ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3281 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5020 times:
They are exactly the same image.
Having said that, it may be true that the image is stolen, but it may not necessarily have been the case, or deliberate. It may have been a case of a photographer lending someone his camera, sending it to them to upload, and looking back through his images and forgetting he hadn't been the one to take it.
The appropriate course of action would be to contact the screeners, in order to avoid calling out a photographer in case it was something innocent, as in the scenario I gave above.
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
SNW From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 24 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5003 times:
There have been a couple of site bugs relating to the database and info being incorrectly attached to images and so forth - could this be a bug?
(just throwing out another possibility - don't know how possible it may be)
Dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31 Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4966 times:
Yeah, as I said, I tried writing to admin via the 'contact us' form, but my browser wasn't letting me send it for some reason. Should I try firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com or something like that?
I don't want to accuse anyone here, but the only reason I recognized the photo when it was added was that on another site this person had tried to pass it off as their own, along with one of my own pictures.
Moderators, please let me know the appropriate address(es) I should be sending my concerns to.
Stil From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4737 times:
I think the problem is not the screening process. The problem is that 'double' rejection needs to be redefined.
It happens more times than aesthetically desirable that 2 pictures are accepted being susbstancially identical -not this case, as they are the same-, but taken by 2 different photographers standing beside each other and shooting to the same aircraft at the same moment.
When someone is surfing through the latest additions and sees two identical thumbnails, the first thing that springs to mind is that an error ocurred somewhere. Yes, if you see the 2 pictures you'll find they're slightly different; but it's some kind of "visual cacophony".
I don't know anything about the screening process, but maybe the screener checked the similar pictures of the same aircraft and found the first published of this two, but as they came from different photographers he didn't pay further attention.
Just my opinion, although.
G-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4735 times:
The only problem Stil is that aviation photography as become so competitive at LHR, it is difficult to see how a double rule could be applied fairly without discriminating against different photographers. Just do a search on PT-MUC @ LHR to see what I'm on about.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 40 Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4713 times:
Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 9): could be applied fairly without discriminating against different photographers.
Whoever uploads first then. However, I'd like to think we can all upload a photo of the same thing, even if they are similar - as long as the photo is good. No two photos are ever quite the same.
It's competitive everywhere - it's just the way the game has become. People getting better cameras, better lenses and doing their utmost to get the better photo than the next person. Hell, we are on a level where we routinely get better photos than some of the photographers on salary at certain aviation magazines. Some of us (ie, not me) probably well out-do the regular press photographers too. I'm pretty certain some of us have an armada of camera equipment they would love to have.
It is pretty competitive, and some comments on another forum confirmed the way things sometimes are. Whenever a desirable new plane is spotted, you can't tell me there isn't ambition within some of these photographers to get more views/more prominence than the next person to photograph the same thing. If you tell me that it doesn't matter - then you are being economical with the truth - or you are a politician.
Even I like to get prominence to my photos - but not at the expense of things gettiing 'competitive' in the way G-CIVP in the message above might be suggesting (if I've understood right).
Stil From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4675 times:
Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 9): Just do a search on PT-MUC @ LHR to see what I'm on about.
My God! I do perfectly see what you are talking about and I have to admit you're right, it would be quite difficult to apply this rule fairly and maybe -just maybe- it will add more problems than solutions.
But many of the pictures on your example would fit in the thread start, as some of them are identical, and a way -not the only one- to prevent this is redefining the 'double' concept. Maybe the first submitted would have priority and thus force the photographers to try slight differents views of the same aircraft in such competitive situations.
I'm conscious of what I'm stating here is way too easier to say when your home airport is a small one with no situations like this one at all, but once more, I'm just giving my opinion.
I imagine all sides of the story have to be gone into before a decision is made and if it takes time to contact someone then nothing may appear to happen. Maybe there should be a quarantine so questionable photos are not accesible until issues like this are sorted. I know this will then lead to questions about where the "dodgy" photos are so should such threads be deleted, or at least closed, once the issue has been raised?
