Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Terms - For Photographers - Part II  
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14108 times:

At the request of the staff I'm starting another thread as the original was getting a tad bit too long. See the original discussion here: New Terms - What It Means For Photographers (by Flynavy Feb 8 2008 in Aviation Photography).

257 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGuamVICE From Guam, joined Jun 2005, 151 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14096 times:

After having read the 350+ replies following my original post, and having had time away from the site, I can now come back and say I'm going to wait this out and let DM provide us with CLEAR terms regarding the site and its purpose/intentions for the community. Should any indication of violating our copyrights be included in the new TOU (which I'm doubting at this point), we all will do what we individually feel is necessary to protect our work. Until such time, I'm going to allow them reasonable time rectify this horrendous error.

[Edited 2008-02-11 11:02:36]


The two most engaging powers of a photographer are to make new things familiar and to make familiar things new. ~Thacker
User currently offlineN737er From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14044 times:

I posted this at the end of the last thread..I don't know if it'll get attention or not waaaaayyy down there, so i'll post it here again:


I have been keeping touch with this thread since it was brought to my attention Saturday morning. Even though I have a couple of pictures on anet, the DM TOUs being argued about are just unacceptable, and I’m glad that we have reverted back to the original anet ones. One thing that raises a flag is part of the statement that was added from the Terms page:

Quote:
...DECIDED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW POLICIES FOR PRE-EXISTING USERS...



What about new users? How does this affect them, are the old anet TOU still applicable to them or do they have to deal with the crap-ones we are arguing about? This also shows that for new members the intent of the Revised TOU still remains the same.

I don't want to get ahead of myself, anet, it's members, and DM, however I feel that the new revised TOU will be revised to still reflect the policies that are so blatantly stated in the TOU we are arguing. As it says on the DM homepage:

Quote:
With a proprietary media platform that powers the company's highly-trafficked domains and wholly-owned content media properties.



The way I understand this [and I am no lawyer, please correct me if I am wrong] is that all content, including that which is user submitted on DM's websites is property of Demand Media and not that of the user. So the way I understand that, and under the new TOU you the photographer will submit all rights and liabilities (which is contradicted by the TOU) of your content to Demand Media. I also feel this way because if you look at other DM websites such as some of those listed above in Reply 203 and flightlevel350. They are the same, now I think it is intentional that these websites which are owned by the same company have the same or nearly identical TOUs.

I, as well as many other members see no problems with the original airliners TOU, and would like someone from DM to explain why they are insufficient for further use. However if the original airliners TOU stayed then it wouldn’t allow DM to use our content to make a profit for themselves. I believe this because the TOU on other Demand Media

Finally I love the fact that yes the Demand Media personnel have chimed in on this thread, yet they have thoughtfully neglected to respond to the questions our members have directly asked Direct Media. In particular those questions in Posts 311 and 313. I don’t know if you, Direct Media, realize it but in customer service you DO NOT neglect your customers. Since others have set a deadline to revise the TOU, I will do something similar, I challenge YOU...Direct Media to answer the questions that have been directed to you by the photographers of this board, and don’t beat around the bush, don’t lie to us...we are all very intelligent people and will catch it.

Nathan


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13917 times:



Quoting N737er (Reply 2):
What about new users? How does this affect them, are the old anet TOU still applicable to them or do they have to deal with the crap-ones we are arguing about?

Not unless they are somehow required to sign up to the new TOUs, even though these have been removed from the site.

Quoting N737er (Reply 2):
I don't want to get ahead of myself, anet, it's members, and DM, however I feel that the new revised TOU will be revised to still reflect the policies that are so blatantly stated in the TOU we are arguing. As it says on the DM homepage:
Quote:
With a proprietary media platform that powers the company's highly-trafficked domains and wholly-owned content media properties.

The way I understand this [and I am no lawyer, please correct me if I am wrong] is that all content, including that which is user submitted on DM's websites is property of Demand Media and not that of the user.

This is in no way sufficient to give DM rights to our photos.

No point in more recriminations. DM have promised to consult photographers in the process of drawing up fresh TOUs, and they have said that they intend to respect our rights. We just need to wait in the expectation that these promises will be kept.

Charles



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineN737ER From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13908 times:

Thanks for clearing those parts up for me

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13843 times:



Quoting N737er (Reply 2):
I challenge YOU...Direct Media to answer the questions that have been directed to you by the photographers of this board, and don’t beat around the bush, don’t lie to us...we are all very intelligent people and will catch it.

Nathan, if you want them to believe you are intelligent, at least get their name right.... It is Demand Media, not Direct Media.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11381 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13780 times:

Geebus! What the hell happened over the weekend?

Can someone, preferably Monique, give a summary in large print of where we currently stand? Use the < font=size+2> and < /font> tags.

From the bit I was able to gather, DM wants an irrevocable, perpetual license. In short, my opinion is no way in hell will I grant that. I know I'm not a big player on this site, but how could you possibly ask your photographers to give up, FOREVER the right to tell A.net they can no longer use their photos? No way in hell.

Furthermore, how can you change the contract for existing photos? The way I see it, you cannot reform the contract without bargaining again with the photographers with whom you have previously contracted. For the non-lawyers here, that is like saying "even though you bought this car last year, the price is now $1000 more, so pay up." In other words, the terms of use under which the photos were originally uploaded will apply perpetually to those photos.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13725 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Geebus! What the hell happened over the weekend?

All hell broke loose, that's what happened  Silly

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Furthermore, how can you change the contract for existing photos? The way I see it, you cannot reform the contract without bargaining again with the photographers with whom you have previously contracted.

