Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Unbelievable Behaviour  
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2592 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Hello everybody,

I need to vent something here which p***** me off...

There is another website I am part of. It's a photography website (non- aviation) related. You can upload pictures there, rate them, leave comments etc etc.
Today I found a picture of airliners.net which has been amazingly changed. Basically just the titles so that the airline is no longer visible. He changed the titles to his username instead. And called it "My 747, internation commercial".
I commented the picture and wrote: well done, but do you have the permission of the photographer from a.net where I know this picture is from?
Now, an hour later, I see this picture is deleted from this other website and he put me on IGNORE! He claims to be a professional photographer with publishing books and in newspaper and magazines.
Isn't his behaviour unaccaptable? He is NOT obersving any copyrights! And I bet he hates it if somebody is using his pictures and editing them like that.

Here is the original picture:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philip Eichhorn



I informed the photographer of this picture about it, but he cannot look at it anymore because it got deleted from this other website...

What do you think about such behavior?

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 


It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2579 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Thread starter):
What do you think about such behavior?

It will continue to happen until we are allowed to put a permanent watermark on our images. I would be willing to bet the ignorant slob would not have used the image had it had a prominent watermark.


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting JeffM (Reply 1):
It will continue to happen until we are allowed to put a permanent watermark on our images. I would be willing to bet the ignorant slob would not have used the image had it had a prominent watermark.

I guess you are right. But with a watermark even we members here cannot really enjoy the pictures 100%. I use some of the a.net pictures as wallpaper on my desktop and it wouldn't looke the same with watermark...
But you are right, I guess. We will continue to see that. But it is annoying and his behaviour is childish... and he pretends to be a pro  Yeah sure

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineWhisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 565 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi,

of course it's not right to use other people's pictures in that way but I think that is something we uploaders have to live with. I know that there are dozens of private and commercial websites (eg virtual airlines) which use pictures from airliner.net.

Not long ago I got a bunch of postcard-like pictures from Aeroflot, on some there was even the copyright-bar partly visible.KTHY also uses pictures from a.net in their emails and doubt they have ever asked the photographers.

I think I have seen the edited 747 on fotocommunity.de. Was a really stupid edit.

Stefan



Nobody is perfect - not even a perfect fool.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Whisperjet (Reply 3):
I think I have seen the edited 747 on fotocommunity.de. Was a really stupid edit.

So I see you know what website I was talking about  Wink
The 744 looked weird and the original picture is so great.

The behaviour just p***** me off. Just removed his pic and put me on ignore. Some people just cannot admit that they made a mistake.
I think 2 other pictures of him are "stolen" as well, but I cannot prove it...  Sad

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineVaporlock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2568 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 2):
But it is annoying and his behaviour is childish... and he pretends to be a pro

Phil, I agree but as a few have stated there will always be SOB's that think they can do anything.....his behaviour is childish and whether or not he is a "pro" his behaviour sure doesn't reflect that.

Vaps  bouncy 


User currently offlinePaulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If you see something again like that make you sure you take a screen shot, then you can show that screen shot in here.


Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2545 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Paulinbna (Reply 6):
If you see something again like that make you sure you take a screen shot, then you can show that screen shot in here.

Oh I will for sure. But I wasn't that smart at that moment Big grin I never expected him to delete it right away and put me on ignore...
I contacted the photographer of the original picture to let him know about it. But won't help now...

But next time: screenshot!!!

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2507 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Good news guys: He is guilty!

I found another pic which he took and pretended it to be his picture. An AF on approach to KaiTak. He removed the reg and cloned another building in, so that it seems to be different. But it can be seen easily...
The plot thickens Big grin

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineTopGun3 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

I know it sort of ruins the picture, but I put the AIRLINERS watermark on all my uploads to discourage picture thieves from using my work without asking first.

Keep up the good work of flushing out these SOBs.



I'd rather be flying.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2499 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting TopGun3 (Reply 9):
Keep up the good work of flushing out these SOBs.

Will do Big grin I informed the owner of the other website and they told me: they will take care of it Big grin

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2432 times:

Sounds like a guy who should stand in the pillory. Why don't you publish his fotocommunity.de account name here? I'll gladly volunteer to send him nice account comments...  devil 

User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting ZakHH (Reply 11):
Why don't you publish his fotocommunity.de account name here? I'll gladly volunteer to send him nice account comments... devil

Nah, I won't do that. Maybe you'll find out his name on your own  Wink But the officials there are informed, so it's only a matter of time until this pic will be gone...

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2376 times:



Quoting TopGun3 (Reply 9):
I know it sort of ruins the picture, but I put the AIRLINERS watermark on all my uploads to discourage picture thieves from using my work without asking first.

For $5 I can have every picture in the database without a watermark....  sarcastic 


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2042 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2372 times:



Quoting JeffM (Reply 1):
It will continue to happen until we are allowed to put a permanent watermark on our images. I would be willing to bet the ignorant slob would not have used the image had it had a prominent watermark.