What amazes me is the fact that all of these photos have variations in the sky color and such, yet they were shot at the same exact time. Some have a nice blue sky, while others seem hazy. So which photo is correct ?
Another example of this oversaturation(no pun intended) at English airports is this:
G-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 10 Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4283 times:
I think it is going to depend on the subject matter. In the context of PT-MUC at LHR on the 3rd January 2009, it was already on the database, so wasn't a 'first'. If two photographers get a first, then I no issue with them sharing the glory. I think this was an exceptional episode but is not uncommon. Just see F-ORMA at LHR. Whether this should be stopped, I think it is a difficult call as it would be an arbitrary rule.
True, no photos are never quite the same, but if you look at PT-MUC photos for the date above, these are very similar. This was an 09L arrival at LHR and the opportunities for variation are limited. It's going to be a sky shot whatever.
I agree with your comments on competition. Simply, digital cameras have reduced the barriers to entry and photographers from a wider pool can now submit photos to magazines, websites, etc. I think there are those photographers, especially on the LHR, LGW, LTN, STN circuit who are very competitive and are keen to demonstrate their output on anet. I think anet does fuel this ambition. This said, it's down to them; if they wish to spend their spare time at airfields, then that's their choice. Whether money can be made, that's another matter. The short answer is yes but not enough to replace the day job or for a Mayfair address.
To demonstrate the competitive streak that now dominates , I have known one photographer at LHR to come armed with a laptop, take the photo, edit it and go to the nearest wi-fi spot to upload to anet!
Sovietjet - If what I recall, the smog didn't help but it was slightly clearer towards the runway threshold! I just bumped up the levels.
Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 14): what kind of paperwork needs to be filled out, before someone who can make a decision, takes it down?
Well, it's been almost three days now, and nothing's been done, so I guess I'll tell you guys (as I mentioned earlier) that I highly doubt this is a mistake/error.
I only noticed the photo as being already in the db because on another site the guy who uploaded it had been trying to claim he had taken it, along with other photos from a.net (including my own). He was called out pretty easily there (as the photo credits didn't match his id), and he ended up being banned from the site. I would guess that the screeners/whomever was to deal with this was waiting for a response from the guy, but I think he's had enough time, especially given that we've heard from the real photographer now.
Sorry about all this Keishi, but I think you deserve not to have credit for this photo stolen from you (and it is a great shot by the way!)
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3878 posts, RR: 19 Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4000 times:
Quoting Dlowwa (Reply 23): I only noticed the photo as being already in the db because on another site the guy who uploaded it had been trying to claim he had taken it, along with other photos from a.net (including my own). He was called out pretty easily there (as the photo credits didn't match his id), and he ended up being banned from the site
Then the case is pretty obvious. Why didn't you say this before?
Quoting Dlowwa (Reply 23): I would guess that the screeners/whomever was to deal with this was waiting for a response from the guy, but I think he's had enough time, especially given that we've heard from the real photographer now.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
25 Cpd: I agree with those thoughts. Seeing the TU-154 mentioned above, that's a obvious example, where does the line need to be drawn. But if it were me, I'
26 Dlowwa: Well, I didn't want to seem too accusatory, or set out too much of a negative tone, given that protocol in these forums is not to go around calling o
27 Viv: There is no proof that he is a photographer - the disputed duplicate shot is the only one he has uploaded. It appears to be a clear case of plagiaris
28 Dlowwa: You know what, you're absolutely right. Let's call him the other 'uploader' then. Me too.
29 Psych: I am pleased to see that the apparently stolen photo has now been removed. Paul
30 GPHOTO: Yes Paul, I can confirm that after looking into the matter, the image has now been removed. Best regards, Jim
31 G-CIVP: Just to say, I always love a happy ending!
32 WILCO737: And the case is closed: thread locked. wilco737[Edited 2009-01-24 06:24:24]