I guess "if you're still here on 8th March, you've agreed to the new terms" is what DM's lawyers understand by bargaining. You might want to discuss it with them in more detail ... as for myself I won't be reassured until I see new terms of service which give cast-iron protection to photographers' rights. The current set does not do so, in my opinion at least, so it's in our interest to get them replaced.

Charles



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineTRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1372 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13655 times:

On a lighter note, Can't we make TOU for our existing pictures that if DM has pay us x$ for each of our pictures on the DB if they want to use beyond March 8, 08 and if they continue to use our pics beyond that date it implies that they have agreed and owe us that amount  Wink





I'm sure they'll fix before that  Smile


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13644 times:

Yesterday, the total number of accepted shots was 1 264 xxx.

Today, it is 1 261 603.

Looks like the exodus has started ...



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13634 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 6):

Hi Damon, I've been waiting for your reaction.

Well as you're probably aware, DM have withdrawn the proposed new Terms and are now writing new ones. I'm not sure Monique or anyone at DM would give a relibable summary of what happened, because they have said a few contradictory things. The new Terms were NOT just a mistake apparently.

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Furthermore, how can you change the contract for existing photos? The way I see it, you cannot reform the contract without bargaining again with the photographers with whom you have previously contracted. For the non-lawyers here, that is like saying "even though you bought this car last year, the price is now $1000 more, so pay up." In other words, the terms of use under which the photos were originally uploaded will apply perpetually to those photos.

Yes, I've hinted at the proposed new Terms being probably illegal as far as existing photos are concerned, although I may have used incorrect wording. Using common sense, I feel that at least you cannot change the Terms for existing photos by what I'd call in my language 'silent consent', ie, if you do nothing (because you never saw that e-mail, for example), you agree to the new terms. I think that is an illegal procedure.

What they could do I'd say is kick your photos off their site if you don't actively agree to their new Terms - they didn't promise to host your photos perpetually, right?

This is not very urgent any more since the new Terms have been withdrawn, but I think it's still good to establish that what DM wanted to do, as far as existing photos are concerned, was simply illegal (if indeed it was).

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13627 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Viv (Reply 9):
Yesterday, the total number of accepted shots was 1 264 xxx.

Today, it is 1 261 603.

Looks like the exodus has started ...

Just to clarify: this rather large deletion (accounting for the entire drop) was from a user who had requested deletion a few weeks ago and was totally unrelated to this weeken'd incident.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13613 times:



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10):
'silent consent', ie, if you do nothing (because you never saw that e-mail, for example), you agree to the new terms. I think that is an illegal procedure.

I believe you are right. If it is not illegal, it is certainly nowhere near "best practice".

It seems that DM believes that its "Content Providers" (the photographers) deserve no better.

I will, of course, eat my words and apologise if the next version of the Terms of Use provides fully appropriate protection and rights to the Content Providers.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13605 times:



Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 11):
ust to clarify: this rather large deletion (accounting for the entire drop) was from a user who had requested deletion a few weeks ago and was totally unrelated to this weeken'd incident.

Fair enough, thank you for the clarification.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineKrohmie From Germany, joined Oct 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13598 times:

Regardless if it was illegal or not, Demand Media simply destroyed the trust of the users in this database and as collateral damage in other databases on the web.
Who knows e.g. what the owners of JP will decide in 1, 2, 3 or 5 years?

This is the main point where the world of modern spotting has changed over the last weekend.



To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home and Vne is the limit.
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13581 times:



Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 11):
Just to clarify: this rather large deletion (accounting for the entire drop) was from a user who had requested deletion a few weeks ago and was totally unrelated to this weeken'd incident.

Tim

So fair to assume now that there is no problem with deleting photos those who have requested deletion will have their deletions taken care of promptly correct?


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13570 times:



Quoting Krohmie (Reply 14):

One could think of a 'statute' or 'charter' similar to the 'editorial charter' (again translated from my language) used at newspapers to protect the journalistic content from the publisher's commercial interests. Not sure how that is protected from being changed, but it does seem to work.

Of course it's a long shot, but if DM would be serious about winning photographers; confidence back, maybe that would be a good way to go.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11381 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13525 times:



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10):
Well as you're probably aware, DM have withdrawn the proposed new Terms and are now writing new ones.

Good. I'll reiterate: there is no way I'm giving an irrevocable, perpetual license to anyone. No way.

I will be patient and see what the new terms are. It will take some thought in reviewing them before I can decide what I would do. But I will say this now: I am not going through the expense of revoking my copyrights from A.net by registered mail to their legal department. I will email them, for free, if I choose to revoke my rights. Demand Media cannot convert my property because I did not jump through their hoops in exerting my property rights.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10):
What they could do I'd say is kick your photos off their site if you don't actively agree to their new Terms - they didn't promise to host your photos perpetually, right?

Yes. This is what credit card companies do - they send you new terms of usage for which you can opt out. If you decide to opt out (as I have done before), the old terms apply to you until the expiration date of your card, and your account is canceled. If you do not opt out, the new terms apply once the opt-out period ends, and the credit card company may automatically renew your account if it's in good standing.

DM is not obligated to host our photos and can decide that they will not host them unless photographers accede to the new terms. I will take a careful look at what terms they plan to apply before I decide to leave my photos on their site.

I wonder if anyone at DM received the email from Brand X over the weekend.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineLeadingEdge From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13468 times:

I have followed this since Saturday morning and can safely say that all the primary points have already been dicussed ten times over.

