that's why. However, if this continues to persist from other airlines, as you yourself has stated, I want to know who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Let's not have a piss fest....just mutual understanding and see if we can't all come to a decent conclusion.

I understand it one way, but then, Clickhappy, your post counteracts what I initially thought was the law. Other people on here may be able to interpret what applies to us and what doesn't in these situations better than myself or others and just straight forwardly dashing for some lawyer.

Knowledge, after all, isn't a bad thing to have you know.

[Edited 2007-03-08 23:52:41]

25 D L X : A copy of aphoto is a photo. You own the copyright on the photo you authored (took). The word copyright actually comes from "having the right to copy
26 Ryan h : An easier thing to do is everyone on anet vows to boycott airlines that over react in this way. What is the difference of having the photos in the da
27 Post contains links D L X : I'm not sure that's easier... Bottom line is that the US courts would not allow companies to assert copyright protection against photographers taking
28 Xpfg : The way that I read the statements from Clickhappy, is that it applies to original content. IE, a logo. So, a photo that I took is an original that I
29 Domokun : That is how I interpreted it as well. I would advocate that nobody let someone walk all over them just because something seems permissible.
30 JeffM : Put it into perspective this way.... Take a photograph of a can of Coke, try and sell it, or use the image on some t-shirts, etc. Coke won't like it,
31 CalgaryBill : There seems to be a lot of confusion about copyright law here, but Royal has pretty much nailed it. I've been involved in protecting copyright both as
32 TransIsland : Doesn't it also depend on whether or not the logo is the main object of the photo (which is why Johan has outlawed close-ups of them) or whether it h
33 Clickhappy : Because Photobox knows more about this than any of us, and they know Alaska is right. This isn't criminal law, it would be a civil matter, and Alaska
34 Graphic : Wasn't a case involving the painting of a Coca Cola stand as part of an overall racetrack scene the case that wrote this whole set of copyright law?
35 D L X : 1) That would be overturned on appeal, as you have no right to anonymity when photographed in a public place. 2) That is not copyright law. Absolutel
36 Domokun : This is the Right of Publicity and is not really on the same legal plane, IMHO. By bowing into the pressure, I would think most airlines will follow
37 Mikephotos : People are mixing things up here. To put it simply, AS has no problem with the actual taking of the image and the image being copyrighted by the photo
38 D L X : That can't be true. If AS has no problem with photographers having the copyright, then they implicitly have no problem with those photographers selli
39 Clickhappy : No building built after (going from memory here) after 1991 is public domain, and therefore cannot be photographed. And the name of the airline isn't
40 Post contains links CalgaryBill : I'd love to see the statute on that one. If the builder can claim it's a piece of art and it's a major component of the image, good luck copying it.
41 Raptors : I must say that this issue brings something else to the attention. Whether Alaska are right, or not, the money we can make from ticking the photo sale
42 Post contains images Jan Mogren : /JM
43 Post contains links D L X : http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#120 Yes, architectural works are protected, however pictorial representations of those works (photograp
44 D L X : Johan, what did the Alaska letter look like?
45 Mikephotos : It's is TRUE, 100% true. You cannot take a picture of Alaska's (or any) logo, then sell said photo of the logo on a cup, tshirt, whatever for profit
46 D L X : Mike, there is a difference between selling a photo of the plane and it surrounding scenery and selling a photo of the logo. I'm not talking about sel
47 Post contains images Mikephotos : And the scary part is that you're muddying the waters more than the non-lawyers Trust me on this, I had a problem of this nature a few years back wit
48 D L X : Mike, why should I believe Brown's lawyers when they were clearly adverse? They told you what they wanted you to hear, of course, which probably isn't
49 Mikephotos : It was not in regards to selling a print but it was discussed. They had no reason to give false information. And what was mentioned is the same story
50 Post contains images Mikephotos : You seem to be dispensing some scary advice. I would suggest others be careful with what is read here. You're gonna get someone into a big jam and I
51 D L X : I hope it's not run away because the other guy is a lawyer. I will be the first to tell you that I think a lawyer's words are often too highly respec
