SJC>SFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2766 times:
Time is using A.net as a photo resource....
Sorry if this has already been noted, but the September 24th issue of time magazine contains the following 4 pictures:
American Airlines 767 (CREDITED to F. Schaeffer-Airliners.net)
United Airlines 767 (Credited to JOE PRIES Airliners.net)
American Airlines 757 (Credited to J.Repucci-Airliners.net)
United Airlines 757 (Credited to DRAWBAUGH-Airliners.net
Flyinghighboy From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 749 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2208 times:
KRP, i don't meant to critize you but the photographers are taking pictures of the planes we all love. If they started charging this, then us viewers would be the ones paying for it. I know that this sounds like that we are free loading but they want to share the beatuy of their art with the rest of the world. Airliners net already has to pay in running the site by putting ad banners on them, paying for the images would probably put the site in jeopardy.
SJC>SFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
the magazine credits them exactly how I posted it
i.e. "Joe Pries- Airliners.net" so yet a.net is credited, very small print though. For all those of you who have the magazine the pictures are on pages 30-33.
Travellin'man From United States of America, joined May 2001, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1828 times:
This is a slight aside, so I don't mean to stray too much from aviation in this thread.
I second those who say that I hope the photographers were paid. Time makes a lot of money, and can certainly afford it; if these pictures weren't available either from Airliners or a stock house, they would be paying someone like Boeing to use their files, or hiring someone to go out and get shots (appr. cost for one day's shoot- about $700-900 dollars).
But I disagree with having to pay for pictures here. We are not reusing them commercially for our own profit, merely enjoying them as end-users.
So many more things have charges on them on the net than before. I would be sad if we had to pay for access to all these great pictures. It would undermine our community.
It is not enough to be rude; one must also be incorrect.