So perhaps its time to cool it for a while, (conserve your ammo) and wait for the new terms to be published????


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13478 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
Brand X

Let's just call it Jetphotos.net (JP) from now on.

I don't like to, but I'll move my photos to Jetphotos.net if the upcoming Terms don't respect photographer's rights. (Or maybe to some other, perhaps new, site with fair rules of play which might be more than willing to accept former a.net shots in batches   (which would make a lot of sense, even business sense))

[Edited 2008-02-11 15:17:08]

[Edited 2008-02-11 15:25:56]


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13382 times:



Quoting LeadingEdge (Reply 18):
can safely say that all the primary points have already been dicussed ten times over.

Not all, the new privacy policy is still in place and it still seems to give DM the right to share email addresses.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12571 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13354 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 15):
So fair to assume now that there is no problem with deleting photos those who have requested deletion will have their deletions taken care of promptly correct?

If you call "a few weeks" promptly.  wink 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26536 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13358 times:



Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 20):

Not all, the new privacy policy is still in place and it still seems to give DM the right to share email addresses.

And all other personal information that we gave Johan, not DM, at sign up.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13344 times:

They can Share my E-mail address with other comapniaes with out my permission, I dont think I like that as i get enough SPAM as it is.

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23074 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13344 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
Good. I'll reiterate: there is no way I'm giving an irrevocable, perpetual license to anyone. No way.

Given the fact that the proposed ToU were substantially similar to what DM used for all of its other sites, I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that DM intended to include this term. Of course, its inclusion demonstrates sloppy legal work and a host of other administrative issues, but until we get an explicit statement from them, I think I'd treat that proposal as an honest mistake (about which they could have been MUCH more forthcoming).

[Edited 2008-02-11 16:03:38]


