Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Facebook Page Stealing Photos From A.net Photogs  
User currently offlinejeffreyklm From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 39 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10662 times:

Good evening all.

I just want to warn you all to be on the lookout.

There's a facebook profile called "World's best aviation photos". Sounds nice and all but in fact the person behind this page takes photos from airliners.net and edits out the watermarks and copyrights. This surely is concidered as theft.

Link to the page: https://www.facebook.com/#!/WorldsBestAviationPhotography

Stay on the lookout on this page, perhaps you can find your own image stolen one time. If we don't take actions.


Kind regards, Jeffrey Schäfer. Fellow photographer.


✈ a mile of road or railway leads to nowhere, a mile of runway leads to everywhere. ✈ Aeronautical Engineering Student ✈
70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1275 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10613 times:

Photographs from here, and their photographers, who are uncredited on the offending facebook page (a.net watermarks and copyright info removed, edited photo then posted by user):

Michel Gilliand - LH 722
Marseno Bremer - AZ 772
Xu Zheng - LH A346
Jerome Zbinden - SQ 77W
Saurabh C. Patel - JL 77W
Andrew Hunt - NZ 747-400 (LAX air-to-ground)
Marco Zeininger - LH Avro 146
Jahnel Klaus - S7 A320
Jeffwell - VS A346 (the famous rainbow contrail)
Richard Barsby - NW A319
Thanat W. - V Australia 777 @ Phuket
Zaninger Jonathan - JJ A330
Darren Wilson - BA 737
Jared Romanowicz - FE A306
Alevik - FE A306
Konstantin Von Wedelstaedt - FE A306
Cary Liao - FE A306

I'm sure there are more.


User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10590 times:

I suggest someone from the a.net crew follow the advice as provided by Facebook and get this shut down:
https://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php

Should be simple enough.


User currently offlinelarseham From Netherlands, joined Sep 2010, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10471 times:

Hopefully this page can be stopped. Although the person behind it will be a bit harder. It looks like he started a new page right when we (Jeffrey and I) started sending him messages.
So also please keep an eye out for this page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Photo-dAviation-I/202896903149096


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10411 times:

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 2):

I suggest someone from the a.net crew follow the advice as provided by Facebook and get this shut down:
https://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php

The A.net crew cannot do anything about it, as nobody on the crew here (Screeners, Moderators, Editors, Support, Chat) is the "authorized agent" allowed to act on the behalf of those whose content is being infringed upon. Someone like Paul (A.net Community Manager) is the likely person to spearhead such an effort since he is one of Demand Media's representatives on this site. Those photographers whose photos are being infringed upon will need to report the page, which is the standard procedure with many sites (like Flickr, where there has been multiple cases of similar theft).

People have been stealing photos from here and other similar sites for years trying to pass them off as their own works. No amount of watermarks or copyright bars will stop people from pilfering content from here and other sites and passing it off as their own works. Some had even left the watermarks and copyright bars on the photos, which shows how bright some of these folks are. Unfortunately, some think that everything posted on the Internet is free for the taking, as if the Internet is a giant library. There was one page last year that was passing themselves off as Airbus and stole photos from here (and presumably other sites) and replaced our copyright bar with an "Airbus" one, thereby infringing on the intellectual property of our photographers but also that of Airbus. There seems to be another site (as found within the initial one in question) that is also infringing on some copyrights:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?s...83276.89871.204216432942663&type=3

I know I have posted in similar sorts of pages on Facebook in the past to shame them and to call them out on their thievery. In many cases, I posted the link to the original photo as it is posted here and these people usually delete the posts and some have blocked me from the page.


User currently offlineNC1844V From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe there's a way to protect the photographs on the Airliners.net website? There's got to be away to stop someone from doing the simple Right Click, save image as, function when it comes to our database of photographs. I don't know much about webpage design or anything related to that topic, just an Idea.

It is really a shame someone is taking credit for others on this websites work. But, People steal. Sadly its a way of life.



Steven Bates
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 10294 times:

There's nothing you can do that can stop people. You can disable right click, but you just have to shut off Javascript. You can use server side coding but anything people can view in a web browser, they can easily take a screenshot and crop out the image. Even if you embed copyright info in EXIF data, can it can easily be edited out. As soon as you put an image online in any form, you essentially give up and chance of keeping the image to yourself. There are steps photographers can take if the image is hosted on a service that might care like Facebook, but they can easily set up their own website in a country where the ISP wouldn't care and you've got little to no chance of ever getting anything done about it. Sad, but true.

