Mostly all Air France stuff, but there is some other shots on there that are clearly not taken by this person. They have also gone to the trouble of removing the copyright bar. This just baffles me why the watermark disappears for those that are members. That watermark should stay on the picture regardless of your member or financial status on this site. This is further proof of it!
Either way, you can contact Flickr control and advise them of Copyright infringements, or contact this person directly via their profile page. As we know, ANet holds no responsibility to contact anyone on your behalf.
Jonny From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
I agree with you that this website is holding pics that their photographers or themselves didn't take. However, I don't know whether they are from A.net or not. If you are satisfied that they are, you can send an email to Airliners.net's manager, and they will take care of it.
76794p From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 341 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2538 times:
their account needs to be delated and the photos returned to their rightfull owner. on serveral you can see the a.net watermark like the one of the 777 at IAH at night. will be informing the people at flickr and the administrors of a.net about the incident
Gliderpilot08 From Canada, joined Jun 2008, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2515 times:
Hi community,
Quoting 76794p (Reply 2): their account needs to be delated and the photos returned to their rightfull owner.
Absolutly correct!
Keep in mind though that it's most likely that this person has created a Fake Profile because if anyone has the nurve to steel pictures off a World-Wide aviation site, a.net, then their going to make sure they themselves are not known to the public; and if they wish to be known, it will be done under a fake identification.
The part that really gets me is that they don't care. They don't care to respect the photographers effort that was put into the picture and that is really disapointing...!!!
and if that's not enough, this surly isn't the first time that something like this has happened.
Quoting Lexy (Thread starter): They have also gone to the trouble of removing the copyright bar. This just baffles me why the watermark disappears for those that are members. That watermark should stay on the picture regardless of your member or financial status on this site.
????????????
How in the world could they remove a water mark from a picture if the watermark is part of the picture. I am assuming they did alot of editing to remove that watermark which tells you that they have this whole deal planned out and in conclusion; would have probably made themselves a fake profile.
Keep in mind, they know what they are doing is wrong (otherwise why remove the watermark) so they have probably covered their tracks. not likely to catch them; and that initself, is the real problem here!!!!!!!!!!
Really deleting the account won't really change anything because this person will just keep on what they are doing;
HOWEVER, is there maybe a way to track this guy if he has a fake profile. maybe his IP address???
Anyway,
Steeling photo's is just shamefull. All the work the photographer put in to making the picture presentable for a.net is all for nothing and all a waste of the effort.
You would think that a cpoyright watermark attached to a picture will stop that kind of theif BUT i guess not...
Regards,
Luke
Gimli Advisory. Sierra, Oscar, Romeo on right downwind for Rwy 15
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2509 times:
Quoting 76794p (Reply 2): and the photos returned to their rightfull owner
Errrr.... it's not like a stolen car, is it?
Quoting Gliderpilot08 (Reply 3): ow in the world could they remove a water mark from a picture if the watermark is part of the picture. I am assuming they did alot of editing to remove that watermar
Guess you're quite new to A.net, so if you browse through the database and look at watermarked shots you will notice that 80 percent of the watermarks can be removed in Photoshop within two minutes.
Most photographers even CHOOSE to have the watermarks on the photos without positioning it across the aircraft
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2487 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 4): Quoting Gliderpilot08 (Reply 3):
ow in the world could they remove a water mark from a picture if the watermark is part of the picture. I am assuming they did alot of editing to remove that watermar
Guess you're quite new to A.net, so if you browse through the database and look at watermarked shots you will notice that 80 percent of the watermarks can be removed in Photoshop within two minutes.
Most photographers even CHOOSE to have the watermarks on the photos without positioning it across the aircraft
The bigger problem is that for only $5, anyone can browse the database and take all the photos they want, watermark-free regardless of whether or not the photographers chose to watermark their photos.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Mattbna From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 309 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2479 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 5): The bigger problem is that for only $5, anyone can browse the database and take all the photos they want, watermark-free regardless of whether or not the photographers chose to watermark their photos.
Many of us have been complaining about that for several years now (as you know) and we've never been given an answer (that I've seen) that makes any sense to us as photographers. How our work is still protected after someone spends a minimum of $5 I'll never understand! It is not rocket science to figure out how to chop a measly little copyright bar off of the bottom of a photo.
I'm also still wondering why I can't go back and add watermarks to my old photos that have been in the database since the pre-watermark days without needing to go through the hassle of re-uploading the photos?!?
This option has been available on "other" sites for several years now and I would expect the DM coding team to be able to figure this out without issue...but...years later...here we are.
Matt
--
Canon EOS 40D & 20D - 100-400mm L IS USM / 28-135mm IS USM / 10-22mm USM / 18-55mm EF-S
Lexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2362 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Quoting Mattbna (Reply 6): Many of us have been complaining about that for several years now (as you know) and we've never been given an answer (that I've seen) that makes any sense to us as photographers. How our work is still protected after someone spends a minimum of $5 I'll never understand! It is not rocket science to figure out how to chop a measly little copyright bar off of the bottom of a photo.
Matt has been a proponent of this for some time now and I agree with him, there really has been increadible silence from the DM crew about the issue. And it is an issue for the record.