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
25 LeadingEdge : Good point, I thought (at Least in the UK) you have to offer the opportunity to customers to opt out of having their details passed around.
26 Post contains images KFLLCFII : If you call "a few weeks" promptly. They were all deleted within one day, not over the span of a few weeks. So it appears they now have a method of "
27 Clickhappy : Don't worry Bryan, we all know you want your accounts and all content deleted. You don't need to post it in every thread.
28 Post contains links and images KFLLCFII : Please. I've made a total of two posts that indicated I wanted my photos removed, which is far less than some users already. And in one of those post
29 Monteycarlos : Can someone let me know when we should expect a new TOU to be presented to us?
30 StealthZ : I don't believe the answer to that question is known yet. At one stage there seemed to be an agreement to have some kind of explanation by COB (CA ti
31 Monteycarlos : Thanks Chris.
32 Cruiser : It might be an idea that they actually post the proposed TOU before beginning the process of officially publishing it. It might actually provide DM a
33 Post contains images ShyFlyer : My guess is probably on a Friday afternoon, just before the end of the business day in California.
34 Ivathud : I cam only say that if DM do not change the terms, I will take my 62 pictures to another site, there's no way that I will gave TOTALLY RIGHTS of my pi
35 Dehowie : Just a small question re the TOU and if they dont change all that much in this revision. So if you do not delete your photos by the time the new TOU c
36 Tappan : TimDeGroot, You seem as if you are the person here that might have the closest ties to SOMEONE in the know on the DM side of things. What does this me
37 StealthZ : Mark, I know you asked Tim but the way I read it the other day and had at least one person agree with my reading was.. If they ask you and you sell yo
38 Monteycarlos : 1024 pixels is more than enough for an internet or computer based graphic! I think that since they removed the time contstraint for all current photo
39 Tappan : StealthZ Thanks! Ouch... Mark
40 StealthZ : Darren, I guess your question is slightly moot as the wording of the TOU is quite up in the air at the moment, As released on Friday they did still g
41 HrtsfldHomeboy : The only way I can see DM re-establishing their credibility with the photographers who built the database is if DM removes this crap they put up and r
42 Ryangooner : Regardless of a new TOU policy which is probably iminent how much credibility have DM lost over the weekend?, As a company backtracking on decisions t
43 QANTAS077 : I just want a simple answer to this question, Paolo, you've yet to answer it... how the hell did it make it up in the first place in that precise lang
44 Deeplight : All As you know, the disputed TOU are now invalid and the old ones will stay in effect until the new one has been drafted and accepted. We have pulled
45 Deeplight : Sorry Quantas 077 I hope this clears up you question: I just saw your post and yes it would appear that I would have read these over but because my te
46 QANTAS077 : appreciate you answering the question, I'll wait for the new TOU before making concrete decisions. thanks.
47 Post contains images Deeplight : I appreciate your patience Qantas077 (sorry for the typo)
48 Cpd : I take exception to this and don't give airliners.net or Demand Media the option to give my email address to all and sundry. If it means I'll be subj
49 Monteycarlos : Thanks Paulo. I look forward to this being restored so the community can get on with re-building the wonderful atmosphere we are used to enjoying her
50 Mclaudio : Hello Mr Paulo, greetings. I understood that you were answering directly to someone else, but as you can see by the flag, English is not my native la
51 ZakHH : Paulo, thanks for facing up to the criticism. I can only speak for myself, but again, I am willing to believe that the new TOU were not created out of
52 CPHaviation : The question is then, why make a new TOU if the old one works fine? Looking back over the last few days here on a.net I must admit that I don't trust
53 Post contains links and images Scottieprecord : Haha - that gave me a laugh. It's nice to see some personality behind the DM reps every now and then. As long as the new ToU are scratched and off th
54 ORFflyer : Are these the same groups that canned ANC? We do...... With due respect, can you please face the music and explain the different explanations about c
55 Ptrjong : I'm much more worried about the hints at creating distinct terms for new users, or perhaps for all future use (uploads), who knows? However, the messa
56 Snowfalcon : I believe there should be a photographer's representative on DM's board of directors. As creators of DM's most valuable content, we are entitled to ha
57 Post contains links Aloges : I'm afraid there's much more content involved than photos on airliners.net. Have a look at this, it might also explain why responses take so long: ht
58 Scottieprecord : The only time we were in the woods was the few hours after the new terms were posted and before this thread was created. The new terms are now off an
59 Tappan : Who will own the photos in 2009? Thanks, Mark Garfinkel
60 Post contains images Michlis : Good attitude and I agree completely. Now is the time to be vigilant and see how DM responds to the obvious ire that has been created. Let's wait and
61 Post contains images Walter2222 : It sure is!! It would be good to have the headscreeners as the photographers' representatives, they know the site for a long time and they sure know
62 D L X : I know who will own 86 of them.
63 Kukkudrill : Soren, this is academic for you if you've decided to leave anyway, but as for myself I want to give a.net another chance provided my rights are safeg
64 Viv : This is indeed what we need. I would add to your last sentence: "... my express permission and appropriate recompense".
65 CPHaviation : Charles, I can fully understand what you are saying. But for me the race is over. I don't want to display my photos on a website where I don't trust
66 Ryangooner : Sounds like it hit a nerve, unless this is not sorted to some satisfaction it wont just be me taking the high road ! Thanks for you reply though....
67 Ljungdahl : Paulo / Monique / All I feel only a little bit of relieve when I see the old ToU back again, because on DMs homepage we can still read: "wholly-owned"
68 N1120A : In this case, the community and photographers have always had the moral high ground. We have done as much as possible not to sabotage it. Unfortunate
69 ORFflyer : Deeplight, Thanks for the IM, however it didn't answer any of my, or other users questions. Can you or one of your representatives please reply in the
70 Post contains links Key : Quoting Snowfalcon (Reply 56): I believe there should be a photographer's representative on DM's board of directors. I believe that DM has direct acce
71 Aloges : I'll try my luck at translating corporate blah-blah: I suppose it is the content on their which means everything hosted on their sites, as demonstrate