User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10265 times:

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 6):

There's nothing you can do that can stop people. You can disable right click, but you just have to shut off Javascript. You can use server side coding but anything people can view in a web browser, they can easily take a screenshot and crop out the image. Even if you embed copyright info in EXIF data, can it can easily be edited out. As soon as you put an image online in any form, you essentially give up and chance of keeping the image to yourself. There are steps photographers can take if the image is hosted on a service that might care like Facebook, but they can easily set up their own website in a country where the ISP wouldn't care and you've got little to no chance of ever getting anything done about it. Sad, but true.

Just as there are ways to stop them, there are ways to defeat such roadblocks. I've seen a site (not an aviation one) in which the site owner got so fed up with people stealing the images on the site that they made the site only available to those using Internet Explorer (I couldn't even get the extension for FireFox that would allow me to use FF on that page to work) and they put massive watermarks that practically distort the images to the point that they are hard to look at.


Here's the response I got from the person behind this Facebook page when I confronted them about stealing photos from here:

Quote:
Plz stop photo airlines ....
they are not YOURS ....

I am the major share holder of BA, QANTAS, LUFTHANSA , EASYJET , EMIRATES and QATAR.

WHY DON'T YOU ASK FOR MY PERMISSION TO PHOTO MY PLANES

THEY BELONG TO ME.

AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT TAKE ANY PERMISSION FROM THE AIRLINES TO PHOTOGRAPH THEIR PLANES...

PEOPLE WILL NOT TAKE PERMISSION FROM YOU TO REPOST ANY PHOTO.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PHOTOGRAPH OTHER PEOPLE PROPERTY ..


IS THAT CLEAR ???

I'm still laughing at this as it's completely absurd and beyond ridiculous. I guess the ALL CAPS and the claims of being a "major shareholder" in BA, QF, LH, U2, EY and QR is supposed to intimidate me? That and a dollar will buy him a newspaper. I don't care if they are major shareholders in every publicly traded airline in the world. Well if they don't want their "planes" photographed, then perhaps they need to park them in a hangar, lock the doors to the hangar so the a/c cannot be publicly seen. By the rationale this person is using, I could walk right up to the front desk of any MGM Resorts property and demand a room and claim it as "my room" and that I "own it" since I own shares in the company. The only airline that I can recall that ever restricted the photography of their fleet here was Alaska Airlines and it was involving photo sales. Most airlines seem to not have any issues with our photographers and some in the past have even linked to here on their sites.

I made sure to provide this person a link to the Photo Usage policies.


User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4188 posts, RR: 89
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10256 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting jeffreyklm (Thread starter):

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, so far I have managed to have 7 pages shut down entirely but it is not an easy process. As noted, photographers own the rights so I took a different approach with a couple and since the Airliners.net name is removed too that is theft and misuse of the trademark for the site. It worked but I must stress it takes time. I am usually following up on some pages, sooner or later a mistake is made by them and I can actually identify who they are in real life as some are very good at keeping anonymous. Once they make that mistake, the process is a lot quicker.

Feel free to email me if you require assistance

Regards

Paul



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 10204 times:

I notice there's no copyright info in the EXIF data from the a.net images. Are photographers just not adding this or is it being stripped by the a.net database?

User currently offlinelarseham From Netherlands, joined Sep 2010, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10164 times:

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 8):
Once they make that mistake, the process is a lot quicker.

Hi Paul,
Then (presumably) the second page that his person made (when he started getting critique) can be shut down:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...683.202896903149096&type=1&theater
(airliners.net watermark clearly visible)


User currently offlineLGW340 From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10117 times:

I Just had the following convo over Facebook with this person:



Me - 'Hmmm, love the way you have stolen some of my aviation images there. Would you NOT steal mine and other aviation photographers I know's work and passing it off as your own'

Him - '????????'

Me - 'Oh do you not understand? You did not take the images on this page yourself, I think you will find you stole them from aviation sites'

Him - 'We do not UPLOAD Photos anymore .... We just repost from other Pages and Airlines'

Me - 'If you don't upload them anymore, you should remove this page as they are not your images regardless of where you got them from'

Him - 'ok i will, I WILL REMOVE ALL THE UPLOADED PHOTOS'




So hopefully he will remove them!

Cheers

Chris Goodwin



Live life from the window seat...
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10057 times:

He said he would remove the UPLOADED photos. Not the ones he's happily and knowingly gone to a.net and stolen. I'm sure it's going to take more than that to get rid of this fool.

User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10046 times:

So has anyone actually reported him to facebook for copyright infringment via the link in reply 2?

User currently offlinelarseham From Netherlands, joined Sep 2010, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9911 times:

He has deleted all of his photo's! Great work!

Only he is now uploading his photo to this facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/Photo.de.AviationIV


User currently offlineNPeterman From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9899 times:

The Emirates image on that profile was stolen from Danny Fritsche. I'll drop him an email to let him know

User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4188 posts, RR: 89
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9853 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting larseham (Reply 10):

That page should no longer be available

Quoting larseham (Reply 14):

The person is now permanently banned from the site with further action pending off site for the removal of the images.