Quoting Mattbna (Reply 6): I'm also still wondering why I can't go back and add watermarks to my old photos that have been in the database since the pre-watermark days without needing to go through the hassle of re-uploading the photos?!?
Again, another thing that baffles me completely here as well. All of my photos on here are "recent", but I would love to have that option available to me just in case.
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 5): The bigger problem is that for only $5, anyone can browse the database and take all the photos they want, watermark-free regardless of whether or not the photographers chose to watermark their photos.
Gliderpilot08 From Canada, joined Jun 2008, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2399 times:
HI,
Quoting Viv (Reply 8): Say what? Shades of the Third Policeman ...
What I mean is that they probably have a Flickr account with fake information so no-one really can know who this guy is! Steeling the effort and quality and claiming it as his own and gettting the credit.
Quoting INNflight (Reply 4): o if you browse through the database and look at watermarked shots you will notice that 80 percent of the watermarks can be removed in Photoshop within two minutes.
I did not know that. I guess that really isn't a great tip for improving your photos but certainly explains my uncertainties as to how a person could remove a watermark from pictures and outright steel pictures and claim them as their own.
Regards
Luke
Gimli Advisory. Sierra, Oscar, Romeo on right downwind for Rwy 15
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2370 times:
Quoting Gliderpilot08 (Reply 9): I did not know that. I guess that really isn't a great tip for improving your photos but certainly explains my uncertainties as to how a person could remove a watermark from pictures and outright steel pictures and claim them as their own.
If you read what some of us have posted above, there is no need to remove watermarks from any photos! It just takes a $5 First Class subscription, and the watermarks are nonexistent!
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, RR: 17 Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2358 times:
The only real "problem" I see here in your example Lexy is that the flickr user did not attribute the photo - took off the copyright bar. Under the creative commons license you CAN re-distribute photos but you have to attribute them, in other words, acknowledge the original photographer. He could keep them there, as long as he puts the Photographers name and what would be even better is a link to the a.net photo. I looked all over the place and cannot find the name of the photographer on his pics.
the a.net watermark would not be sufficient. It does not attribute to any specific photographer, just airliners.net. that is why the watermark is useless.
bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Lexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2362 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2349 times:
Quoting Bruce (Reply 12): The only real "problem" I see here in your example Lexy is that the flickr user did not attribute the photo - took off the copyright bar. Under the creative commons license you CAN re-distribute photos but you have to attribute them, in other words, acknowledge the original photographer. He could keep them there, as long as he puts the Photographers name and what would be even better is a link to the a.net photo. I looked all over the place and cannot find the name of the photographer on his pics.
True. Had they given credit to the original photographer, then this wouldn't be an issue of course. Good point!
Gliderpilot08 From Canada, joined Jun 2008, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2321 times:
Quoting Bruce (Reply 12): the a.net watermark would not be sufficient. It does not attribute to any specific photographer, just airliners.net. that is why the watermark is useless.
A better Idea would be to have a watermark with the photographers name instead of just A.net. And of course, remove that function of the first class membership in that:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 11): It just takes a $5 First Class subscription, and the watermarks are nonexistent!
this type of feature should NOT exist. But i guess it does.
I guess this is just that type of problem that really has no solution.
Luke
Gimli Advisory. Sierra, Oscar, Romeo on right downwind for Rwy 15
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2310 times:
Quoting Bruce (Reply 12): Under the creative commons license you CAN re-distribute photos but you have to attribute them, in other words, acknowledge the original photographer. He could keep them there, as long as he puts the Photographers name and what would be even better is a link to the a.net photo.
Hey hang on. You can only redistribute photos if the COPYRIGHT HOLDER has made them available under a Creative Commons licence. You cannot make other people's photos available without their permission if they are under a normal copyright, like all photos are on a.net.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
Dav08 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2259 times:
Hi all, this guy is just randomly downloading images from the web, 99% of the photos are not his or hers. This has to stop. I really started to wonder if is worth it nowadays to upload shots to the web, I think not with this kind of people, I think now is better to just print your shots and hang them in your room that is it. This is really a shame.
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2246 times:
Quoting Bruce (Reply 12): Under the creative commons license you CAN re-distribute photos but you have to attribute them, in other words, acknowledge the original photographer.
VERY VERY important to point out that he only can redistribute the photos IF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO DO SO.
Creative Commons usually only apply if the copyright holder wants that. If not, the photographer can just stick to "all rights reserved" and even creative commons distribution (which only grew big thanks to imageshack and flickr etc anyways...) is not allowed then.
Creative commons is an option used by websites such as Flickr whereby photographers can allow their photos to be freely distributed if they so prefer. Wikipedia has something similar called Wikimedia Commons. Personally speaking I wouldn't touch either one with a bargepole.
Charles
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
Gliderpilot08 From Canada, joined Jun 2008, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2125 times:
Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 19): Creative commons is an option used by websites such as Flickr whereby photographers can allow their photos to be freely distributed if they so prefer.
Good to know, thanks for the information
Regards
Luke
Gimli Advisory. Sierra, Oscar, Romeo on right downwind for Rwy 15
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2362 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2008, 136 posts, 
They don't care to respect the photographers effort that was put into the picture and that is really disapointing...!!!
not likely to catch them; and that initself, is the real problem here!!!!!!!!!!
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