72 Snowfalcon : Thanks for the comment. However, I'm not buying it. I think (and pardon me if you know the other DM sites better) Airliners.net is in a class of its
73 Ljungdahl : Aloges, Thank you for your input to my post, the translation of those words was pretty clear before, even to me. What is not clear is how the "wholly-
74 Cubsrule : Isn't "wholly-owned content media properties" referring to the sites themselves? If so, they're certainly wholly-owned.
75 Snowfalcon : My interpretation in this case is that DM refers to their wholly-owned Rights to Use "irrevocably and perpetually" of content on their site, as defin
76 Post contains images Ptrjong : That (horrible ) language is from the PR department, not from Legal. It's cutting-edge commercialism ('monetization tools'), but otherwise, I wouldn't
77 Kukkudrill : They can describe themselves all they like as having wholly-owned content media properties. Whatever it means, and whether or not it is even intended
78 Cathay111 : As a contributing photographer there are a couple of things I'd like to say. Firstly, As a photographer who's been around for a while I've been throug
79 Aloges : Surely not, while it's on its own. Together with the new terms of use, it would have made for an even more complete picture though. I've been saying
80 Post contains links BigPhilNYC : I wrote something on the whole TOU issue that can be seen here: http://nycaviation.com/editorials#derner021208 I've been the biggest of Anet fans and
81 Cathay111 : Paulo, Thank you for the IM. I would reply but we mere photographers are not of sufficient ranking in the pecking order to use such a benefit. I shall
82 N1120A : I think that editorial says a lot that needed to be said.
83 Cathay111 : You missed nothing groundbreaking, no revelation, no conspiracy. Just a brief acknowledgment of my post. Infact the Mods can delete these two irrelev
84 Tappan : Who will own the photos in 2009? A simple question. Seven words. Who will own the photos in 2009? Please answer. Mark Garfinkel
85 Lindy Field : Hi All, I am myself a bit disappointed to see so few posts from representatives from Demand Media in this thread. I will do my best to allay some of y
86 Deeplight : Chip - Are these the same groups that canned ANC? Paulo-No they arent the same group that canned Pep as a matter of fact Pep made his own bed. We abso
87 Tommy Mogren : Paulo, That was the most confusing post I have read here since the start of A.net. Tommy Mogren
88 Flynavy : I, too, could not make heads or tails of that as well.
89 ZKEYE : Paulo, Firstly thank you for posting your feedback - it is much needed at this time. I have followed this debacle without contributing anything so far
90 Flynavy : Indeed. "The buck stops here," as it were.
91 Post contains images INNflight : Seems like you need some basic business classes then, because in all honesty, common sense would usually prevent one who runs a business to do that.
92 LeadingEdge : Perhaps you guys at Demand should take your time over the new ToU and communicate with each other in a coherent fashion. Johan never had a problem wi
93 Bjcc : Paulo For what it's worth, I agree that there has been a great deal of damage done, however it is time to move on, but with caution from this side. I
94 StealthZ : Or at least all sides have had their input!
95 ORFflyer : Hi everyone - I'm Chip. I may be able to decipher Paulo's post for everyone. He responded to my post 54 in an IM. (which I will not share here) It di
96 BigPhilNYC : I am honestly having a tough time buying this whole "we just wanted you folks to SAMPLE the new TOU first" thing. As I said in my little editorial, if
97 D L X : Or better yet, how about the terms NOT be in legalese? There's no good reason to write terms in anything other than plain language except that everyo
98 Dvincent : Thanks, Phil. I think the core of the issue is that it is in our best interests for the site to prosper as a community. We have enough problems in th
99 Acontador : Hi All, Please, read this carefully as this is what we all want and have stated here numerous times! Guys, you have made clearly and unmistakeably you
100 BigPhilNYC : This reminds me of the Power Alarm in Boston back in 1774. 250 British Regulars snatched up a whole bunch of gunpowder from the citizens, and tens of
101 LeadingEdge : That was you too? So anyway what did you need with the gunpowder ?
102 Clickhappy : You didn't just compare some pissed off photogs on a website to the American Revolutionary Way, did you?
103 Post contains images BigPhilNYC : I'm a history geek. I can't buy a pack of gum without making a connection to the 1770s somehow. Well....I guess I did. Don't worry, Royal. I won't cal
104 Viv : You didn't just under-estimate the scale of the problem facing DM, did you?
105 Kukkudrill : Hear hear. Come on guys. I am as determined as anyone to safeguard my rights as a photographer, but the time for squabbling is over. We have an offer
106 NIKV69 : I was about to say you look good for over 200 years old! I doubt Royal or anyone else wants to make light of anything but we have been hearing about
107 UA935 : Grow up Nick, through all of this and all who have posted over the two threads you have to attack everyone, you are the only person in these threads
108 Michlis : He does make a good point about the drama...the point has been made that people are upset. Instead of adding to the fervor let's wait and see what DM
109 Post contains images Mclaudio : Hi. Thank you Mr Paulo for answering to my question (post 50).
110 BigPhilNYC : I can agree with the need to calm down some, but if you read, our current concern is not about the wording of the TOU, it's that we apparently have b
111 Cubsrule : Any decent lawyer can write a contract that serves his client's interests (one of which is generally protection from litigation) without resorting to
112 Michlis : The key word is "apparently" lied to. Looking through these threads, I see a lot reactionary comments and accusations. Granted, DM does not seem to b
113 Michlis : Legalese is a necessary evil. I agree that contracts can be written more clearly, but sometimes the legalese is necessary to mitigate the danger of l
114 N1120A : Legalese and the confusion it causes for lay people is a massive reason litigation over contracts of adhesion like this get litigated.
115 Post contains images Michlis : Agreed. When I took contract drafting in law school, my professor emphasized "say what you mean and mean what you say." K.I.S.S. is good too.
116 LTU932 : Question: what risks? Airliners.net did just fine with the current TOU for many years. Where's the explanation about these so-called risks? I sincere
117 D L X : No it's not. Legalese is the product of bad lawyering. At my job, I am CONSTANTLY dealing with issues that could have been resolved by lawyers not tr
118 Cubsrule : Could you cite an example?
119 WrenchBender : What started with the server migration and all the bugs that generated, the lack of responsiveness by DM mamagment, the leaving it to the Mods and (i
120 BigPhilNYC : Honestly, I can completely agree with that. I, at first, held off on my reaction to see what their response was. That is when it got worse. It was mi