[Edited 2012-03-20 15:36:55]


Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 9775 times:

Basically the nature of the medium makes protecting images next to impossible. The only way I can think of preventing individual images to be protected from simple copying is to embed them in a Flash (or similar) presentation. But even then there is software that will de-compile Flash.

Ultimately though whatever you do there is nothing to prevent someone doing a simple screen capture and a little editing.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1662 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9719 times:

A little twist of irony here - Bradley International Airport, which surely ranks among the least photographer-friendly airports in the US, has raided a bunch of my (and others) shots from A.net and Flickr for use on their Facebook page. We're told time and time again by police at BDL that taking pictures of planes is a breach of security and illegal, yet they have no problem displaying our work.

User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9547 times:

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 18):
taking pictures of planes is a breach of security and illegal

bwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


User currently offlinejohnmiller From South Africa, joined Mar 2006, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9444 times:

If it's a criminal offense in the UK to steal photos, does one lay a charge at the police station? I have just discovered a French company and UK firm in Deeside who are using one of my images without permission.

I have sent an invoice and will await their response. I would also be keen to know of any solicitors out there who would support a charge of theft.


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9077 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9420 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Maybe you guys should check here as well:

http://www.facebook.com/RikiPilot

Even removed the copyright bar of some of the airliners.net pictures.

I reported that page for copyright violations.

The owner of that page made a comment on my wallpost: "Megaupload rocks". Looks like he doesn't know any better and he is doing it on purpose... I hope facebook acts fast, I reported that page.

wilco737
  

[Edited 2012-03-23 15:33:35]


It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9403 times:

Looks like our friend is still at it and has a new page:

http://www.facebook.com/StoptheDictatorshipofPhotoCopyright


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9077 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9322 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting srbmod (Reply 22):

Wow, I mean seriously, how sick is that guy?! Reported again. I hope facebook will ban this guy from facebook.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9299 times:

Found another page stealing photos as well, and in some cases, they didn't even bother to remove the copyright bar:

http://www.facebook.com/AviationFanPage

I wish it was a lot easier to get these pages shut down, as in the case of the photos here, it would be as simple as providing Facebook with the links to all of the stolen photos, especially since the date they were uploaded here is readily available (as is when the photos were uploaded to the Facebook page).

It appears as though a lot of these pages being mentioned here are related to one another, as they seem to appear in each others' "likes".


User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9297 times:

The problem with issues like this is that it's our word against his that he doesn't have permission to post those images. It means Facebook has to spend time and resources looking into it. The simplest way is for the photographers themselves to send a DMCA notice to Facebook. That's the sort of thing that will get notice very quickly. If you find a suspected stolen image, find the original on a.net and contact the photographer directly. They're the only ones who can really do anything and for all we know, they might not care that he's using their images.

User currently offline777LR From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9205 times:

Hello,

Has anyone noticed how on Flickr, it's harder to obtain a copy of a photo by just clicking and dragging.

For instance:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11784108@N06/5715107539/

Notice how:
-Dragging on it doesn't do anything
-Clicking on it only enlarges the photo
-Right clicking allows you to view in different sizes and therefore save/download the image

Is it possible that airliners.net can somehow change its photo viewing interface so that it features the first two points mentioned above?

-777LR


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 27, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9210 times:

http://www.facebook.com/Airbus.Fan.Page/photos

This guy is still at it  


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6436 posts, RR: 38
Reply 28, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9177 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 24):

Haha, he even "trademarked" the name of the page..



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinejohnmiller From South Africa, joined Mar 2006, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9166 times:

Here's another site that removes Airliners.net byline strips and places them on his 'wallpaper' section on his website. Joe Philips is the name of the owner of the site. I've emailed him this morning to remove the picture.

www.AerospaceAuthority.com

There should be a name and shame page here.


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9077 posts, RR: 76
Reply 30, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9155 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 29):
Joe Philips

And the worst part is, he added his own "Copyright" into this pictures....

Wow, there are many of airliners.net in there... Let's see if I can find one of my pictures.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9100 times:

Again, without hearing from the photographers involved, no one has any right to assume those images are used without permission and take it upon themselves to do something. For all we know, the photographers have granted permission or uploaded the images themselves. Once someone uploads to a.net, they still have every right to upload that images to other sites or pages. If you notice an image that is also on a.net, the only sensible thing to do is find out who the photographer is and make them aware of it if they're not already. Then they can take steps to stop it happening if they haven't given permission or have a problem with it. It's just reckless to assume everyone is doing it without permission and to tell them to remove images you have no legal right to.

User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 515 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9069 times:

I am not on Facebook, so have no idea if any of my photos are being used there without permission. I am however on Twitter and noticed today that the site management who run the A.net Twitter account were taking a more pro-active approach to publishing the terms of usage for photos uploaded to the site today.