52 Lennymuir : If that is true Raptors, that is shocking! 'Buy a Print!' is not for commercial usage, even for an event. >>> Important: Prints bought through this s
53 Silver1SWA : Reminds me of cereal boxes promoting sports/players. Often the team logo on the hats and jerseys are removed.
54 D L X : I've gotten a few private emails about this now supporting me. Thanks! I have to tell you that if it weren't just an internet website, this discussion
55 Clickhappy : Are you saying you are a lawyer? If so, why not put your money with your mouth is and take on a case like this pro bono if you think it would win. Sho
56 Scbriml : As much as I love to thumb my nose at bully-boy tactics, I have found a bit of a loophole that, in the best interests of the site until there's a reso
57 D L X : Yes. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear from the start. This isn't the first time I've spoken on this board about my profesison. That's a stupid idea. Ar
58 Clickhappy : Are you not really a SQL programmer unless you are willing to do it for free? Well, I am not really sure what I do for a living has to do with this th
59 D L X : Royal, I've given so much free advice on this thread already, that for me to give further advice would require my taking the photographers here on as
60 Clickhappy : Second grade???? Dude I was using those lines through jr. high! No need to beat a dead horse, but yeah, if the rights of our hobby were at stake I wou
61 CalgaryBill : Uh, just to clear my name of the accusation that I fabricated anything, let me point out that you just copied what I said. I categorically said "if t
62 D L X : CalgaryBill, First off, the first quote is not mine, but rather yours. Second, fabrication is your word, not mine. I'm saying you got it wrong, but I
63 CalgaryBill : Yup, again, I was just showing that we both used the word "prove" since you accused me of speculation. How else could the next quote be construed????
64 Post contains links and images D L X : For your use: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...7/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...7/usc_sec_17_00000505--
65 D L X : If this is what your beef is about, then I apologize. It's extremely frustrating to see people spread information that you know to be false. You saw
66 Post contains links and images Mikephotos : Alaska Airlines would be a trademark, not a copyright. Here's one guy who lost to Alaska. Sure, it's not what we're discussing but AS does not play ga
67 CalgaryBill : Okay, I'll quote your source to clear this up. I was saying that the "infringee" (you can insert the legalese term here if you please) is entitled to
68 D L X : This is a little complicated, so let me help you out a little. Don't get me wrong, I do understand your meaning, but I'll explain why it's important
69 Post contains images CalgaryBill : Wow, we're almost starting to agree. Scary.
70 Post contains images Mikephotos : So what you're saying is that I can go make 5,000 Coke or Pepsi t-shirts and sell them legally without getting approval from Coke/Pepsi since they ar
71 Post contains images D L X : No, that's not what I'm saying, and that's not similar to the scenario we have here, unless you know people who are mass producing t-shirts with airl
72 Post contains images Mikephotos : But AS make/made apparel and toys also (or at least they used to offer them IIRC) You're talking about selling prints, I'm talking about products like
73 D L X : Trademark only prevents unauthorized use of a mark when such use would likely cause confusion over who produces the goods or provides the services. 15
74 Post contains images Mikephotos : Interesting for sure but I still find it hard to believe you are able to sell merchandise showing an airlines' trademark without the need for licensin
75 Post contains images Skidmarks : Reading through this sends a shiver down my spine (old and weak as it is). If EVERY airline started this sort of thing then where would we be? Most of
76 Raptors : Hi Gerry, I said that I assumed that's what they had done but guess I will never actually know for certain. I tried following this up but kept hittin
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Photo Essay Of New Nat'l Air & Space Mus. Aircraft posted Fri Oct 4 2002 04:27:58 by ExitRow
Photo Sales To Mags posted Fri Jan 5 2007 07:51:33 by CYEGsTankers
Does Photo Sales Function $$ On The Site Suck? posted Sun Oct 15 2006 16:23:27 by Eksath
Photo Sales Question - Again, I Know... posted Tue Dec 6 2005 18:04:06 by PositiveClimb
Photo Sales Formula posted Tue Oct 18 2005 21:25:57 by WakeTurbulence
Photo Sales Advice...Please Help! posted Tue Oct 11 2005 16:36:20 by Flyfisher1976
Uploading Multiple Pix Of The Same Aircraft? posted Wed Oct 5 2005 03:19:03 by Mr Spaceman
Photo Sales Stats posted Sat Sep 10 2005 14:41:44 by VIR380
Photo Sales Question posted Thu Aug 25 2005 05:20:58 by GOCAPS16
Photo Sales Question posted Wed Aug 24 2005 13:32:18 by A346Dude