121 Post contains images Michlis : I can think of big one that a contract must have: consideration. Definitely a term of art in contracts and a term that a lot of non-lawyers do not un
122 Cubsrule : You can explain consideration without using the word... "In exchange for D.M. doing X, the user agrees to do Y." A contract doesn't have to explicitl
123 Atco : Can I ask the question of how airliners.net fits into Demand Media's business portfolio without these terms and conditions. The DM website says on its
124 N1120A : Converting the intellectual property of others is not the way to go about doing that, and I think they figured that out after the uproar over the pas
125 Post contains images Michlis : Like I said, it depends on the audience.
126 NIKV69 : Hmm that is strange read thre replies I see a few that don't share the doom and gloom. You got me, though I am not using the money I donated it to Hi
127 RealAir : Now, I might be being a complete idiot here, but upon going to the TOS on the frontpage, it says that the new policy implementation is suspended indef
128 Post contains images 9VSMS : The bottom line is, this is all about respect. And so far I haven't seen any which is one of the reasons I won't renew my membership again.  [Edited
129 Post contains links Deeplight : Dear Phil You seem like a very knowlegegable guy and you are liked on Anet. You also have a cool looking website so you are running a business. Congra
130 N1120A : The issue there is that DM's legal department, or your IP counsel up in Washington, are the ones who wrote your TOU. That means more DM employees tha
131 Key : Right. People found it hard to read the TOU but now you've lost me. And I had no problem whatsoever reading the TOU... I agree with you some (certain
132 Cubsrule : Have a look at Lucy v. Zehmer (84 S.E.2d 516)-- I think it's a bit of a Contracts classic, but it's the best example of a plain-English contract I ca
133 NIKV69 : Yes but some feel that all trust has been lost and that DM will try to steal our pics in the future. I agree with you totally and such is your right.
134 BigPhilNYC : Paulo, Sincerely, thank you for your reply, and for your kind words. There is no intention to offend you, but more along the lines of a vent of frustr
135 Post contains images Deeplight : Hi Phil We can talk via email and look forward to helping each other out. I just get a little bent when hearsay starts morphing into facts and many po
136 Post contains images Flynavy : Let's break out a 12 pack and all sing Koom Bay Ya already! [Edited 2008-02-13 19:12:13]
137 Halls120 : You do? Wow. I'd hate to see how you treat people you don't love. I don't have a single photo on the database, but it was the photo database that led
138 Post contains images ShyFlyer : Sure, what's a few lies between friends anyway? Ok, you've got yourself a deal. But please keep in mind a lot of photographers have lost their trust
139 Seahawk : I am sure a.net and DM will fix this. A.net has done so much for our hobby, that it would be sad to see the site getting into trouble.[Edited 2008-02-
140 LTU932 : If I were you, I wouldn't be that optimistic about it given their trackrecord with how they've handled the site in the months since the buyout from J
141 Post contains images INNflight : Awww...the site was Swedish before, now it's based in lawsuit country
142 Key : Well... I disagree but that may be because we speak about different things. If I say DM management I don't mean Paolo or Monique. I mean their bosses,
143 Granite : Hi all I've been very quiet over the past few days. The reason........total embarrasement over the ToU situation. Not one of the crew knew about these
144 Michlis : Read it in Contracts when I was in school. Sometimes plain language doesn't cut it, but you'll learn this when you start practicing, especially when
145 Snowfalcon : Excellent post.
146 D L X : Have you ever litigated over a contract?
147 Michlis : Nope...I write pretty solid contracts. Simple where need be, complex where required.
148 JeffM : My thoughts exactly.... Gary if you were to have added "again" to that sentence it would be more accurate. Such a simple concept that seems so diffic
149 Cruiser : I was also just checking out the frontpage of A.net, and it still has a little 'addy' to check out the new TOU and Privacy Policy. I was excited when
150 Post contains images Barbro : Thank's Paulo for taking the time answer some concerns here. And, as someone said already, it's nice to see there is character behind the names here.
151 Halls120 : Exactly. And in the instant case, it would appear that the lawyers weren't properly instructed. Whose fault is that?
152 Cubsrule : I'm still looking for an example... and I really don't think consideration cuts it. The place where I would argue we might come closest is a choice o
153 Paulc : Granite, a brave and accurate post which sums up very well how I (and a lot of other feel) Plenty of people will be waiting for the revised TOU before
154 DustySlides : Paulo, A few decades ago, when I was in the marketing department of a giant monopoly in the telecommunications industry, one of our large customers de
155 Michlis : That's your opinion. This isn't this about proving anything (for me anyways) but rather it's my professional opinion based on experience that dependi
156 Halls120 : Determining fault is essential to making sure that the problem isn't repeated. In any event, it seems to me that the solution is obvious. DM needs to
157 LTU932 : It's not a negative undertone and/or gossip, it's a fact. If you had followed events from the takeover until today the way I and many others did, you
158 PITIngres : Don't mean to go too off-topic, but I couldn't let that one go. Determining CAUSE is essential to fix the problem; determining FAULT (by which we usu
159 Cubsrule : I'm approaching things from a litigation viewpoint, which I think is why we disagree. Unless there's a case somewhere where the lack of legalese has
160 Codeshare : I think the whole thing which is happening right now will make it as a case study in e-commerce/business books some day. KS/codeshare
161 D L X : I agree completely. It's not a lack of legalese that hurts a party, but lack of foresight in contracting the issue they wanted to contract that cause
162 Post contains images Cubsrule : I have never seen anything written in a contract that I could not rewrite, with equivalent legal effect, in plain English. Lawyers frequently use ter
163 D L X : I would say that lawyers use legalese to obscure what they actually mean, so that if the deal goes bad, they can always argue that it means something
164 Post contains images Mikephotos : So does that mean my AA photos are safe from the new TOU and all I need to worry about are the Northwest & Virgin shots I too currently await the new
165 Post contains images Michlis : Which comes back to the point of who is the intended audience of the contract, i.e. who are the parties and what is the intended outcome of the agree
166 Deeplight : Granite is right - rack it to inexperience and a huge lesson to me. I hope I've apologized to everyone this has affected across Anet. Thanks Gary for