User currently offlineJez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 69 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9045 times:

Whilst not condoning what these people do in any way, I can't help but think 'so what?' Is it the accolades that they may be getting for your work that annoys? Do you think they are maybe stealing 'hits' from your photos on a.net? Are they making money from your images? Surely a publisher looking for aircraft images would know to come here rather than Facebook etc? Surely all a publisher would be able to get from these people is a low res image than they could get directly from here anyway?

With my Devil's Advocate hat on, I would love to hear a coherent, objective opinion about exactly how these peoples actions have harmed any of you.

[Edited 2012-03-26 13:28:29]

User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9032 times:

Quoting Jez (Reply 33):
With my Devil's Advocate hat on, I would love to hear a coherent, objective opinion about exactly how these peoples actions have harmed any of you.

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's the part about lost revenue that would be hurting people, if an image thief sold something they had no rights to.


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9023 times:

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 31):

Again, without hearing from the photographers involved, no one has any right to assume those images are used without permission and take it upon themselves to do something. For all we know, the photographers have granted permission or uploaded the images themselves. Once someone uploads to a.net, they still have every right to upload that images to other sites or pages. If you notice an image that is also on a.net, the only sensible thing to do is find out who the photographer is and make them aware of it if they're not already. Then they can take steps to stop it happening if they haven't given permission or have a problem with it. It's just reckless to assume everyone is doing it without permission and to tell them to remove images you have no legal right to.

From the Photo Usage policy:

http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/

Quote:
The digital photos on this site are licensed to Airliners.net. They are equipped with a footer with copyright and license information and also carry an invisible watermark. If you receive permission from the photographer to use a particular photo, you may use a copy from Airliners.net as long as you inform us of the usage as to avoid misunderstandings (we do not appreciate and react strongly when finding our photos on other sites that use them without permission). We do however advise that you get a new copy of the photo directly from the photographer that does not carry our license and watermark.

Finally, we ask that you mention Airliners.net where and when you use photos originally found on our site, whatever agreement you have with the photographer. It doesn't need to be big, just a small mention in whatever way you choose. As you might have realized by now, we do not make any money from selling photos, everything goes directly to the individual photographer. Our only form of "income" is your help in spreading the word about our website. Please respect that.

Photos hosted on this site are being used in a manner that does not conform to the Photo Usage policy. That's the crux of the issue, as some simply take without asking, and even if they did have permission from the photographer to use the image, they are still using the image from here with things like watermarks clearly visible.


User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8981 times:

Quoting Jez (Reply 33):
With my Devil's Advocate hat on, I would love to hear a coherent, objective opinion about exactly how these peoples actions have harmed any of you.

For me, it's mostly a principal issue. I take pride in my work and I spend a fair amount of money obtaining my photos you see on this site. For someone to simply "right click and save", then pass it off as their work infuriates me. Suppose I took the book Harry Potter and removed Rowling's name and replaced it with mine. Should I then be allowed to sell the book to bookstores or online or openly tell people that I wrote it? I should have final say in where and how my photos are seen. I don't post to any other sites for a reason and I certainly don't want someone else displaying my work for their benefit, whether it's for financial gain or not.

[Edited 2012-03-26 19:05:38]


Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlinecruce From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8954 times:

Since I was one of the photographer's on the list, I guess I will comment. I politely asked the person that runs the page to take down my picture as it was copyrighted and he did not ask and therefore did not obtain my permission to use it. After approximately 24hrs with no response and the picture still up on the page, I notified Facebook of the copyright infringement and they (facebook) took down my picture very promptly.

If this person had emailed me and said "hey, can I post this picture on my Facebook page?" I most likely would have said yes as long as I was properly credited. Unfortunately, he/she did not and blatently removed all the copyright info before posting the picture. Hell, even if he had not asked me but left all the copyright info on the picture I might have let it slide.

Quoting Jez (Reply 33):
With my Devil's Advocate hat on, I would love to hear a coherent, objective opinion about exactly how these peoples actions have harmed any of you.

This is not a "views" thing, and it did not harm me in any way. It's a LAW thing. The photograph is copyrighted, I have the rights to it. This means I have the final say in where, who, or what my photo is used for. That's like someone stealing your car and driving it around town passing it off as his own, and when you see him pass by in your car you just say "oh, well at least he's showing it off and giving it some exposure so its no big deal." Also, as the last guy said, its a matter of principle and respect.


User currently offlineJez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 69 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8908 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 34):
Oh, I don't know, maybe it's the part about lost revenue that would be hurting people, if an image thief sold something they had no rights to.

What lost revenue? Are you saying these people are selling images? I don't believe it myself as why would people buy the very same file that they could right click here on a.net and use? If they are managing to sell your picture, then great, good for them, but it begs the question: 'If others manage to sell images through Facebook etc, then what's the benefit of uploading to a.net?'