In this case, the watermark issue is irrelevant. The photographer chose to upload without a watermark.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2301 times:



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 14):
In this case, the watermark issue is irrelevant. The photographer chose to upload without a watermark.

and a poor choice at that. If we had the option to have permanent watermarks regardless of membership status, many of us would regardless of weather people choose not to look at watermarked images or not.


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2042 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2206 times:



Quoting JeffM (Reply 15):
and a poor choice at that. If we had the option to have permanent watermarks regardless of membership status, many of us would regardless of weather people choose not to look at watermarked images or not.

Jeff, I'm with you on that one. However, it would appear that there are still people out there who upload without (the "limited") watermark... This fellow was one of them.

I guess we all learn the hard way. I started watermarking after I picked up the local newspaper one day just to find my photo in there. Don't get me wrong, I knew they stole from a.net, but usually from foreigners, not from local photographers (and especially not from ones who used to work for that particular paper) who can simply walk into their office and yell at the managing editor until they walk out again with a cheque in their hands. I guess some copy editor was asleep that day.

But it's always the same thing, when our paper carries an aviation story, there's usually a stolen a.net pic in there from some poor, unsuspecting bloke who uploads without a watermark. Once I notify them of the newspaper article, miraculously, their next photos all have big fat watermarks. (Oh, and Bahamasair does it, too, for their inflight magazine.)



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

I agree with Jeff. If people refuse to use the watermark feature, then they only have themselves to blame.

So basically its the original persons behaviour that causing the issue.


User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2031 times:



Quoting Eadster (Reply 17):
I agree with Jeff. If people refuse to use the watermark feature, then they only have themselves to blame.

So basically its the original persons behaviour that causing the issue.

Sorry, but that probably goes one step too far. The blame still is first and foremost with the person who is wrongfully copying and altering the image, only to display it as his own work.

It is okay to point out that the photographers can actively prevent it by adding a watermark to the picture, and I would agree that everyone should consider to do it. But the absence of a watermark is by no means a justification for image theft.


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1987 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

 banghead 

And he did it again! This time with a picture of the A380 cockpit:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbu...dustrie/Airbus-A380-841/0982129/L/

Man, I am mad at this guy. But the website now has to do something about it! This is just getting worse and worse...

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1972 times:



Quoting ZakHH (Reply 18):
But the absence of a watermark is by no means a justification for image theft.

Leaving the door to your car unlocked doesn't make it right to steal your car either.......just a lot easier.


User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1948 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 19):

I think I got him now. He is a PHOTOGRAPHER from BERLIN, right?

Quoting JeffM (Reply 20):
Leaving the door to your car unlocked doesn't make it right to steal your car either.......just a lot easier.

That is certainly correct.


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1939 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting ZakHH (Reply 21):
I think I got him now. He is a PHOTOGRAPHER from BERLIN, right?

Yes he is... But don't start a war against him or I won't have a quiet minute in this community anymore because he will start a war against me for sure.... I have informed the officials again and they will take care of it....

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1936 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 22):
But don't start a war against him

Too late. Big grin

But I have sent a message to the site management as well. This needs to be dealt with.


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting ZakHH (Reply 23):
Too late. Big grin

I hope you haven't mentioned my name. Otherwise I can start to delete my pictures and look for a new username.

But i hope he'll get in trouble for sure. What a nerd.

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
25 ZakHH : Of course not. And my comment stayed within "suitable-for-work" limits as well. But seriously, what kind of problem does that guy have? He is claimin
26 WILCO737 : Good I don't have a clue. he is just a nerd... And he had double as many pictures online, but it looks he deleted some of them. Or the officials dele
27 Post contains links ZakHH : I just TinEyed his complete collection, as I also think that a few more could be stolen. However, I found no results. Well, why not asking for help he
28 Post contains links ZakHH : Apparently, his stolen A380 cockpit shot was taken care of. However, I wonder how much more fotocommunity is willing to accept before they ban that id
29 WILCO737 : Looks like most of his Aviation pics got removed or he deleted them... And I hope he'll never do this again. But the wilc737 Police will have an eye o
30 Post contains links ZakHH : Indeed, all suspicious photos are gone The remaining shots look bad enough qualitywise, so they are probably indeed his own. I will keep an eye on hi
31 Eadster : Ok so I go out, leave my doors to the house open and unlocked. I come home and ieverything is gone. So now its the thief's fault that took all my bel
32 ZakHH : Of course, it is! Come on! According to your logic, one should only pay for that stuff in the supermarket that carries these little alarm thingies fo
33 Lovetojetblue : could ya post the link
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...
Your Thoughts On This Photo - And Viewer Behaviour posted Fri May 26 2006 18:16:46 by Psych
Oly720 Odd Behaviour posted Mon May 24 2004 17:25:31 by Oly720man
Really Bad Behaviour From A Spotter! posted Wed Mar 17 2004 12:36:09 by Joge
Unbelievable Behaviour posted Sat Jul 5 2008 08:21:19 by WILCO737
Unbelievable Photo posted Sat May 25 2002 04:59:05 by Joe pries
Bad Behaviour By Photographer posted Sat Mar 2 2002 22:23:11 by 1stspotter