167 Post contains images Halls120 : Good point. I should have been more precise. I was in fact equating fault with cause, and I should have used the latter term. We already know who is
168 Post contains images Shep2 : Great to hear Granite (Gary) will be staying. He has done alot for this site and he has always been here for the "right" reasons... Bob G's photos on
169 DustySlides : Paulo, Fair enough. Thanks for the response--we're in this together. Bob Garrard (aka Dusty Thinking)
170 Post contains images Granite : Shep2 Bob still has plenty of stuff to come......I saw a very nice Delta Hercules this evening I'd love to get my hands on his collection! Regards Gar
171 DustySlides : Would you now. Perhaps I'LL get my hands on my collection again myself.
172 Post contains images Michlis : Lol, in all your years as a law student right. But DM's legal staff is not representing the photographers so who are we to say that they should use "
173 Post contains images Granite : Bob Come on then.......let's see more scans Regards Gary
174 N1120A : DM's legal staff hasn't posted on this forum.
175 Granite : Cruiser Thanks for mentioning that. Link has now been removed and will not appear until the new terms have been discussed and agreed upon. Regards Gar
176 Michlis : Leave it to a lawyer, lol. I stand corrected. Instead of being lazy, I should have said: '...but but I'm pretty sure DM's legal staff knows what it's
177 Post contains images 9VSMS : Pervert...
178 Cubsrule : Again, if you have an example, post it.
179 Tommy Mogren : Am I missing something or shouldn't we have something to read by now ? ...or aren't we part of the 'all' people.. ? Tommy Mogren
180 KarlADrage : Like Tommy, I was expecting to be getting up this morning to have something to read. Can we please be given some kind of time-frame where we can expec
181 Post contains images Mclaudio : count me in on those waiting to see more and more from those classics
182 Granite : Guys First draft has been issued to crew for reviewing. You can understand that many of the crew are photographers themselves so it is in their intere
183 Kukkudrill : OK thanks Gary. I trust the crew but I hope and expect that afterwards the rest of us photographers will also be consulted. Charles
184 Tommy Mogren : Why not post it in the forum for ALL photographers to review ????????? Tommy Mogren
185 Granite : Tommy One question mark would suffice. At the moment it is a Demand Media/Crew document. It will be fine tuned then the photographers will get to revi
186 Bjcc : Granite Any fingers with no knowladge or little experience of reading legalese is not a good idea. Hence why the suggestion has been made it should go
187 Dendrobatid : Bernie The crew consist of far more than just screeners and we are from all walks of life. I, for one, do understand legal language. Gary's comment t
188 Granite : Bernie Thanks for your concerns. All have been noted. Mick sums it up well. While it did not happen the first time around, there are a lot of crew mem
189 Michlis : Here's a little quiz for you that was suggested by a former A.net member: In 10 words of less, explain the following terms in a legally rigorous and
190 Post contains images Walter2222 : I wonder if anybody can do that in 10 words or less What about "adaptation rights" (that's probably what DM wants too...)? It might be a good idea to
191 Granite : Walter Things are being talked about today but we have stressed not to have the available for viewing until Monday earliest. Don't want to have the ca
192 Walter2222 : Thanks Gary, that's a very sound decision! Best regards, Walter
193 Post contains images Apgphoto : I have been watching this all going on from the sidelines and I have to say that its right that the Screening team should take a look at the revised t
194 Bjcc : Mick I half take your point, but I also refer you to a screener, who after the last effort, said on the thread then running, he'd spoken to 2 lawyers,
195 Cubsrule : With an assist from Black's... "Right to first production in a serial" is a good place to start, but electronic publication has begun to warp this ter
196 Kukkudrill : ??? Nobody's saying that the screeners are going to make a decision on behalf of everybody else. I think it's been made quite clear that after the sc
197 Halls120 : Good news at least on one front - somebody finally understands the value of proper communication. There is nothing wrong with using "moral rights" in
198 Cubsrule : Agreed, completely, but I be very careful with it outside of a.net because there are at least 3 definitions of it (the Berne Convention definition, t
199 Post contains images Halls120 : Well, then isn't the solution to adopt the US version - the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (“VARA”), 17 U.S.C. § 106A - outright?
200 Tappan : Gary (Granite) Thanks for your work on this. Very appreciated. Mark Garfinkel
201 Cubsrule : If dealing exclusively with visual art, yes. If it's in a contract where it makes reference to a variety of media, I would argue that the Canadian de
202 Granite : Hi all The crew were hoping to see the first draft on Friday but this has been delayed. Best communicate this to you all. Planning to have them availa
203 Walter2222 : Thanks for keeping us informed Gary! Much appreciated! Best regards, Walter
204 Samuel32 : Thanks for the updates Gary! Sam,
205 Kukkudrill : I thought Mick (post 187) said that the crew had already seen draft TOUs, but I must have misunderstood him. Hope the reason for the delay isn't inte
206 Post contains images ShyFlyer : Bummer on the delay, but the update is very much appreciated! This is how communication should be handled.
207 Granite : Charles Yes, we have seen them but back to DM for updating again. No internal wrangling at all. Regards Gary
208 Tillerman : Hi all, Just discovered that I could post in this forum with just a photographers's account. All I need is an e-mail which states that Demand Media wi
209 APFPilot1985 : I really don't want to stir the pot, but how do these make sense together?
210 LeadingEdge : Sounds reasonable to me. A first draft has been previwed and I guess ammendments suggested that now need to be worked into a second draft???? Standar
211 LTU932 : An e-mail won't be enough if then DM doesn't keep their part of the deal. You should demand (yes, demand) a letter from Demand Media in which they re
212 Tillerman : LTU932 is probably right, but I'm not going to be bothered by all this legal bla-bla. I've decided to get my pics off this site anyway, as I've learne
213 Jetmatt777 : I'm pretty sure every company in the world is trying to make a profit, and lots of it, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a big profit
214 Post contains images Sovietjet : Do what you wanna do, but I just wanted to say that I really enjoy your photos and you shouldn't delete them
215 Tillerman : Right, the site started here in Europe, by a Swedish enthusiast, as a platform for other aviation enthusiasts to show their photos. Nothing more, noth
216 Cubsrule : They did turn it down, didn't they? While we haven't yet seen the new ToU, photographers might yet get what they want (and if the terms aren't too on