I agree that these people's actions are wrong, but at most (for me at least), they are annoying. Like most here, I don't make a living from photography, so I'm not losing revenue and let's face it the pittance that publishers are willing to pay for an image just isn't worth the time it takes to hunt these people down.

Quoting cruce (Reply 37):
That's like someone stealing your car and driving it around town passing it off as his own, and when you see him pass by in your car you just say "oh, well at least he's showing it off and giving it some exposure so its no big deal."

I would agree if they had your original high res file, but they don't. Your analogy would be more accurate if you found someone driving around in something that looks like your car from a distance, but when you get closer, you find it's made of paper and has no engine!


User currently offlinejohnmiller From South Africa, joined Mar 2006, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 8760 times:

Thing is Jez, some publishers rightfully pay pretty well for top quality images. Some try to pay peanuts. However your disingenuous 'devil's advocate' argument is weak. Why do you think there's such dishonor with plagiarism, where adding your own byline to someone else's photo is an obvious similarity? Your simple 'annoyance' is not shared by your nation's criminal code. Photo theft is a criminal activity in the UK for obvious reasons. It's a bit like saying a murderer is a mere annoyance or a burglar is at most an annoyance too. Unless of course it is one of your family members that has lost their life or your property that has been invaded.

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 40, posted (2 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 8759 times:

It isn't harming us exactly but it is bad manners. If these are the ethics of such people what's to stop them participating in more harmful criminal activities? If I wander into a stationary shop and pinch a pencil I'm not doing any harm; but I am taking something that cost money to put there.

If i scale the fence at my local airport I'm not doing any harm; but the fact is it's illegal. There are many instances of illegal activities which don't cause loss, harm or injury, but that doesn't make them alright.

Karl


User currently offlineJez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 69 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 8741 times:

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 39):
Thing is Jez, some publishers rightfully pay pretty well for top quality images. Some try to pay peanuts. However your disingenuous 'devil's advocate' argument is weak.

If that's true, then those publishers will continue to pay well, but they won't be buying from the people that have stolen them, because those thieves do not have the high-res file. That's my point.

Disingenuous eh?. Looks like I've been rumbled.

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 39):
Your simple 'annoyance' is not shared by your nation's criminal code.

Not sure what your point is here. Don't assume that because I live in a country that I necessarily endorse my nation's criminal code. I might abide by it, but I may not agree with it.

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 39):
It's a bit like saying a murderer is a mere annoyance or a burglar is at most an annoyance too.

To suggest that I'm saying anything of the sort is frankly ridiculous.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 40):
If I wander into a stationary shop and pinch a pencil I'm not doing any harm; but I am taking something that cost money to put there.

I refer you to my previous analogy. The theft of a low-res image is more akin to stealing a pencil that didn't work.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 42, posted (2 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 8739 times:

Quoting Jez (Reply 41):
The theft of a low-res image is more akin to stealing a pencil that didn't work.

But it is the act or intention that's morally wrong. Whether the stolen 'item' works is irrelevant.

If for example a police officer saw me lift the pencil do you think he'd let me off if I said, "Sorry officer, but it was broken at one end so I thought it would be alright to help myself". What if I steal a car and find it doesn't have an engine? Does that make it okay?

My personal opinion is similar to yours; in that I couldn't really care less if someone takes a photo of mine from here and sticks it on their site without proper credit. It is, as you say, merely an annoyance. But irrespective of how much 'annoyance' it causes, it's still very bad etiquette and to practically condone it sends out completely the wrong message to potential copyright thieves.

Karl


User currently offlineJez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 69 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (2 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 8738 times:

JakTrax, I've never said it was OK. I've said that I don't condone it and that it's wrong, but who really has the time to hassle these people for a broken pencil, or a paper car?

User currently offlineJez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 69 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (2 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 8732 times:

OK here's a thought. I liken the ease with which the images on this site and others can be stolen to a house with no doors. We all know it's not secure, but we continue to store our images in it. Now according to johnmiller, some of these images are actually worth something to someone and yet we all carry on regardless. Now what would we think if an actual house with no doors was burgled? The act of theft is still wrong, but wouldn't you ask the question 'Well what do you expect?'

You know the risks, you make your choice. Stop moaning about it.  

[Edited 2012-03-28 12:50:56]

User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (2 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 8706 times:

Quoting Jez (Reply 44):
You know the risks, you make your choice. Stop moaning about it.

That's a valid point. We all know that by paying the company that hosts our photos a small fee, those individuals can steal our photos and post them anywhere. We all acknowledge that can happen.