217 Jetmatt777 : If Johan didn't want to make money, he wouldn't have placed ads, have two levels of paid membership, and some money from photo sales going into A.net
218 Cpd : I also thought the use of moral rights were quite 'interesting' - and a lawyer I had look at the first ToU had a good giggle at them. She's pretty go
219 Post contains images Jetmatt777 : I thought I'd bring a little humor to the table Matt
220 NIKV69 : Fell in their hands? What did DM do fly to Sweden with SWAT or something and take it? Come on pal, Johan voluntarily sold it. It's ok to make money.
221 Dendrobatid : I started photographing aircraft for myself decades before the internet had been invented and before the vast majority of contributors here had been b
222 Ptrjong : Tillerman, DM can't do just anything. They want revenue from advertising and thus can't afford to chase the photographers away. The USA is lawsuit cou
223 Tillerman : Let me put it simple. My trust in airliners.net is gone under the new management. I think that within the foreseeable future DM will find a way to mak
224 Farcry : Hi everyone. As someone who does not upload photos I would just like to make my thoughts known. I joined this site several years ago (different user n
225 Bjcc : I'd have to agree that there is no sin in making money. It is afterall the only reason I work for a living! I expect thats much the same in most peopl
226 Post contains images TMFRA : From the first to the last word I do totally agree with Tillerman! Trust is gone and for the future we have to pay keen attention on any changes made
227 NIKV69 : Well said Mick So what are you saying? A professional can't be an enthusiast? If you want to just show other spotters your pics fine. If you upload h
228 Tillerman : It can be a thin line which separates the hobby and the profession. Many years ago I found this site and thought "wow, so many photos from so many pe
229 Flughafen : Why did not all users (photographers) receive an official email states that the new TOU has been postponed indefinitely while another "new" term "is b
230 Kukkudrill : There's no great hurry in my opinion. I'd rather take the time to get the new TOUs right than risk another botched job. Sure I'm looking forward to se
231 Psych : Well it seems certain that I got more than excellent British weather when we went on holiday last week - I also avoided this mass A.net headache for t
232 Viv : Indeed. I have postponed a decision on pulling my shots from the site until I see the new ToU. If they are are not satisfactory to me I will pull my
233 Tommy Mogren : Ok, it's Monday around lunch CET. Can we see the new ToU draft please ? I can't understand why it can't be posted here while you have an internal revi
234 ZakHH : Sorry, but I would beg to differ with this. DM should take whatever time is needed to produce some good ToU. We know that the screeners are involved
235 Flughafen : Who know the new TOU has recently been postponed/skipped if not visit this forum or update their temporary "Terms of Use"? What we need is an officia
236 AndyEastMids : Totally agree Tommy. If Dendrobatid has seen them and thinks they're OK, why can't they be shared now? Only conclusion I can arrive at is that DM are
237 Post contains images NIKV69 : Because then it would never get done and we would have more of these threads were everybody jumps to all sorts of conclusions. Again you are making t
238 Tommy Mogren : People jump to conclusions when they don't know the facts. Show us the draft and we wouldn't have to jump anywhere... I'm not thinking like a stock o
239 Post contains images Jeffm : I agree completely with Tommy on these points....and a bunch of us had a good laugh at the lipstick remark..
240 NIKV69 : No lipstick pal though that joke is quite old. You are thinking in fact is more of a feeling of entitlement. You, me or any photographer here with th
241 Aloges : but still up-to-date Well... we did get "entitled", no treated, to the withdrawn ToUs without being notified beforehand or consulted. So it's only na
242 Tommy Mogren : No, that's correct. And that's not why I am concerned. I am concerned because I do have a few photos hosted here. I really want to know how they will
243 Dendrobatid : It is nice that Tommy and Andy have such faith in me that they think that if I think they are okay then they must be close enough to be acceptable. I
244 Post contains images Walter2222 : just add "good communicator, information provider" Best regards, Walter
245 D L X : On the other hand, the fact that DM is not showing the terms in progress means they have to get it perfect when they actually do release the new term
246 Post contains images Dendrobatid : Damon If that is all you are worried about, then I will tell you that that is the case. The wording contains almost exactly that even to the extent t
247 Post contains images Aviopic : and of course: Nice guy to be around and have a beer with(something he still owes me )
248 Post contains images D L X : Can I blame it on it being late? Or maybe that's the Canadian spelling.
249 Xico : Well, after what happened, i am not sure "groundless" is the right word.
250 N1120A : Said fears are/were absolutely not groundless. As written, the TOU could be read not other way but to give DM the unlimited right to profit without c
251 Dvincent : Mick, They weren't groundless a week ago. But with Gary and Tim on the case with their public statements my confidence has come back a bit. I guess m
252 Granite : Guys A lot of work going on in the background and thanks to members of the crew, Monique and Paulo for keeping this top priority. Still planning to ha
253 ZakHH : There was, indeed (presidents' day). Unless Paulo and Monique will be available over the weekend to answer questions here in the forum, may I suggest
254 BlackProjects : So i go off line for a week and now im back the Dust appears to be settling at last (I Hope it is). In the past my self and i should think most of the
255 APFPilot1985 : Any updates, I would really hate to see these posted on a Friday again.
256 Lindy Field : APFPilot1985, A draft of the revised terms will probably be presented within a few hours. Regards, Edward
257 APFPilot1985 : Good to know. I will be looking forward to it.
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...
New Equipment For Photographers! posted Fri Aug 10 2001 06:41:15 by Cathay111
New Terms - What It Means For Photographers posted Fri Feb 8 2008 22:33:14 by Flynavy
Airport Photographers List Part II (need Update) posted Wed Aug 3 2005 04:20:58 by DLKAPA
New Upload Page Part II posted Tue May 6 2003 04:40:29 by Administrator
New Found Respect For Photographers Of Airliners posted Tue Feb 12 2002 01:18:07 by Artsyman
Looking For A New Lens For My 400D.... posted Sun Oct 14 2007 14:50:58 by MAN23R
Looking For New Lens For My Sony Alpha posted Tue Jun 12 2007 13:41:31 by Ehvk
New Plane For An Airline... This Shot Good Enough? posted Thu Mar 15 2007 18:51:20 by Dvincent
Drizzle And Rain Part II posted Fri Jan 19 2007 20:17:23 by Lufthansi
New Try For Gear Close-up. Please Comment! posted Mon Jan 15 2007 11:52:48 by Lufthansi