However, it's still wrong and when we find it, we go after them. No one spends their days combing the internet looking for their stolen photos. Most of the time I'm sure, they are found by chance and are reported to the community. We can't go after everyone, but it's nice to know that the websites themselves are sympathetic to our cause (and the law) and they remove the offenders and our photos.

Your analogy equates stealing photos to driving recklessly. Does it really harm anyone? It can, but most of the time it doesn't. Is there a cop on every corner to catch those drivers? No. So why even have the law itself? When we see it, we report it and when we do, hopefully a cop will also see it and stop it.

We know the risks of driving. Yet we do it anyway.



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineJez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 69 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (2 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 8707 times:

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 45):
Your analogy equates stealing photos to driving recklessly.

Does it? Not sure where. I would consider reckless driving a far more serious issue than stealing photos from the web. There is no risk to life from stealing photos, let's get things into perspective.

[Edited 2012-03-28 13:08:22]

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10107 posts, RR: 26
Reply 47, posted (2 years 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 8625 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jez (Reply 50):
In the absence of such an opinion, I have to conclude that no harm has actually been done.

So no harm has been done. So what?

I don't have to be harmed to want to stop someone from doing something. I want to stop everyone from drinking and driving, even when I'm not on the road and therefore won't be harmed.

On a sort of amusingly-related note to this thread, I received the following email from Smugmug today:

Sometimes you see the dumb things companies say and you wonder, “What were they thinking?”

I never imagined that happening to us, but we did something so dumb in a blog post, we’re now looking at each other blankly and asking, what were we thinking?

The post was about image theft and we used examples from pro photographer Valerie Schooling’s site and gave the impression she was doing things wrong, which she wasn’t.

To make matters worse, we somehow embedded screen captures of her site without asking her permission. If it weren’t such a dumb thing to do, I could explain why we did it other than the obvious: she and her photos are awesome.

Naturally, her friends and other respected photographers in the industry asked us what we were thinking, and unfortunately the honest answer was, “We weren’t.”

We learned a lesson we’ll never forget because we also betrayed ourselves, since we are photographers. We apologize for the time and angst this caused a lot of wonderful people.

Chris MacAskill
President & co-founder
Not usually so clueless


Also posted here:

http://news.smugmug.com/2012/03/28/what-were-we-thinking/

Nice to see that sort of admission of wrong and apology.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 69 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (2 years 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 8609 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 47):
So no harm has been done. So what?

So stop moaning about it! Let's not equate petty theft with drink driving now.

In fact, I retract my previous (now deleted) conclusion that no one has been harmed. Some obviously appear to have suffered some mild mental anguish, but don't worry, no one is making a mint from your pictures, so rest easy. The thieves of these pictures are more likely to be socially awkward people that get off on passing off others images as their own, rather than criminal masterminds coining in the cash. Generally, criminals are only interested in things that make them money!

Now dry your eyes, man-up and get on with plagiarising the classic sunny side-on.  


User currently offlinecruce From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8564 times:

Jez, I'm going to steal your car, remove the license plates, and drive it around as my own car. Don't worry though buddy, I don't plan on selling it and I didn't harm you in any way by doing it so it's ok.

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 50, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8549 times:

Since the car analogy has been raised, it could be said that most people take reasonable precautions to prevent car theft - lock the doors, and maybe have security and tracker systems fitted. And of course we have to pay for insurance so we get some compensation if the car is stolen.

Just as we can't expect the police to prevent all car crime (the costs and manpower would be prohibitive), nor we can we expect an image hosting service to be theft proof - it is, I believe effectively impossible to do this without requiring visitors to have special software installed to view the images.

But, for those who really feel they suffer from theft, there is at least one secuirty and tracking system you can fit to your images - digimarc. It will cost you (currently $99/year with the tracking service for 2k images) but it will allow you to monitor image theft, and give you a pretty firm ground for taking legal action if you so desire.

Is it worth the money? Well if people believe they are suffering financial loss, then I would think just one successful "recovery" per year would cover the expense, which makes it a no-brainer. However I suspect that very few are sure enough of suffering damages to make the payment.

Not saying that image theft is not a problem - but with digimarc you have the opportunity to decide just how much of a problem it is, and what a solution is worth.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 69 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8553 times:

Quoting cruce (Reply 49):
Jez, I'm going to steal your car, remove the license plates, and drive it around as my own car. Don't worry though buddy, I don't plan on selling it and I didn't harm you in any way by doing it so it's ok.

Haven't we been through this? Do what you like. You'll have a small copy of my car. I'll still have the full size working car. No bother.


User currently offlineplanespot From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 100 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8485 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 22):
Looks like our friend is still at it and has a new page:

http://www.facebook.com/StoptheDicta...right

That guy wrote:
"Any photo exposed in public place (such a websites facebook google+ etc ) Without a Visible Watermark in the middle is considered as Copyright free."

Monday at 11:00am

Wow. My brain hurts after reading that.



Cary Liao - AeroPX
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8441 times:

Quoting planespot (Reply 52):
Any photo exposed in public place (such a websites facebook google+ etc ) Without a Visible Watermark in the middle is considered as Copyright free."

The guy is a bit ill-informed regarding copyrights and he's going to end up learning this lesson the hard way.


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 54, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8341 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 22):
Looks like our friend is still at it and has a new page:

http://www.facebook.com/StoptheDictatorshipofPhotoCopyright

They've started a second page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-t...Photo-Copyright-II/330228727034984

I've tried to report it to Facebook as a "duplicate" page but for some reason, Facebook is not letting me do so even though I posted the name of the other page.


At this point, I think that we all need to make the entire online aviation photography community aware of this guy and work together to stop this sort of stuff. Our site, as well as our competitors all get content stolen from them in this same manner and the justification these thieves make for their thefts is downright laughable.

[Edited 2012-03-31 07:43:02]

User currently offlinedarthluke12694 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8281 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 54):
I've tried to report it to Facebook as a "duplicate" page but for some reason, Facebook is not letting me do so even though I posted the name of the other page.

I put in the URL of the original page, then a drop down bar appeared so I could tag the original page. In order to report the page, you must tag the page, not just type it in (like tagging friends in status updates). And I reported the page as duplicate.


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8195 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 22):
Looks like our friend is still at it and has a new page:

http://www.facebook.com/StoptheDictatorshipofPhotoCopyright

Just when you think this person can't get anymore absurd in their comments, he's now accusing the photographer of this photo (which he stole and put on his page):


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peraudeau Florent



of stealing that photo from China Southern Airlines.

Quote:


Yes...
and Airlines net HAS STOLEN THE PHOTO FROM China Southern Airlines
www.flychinasouthern.com

DID THEY ASK FOR PERMISSION to take this Photo from M China Southern Airlines ???
Nooooooooooooo

The China Southern Airlines is the OWNER of this photo AND NOT THE PHOTOGRAPHERS !!!!!!!!!!!

For someone who has been stealing photos from here to accuse one of the photographers (whose photo he stole) here of stealing a photo is outrageous to say the least. It's quite obvious that they are not well-informed in regards to copyrights and photo ownership as they are posting a lot of misinformation on their Facebook page and scoffing at links to international copyright agreements like the Berne Agreement.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2644 posts, RR: 5
Reply 57, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7915 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Jez (Reply 33):
With my Devil's Advocate hat on, I would love to hear a coherent, objective opinion about exactly how these peoples actions have harmed any of you.

I'm not a photographer, I don't have any images that are actually worth anything. However, I'm a proponent of strong intellectual property protection and my goal is to forge a career as an intellectual property lawyer.

So, for what it's worth, here's my view.

Intellectual property, as its name suggests, is property. The term "property" does not relate to the thing, but the collection of rights associated with the thing. Something is your property by virtue of the fact that you have the exclusive right to possess it, to use it as you see fit, to destroy it, to sell it etc. In terms of copyright, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, sell, or assign the rights to somebody else, amongst other things. Stealing a photo is an interference with that exclusive right, just as much as stealing a car is. Forget whether you're stealing the actual hi-res photo or an inferior copy of it for a minute - it is, nevertheless, taking something that doesn't belong to you. As I mentioned, "property" is not the thing itself, but the collection of rights associated with the thing. So whether you're taking the actual hi-res image or an inferior copy is quite irrelevant, it is still an interference with the copyright holder's exclusive right.

Now, some photographers might not care. Some choose not to exercise their exclusive right to control the reproduction of the image on other websites. That does not, however, mean that it isn't within their right to stop you from stealing their image if they so choose. To use an analogy, some people might not care if a stranger walked into their front yard and pitched a tent. It's not doing them any harm, is it? But they would still be well within their rights to kick the stranger out if they so choose.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinemnazarinia From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 122 posts, RR: 4
Reply 58, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I found mine here too, I reported them. I hope the page gets closed soon.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...83276.89871.204216432942663&type=3


User currently offlineTomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7716 times:

It really is extremely annoying that people steal your pictures and don't even give you credit for it...


Nikon D90 + Nikkor f4.5-5.6 18-105mm + Tamron f4-5.6 70-300mm
User currently offlinemnazarinia From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 122 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7649 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It is indeed! They removed it from their page in less than 8 hours!

User currently offlineavfan From Canada, joined Jan 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7458 times:

start a facebook page denouncing him or with some information about copyrighting using specific examples of aviation photography then show it to him.

rafael


User currently offlineTomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7417 times:

Like the guy would even listen... all he can do is freaking spam in the comments of every pictures..


Nikon D90 + Nikkor f4.5-5.6 18-105mm + Tamron f4-5.6 70-300mm
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 63, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7267 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 54):

Quoting srbmod (Reply 22):
Looks like our friend is still at it and has a new page:

http://www.facebook.com/StoptheDictatorshipofPhotoCopyright

They've started a second page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-t...34984

Let's make that a third page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Aviati...phers-are-Talibans/281312988616411

He's now resorting to referring to aviation photographers as "Taliban". He just keeps making himself look more and more stupid with these pages.

It's funny that guys like this seem to think they're in the right and can steal images (and make claims that the photographers have no rights to their own photos) and that those who oppose them are "dictators" or "Taliban".


User currently offlinecomair25 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7261 times:

Somebody should get a statement from Delta or whoever stating that its ok to take photos of their aircraft etc. Like it will really do anything though. He would just say you forged it.

User currently offlinecomairguycvg From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 337 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7088 times:

There was some mention about the photo thieves removing the watermark in this forum. That is something that this website offers as part of the Premium Membership. I have that membership myself, as I enjoy viewing photos without the watermark. That's why I don't even bother with it when uploading my photos on here since it's so easy to get around. But still, the thieves should not be doing what they are doing.

User currently offlineaddew1 From Sweden, joined Mar 2010, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6708 times:

Here is one aswell. A lot of pics from a.net
https://www.facebook.com/pages/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11/161208787261704?sk=photos


User currently offlineJimmyLWH From China, joined Jan 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days ago) and read 6676 times:

such a long thread...

actually photos (not only from this website), are being stolen everyday everywhere. Sometimes this is how the internet world works. And usually there's no solution, just put "airliners.net" watermarks on your photos and make it harder to be stolen.


User currently offlineTomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days ago) and read 6671 times:

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 67):
such a long thread...

actually photos (not only from this website), are being stolen everyday everywhere. Sometimes this is how the internet world works. And usually there's no solution, just put "airliners.net" watermarks on your photos and make it harder to be stolen.

In my opinion the airliners.net watermark basically ruins your pictures... So I'd prefer not to.



Nikon D90 + Nikkor f4.5-5.6 18-105mm + Tamron f4-5.6 70-300mm
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6645 times:

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 67):
And usually there's no solution, just put "airliners.net" watermarks on your photos and make it harder to be stolen.

That does little to stop it. We've had cases in which someone had stolen images from here (as well as competitor sites) with the watermarks in place and tried to upload them to our sister site Myaviation.net as their own photos. There have been Facebook pages in which stolen A.net images had the copyright bar removed, but the watermark remained.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 68):
In my opinion the airliners.net watermark basically ruins your pictures... So I'd prefer not to.

Considering that anyone that is moderately proficient with photo editing software can remove the watermark, it's all a matter of personal choice to include one.


User currently offlineTheGinger From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6588 times:

That's a shame, I wish people like that didn't exist. It's just wrong to do that.   

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...
Another Illegal Use Of Photos From A.net posted Fri Mar 4 2005 20:57:13 by Digital-cavu
Facebook Page Using A.net Photos Improperly posted Sun Aug 8 2010 07:41:49 by srbmod
How Many Of These Photos Are Stolen From A.net? posted Mon Aug 13 2007 06:05:20 by FlyDeltaJets87
Has Anybody Visited And Have Photos From Kavala? posted Mon Jan 9 2012 01:46:32 by herculesopa
Photos From The Beach posted Fri Dec 17 2010 06:38:07 by saintex
A Few Photos From The QF 90th Event posted Sat Nov 6 2010 00:40:44 by cpd
Home Page Top Photos Query posted Fri Aug 13 2010 01:12:15 by Spiderguy252
Problems Deleting Photos From Queue posted Sat Jun 19 2010 20:04:41 by dlowwa
Photos With A.net Photographers In Them.... posted Wed Oct 22 2008 12:13:04 by Damien846
Any More Photos From Bob Garrard? posted Wed Oct 8 2008 15:46:10 by Irish251
Facebook Page Using A.net Photos Improperly posted Sun Aug 8 2010 07:41:49 by srbmod
How Many Of These Photos Are Stolen From A.net? posted Mon Aug 13 2007 06:05:20 by FlyDeltaJets87
Has Anybody Visited And Have Photos From Kavala? posted Mon Jan 9 2012 01:46:32 by herculesopa
Photos From The Beach posted Fri Dec 17 2010 06:38:07 by saintex
A Few Photos From The QF 90th Event posted Sat Nov 6 2010 00:40:44 by cpd
Home Page Top Photos Query posted Fri Aug 13 2010 01:12:15 by Spiderguy252
Problems Deleting Photos From Queue posted Sat Jun 19 2010 20:04:41 by dlowwa
Photos With A.net Photographers In Them.... posted Wed Oct 22 2008 12:13:04 by Damien846