This reminds me of the Power Alarm in Boston back in 1774. 250 British Regulars snatched up a whole bunch of gunpowder from the citizens, and tens of thousands of townspeople showed up ready to fight.

As I've said before, I've never seen a turnout like this. I'm happy to be a part of a group where people will really stand up for themselves and what they believe.

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 100): This reminds me of the Power Alarm in Boston back in 1774. 250 British Regulars snatched up a whole bunch of gunpowder from the citizens, and tens of thousands of townspeople showed up ready to fight.

That was you too?
So anyway what did you need with the gunpowder ?

You didn't just compare some pissed off photogs on a website to the American Revolutionary Way, did you?

I'm a history geek. I can't buy a pack of gum without making a connection to the 1770s somehow.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 102): You didn't just compare some pissed off photogs on a website to the American Revolutionary Way, did you?

Well....I guess I did. Don't worry, Royal. I won't call for the "King's" head or anything.  

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 102): You didn't just compare some pissed off photogs on a website to the American Revolutionary Way, did you?

You didn't just under-estimate the scale of the problem facing DM, did you?

Quoting LeadingEdge (Reply 92): Both ANet users and Demand alike understand that the process has so far been a disaster. Demand has pulled the new ToU so there is little point in members raking over the bones of this. Let’s move on in a constructive manner. If you have a useful idea regarding the wording of new terms lets hear them. But the time for pointing fingers and attaching blame is surely over. If we start to be constructive we might get a positive result!!!!

Hear hear. Come on guys. I am as determined as anyone to safeguard my rights as a photographer, but the time for squabbling is over. We have an offer of new terms on the table. Let's sit down and make sure it is put into practice to our satisfaction. You can't negotiate with someone at the same time as you are beating them about the head.

Charles

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 103): I'm a history geek. I can't buy a pack of gum without making a connection to the 1770s somehow.

I was about to say you look good for over 200 years old!

Quoting Viv (Reply 104): You didn't just under-estimate the scale of the problem facing DM, did you?

I doubt Royal or anyone else wants to make light of anything but we have been hearing about how DM is the boogie man since the beginning and how they are just trying to get rich on us. If that is how you feel then by all means there are other av-photo sites but to constantly generate this drama isn't doing anybody any good. IMO the site is operating in good faith so after 5 days of this I think it's time to make your own decision and act accordingly.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 106): I doubt Royal or anyone else wants to make light of anything but we have been hearing about how DM is the boogie man since the beginning and how they are just trying to get rich on us. If that is how you feel then by all means there are other av-photo sites but to constantly generate this drama isn't doing anybody any good. IMO the site is operating in good faith so after 5 days of this I think it's time to make your own decision and act accordingly.

Grow up Nick, through all of this and all who have posted over the two threads you have to attack everyone, you are the only person in these threads who has had the exact opposite view to everyone else.

Are you getting a kick back from DM?

Quoting UA935 (Reply 107): Grow up Nick, through all of this and all who have posted over the two threads you have to attack everyone, you are the only person in these threads who has had the exact opposite view to everyone else.

He does make a good point about the drama...the point has been made that people are upset. Instead of adding to the fervor let's wait and see what DM comes up with for a revised ToU, see if it meets the community's expectations, and if it doesn't then continue to gripe.

[Edited 2008-02-13 09:46:37]

Hi.
Thank you Mr Paulo for answering to my question (post 50).
 

Quoting Michlis (Reply 108): let's wait and see what DM comes up with for a revised ToU, see if it meets the community's expectations, and if it doesn't then continue to gripe.

I can agree with the need to calm down some, but if you read, our current concern is not about the wording of the TOU, it's that we apparently have been lied to and treated as idiots. There is practically a list of ways this was all mishandled, and there seem to be no accountability.

Quoting D L X (Reply 97): Or better yet, how about the terms NOT be in legalese? There's no good reason to write terms in anything other than plain language except that everyone else has done it, and you're in fear of litigation.

Any decent lawyer can write a contract that serves his client's interests (one of which is generally protection from litigation) without resorting to legalese. Fear of litigation is not an excuse.

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 110): I can agree with the need to calm down some, but if you read, our current concern is not about the wording of the TOU, it's that we apparently have been lied to and treated as idiots. There is practically a list of ways this was all mishandled, and there seem to be no accountability.

The key word is "apparently" lied to. Looking through these threads, I see a lot reactionary comments and accusations. Granted, DM does not seem to be clarifying the issue and yes, the whole TOU issue was mishandled, but by continually fuming about it is not going to make matters better. I think DM gets the message that the community is PO'd, and that the ball is in their court to rectify the situation. Most of the people in this forum are professionals and the best way to convey that to other aviation photography communities/sites is to wait and see what DM's response is and then act accordingly.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 111): Any decent lawyer can write a contract that serves his client's interests (one of which is generally protection from litigation) without resorting to legalese. Fear of litigation is not an excuse.

Legalese is a necessary evil. I agree that contracts can be written more clearly, but sometimes the legalese is necessary to mitigate the danger of litigation.

Quoting Michlis (Reply 113): but sometimes the legalese is necessary to mitigate the danger of litigation.

Legalese and the confusion it causes for lay people is a massive reason litigation over contracts of adhesion like this get litigated.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 114): Legalese and the confusion it causes for lay people is a massive reason litigation over contracts of adhesion like this get litigated.

Agreed. When I took contract drafting in law school, my professor emphasized "say what you mean and mean what you say." K.I.S.S. is good too.  

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 86): Legal: Hey Paulo we HAVE to get new TOU up ASAP because Johan's TOU leaves both the community/photogs AND DM at risk.

Question: what risks? Airliners.net did just fine with the current TOU for many years. Where's the explanation about these so-called risks? I sincerely doubt there were any risks asociated with the TOU unless Demand Media's interests were the ones actually at risk and not that of the photogs and of the community, with legal just making up that excuse.

Quoting Michlis (Reply 113): Legalese is a necessary evil.

No it's not. Legalese is the product of bad lawyering. At my job, I am CONSTANTLY dealing with issues that could have been resolved by lawyers not trying to be tricky or overprecise, and thus missing the mark. Had they said what they meant, they'd have been better off.

Quoting Michlis (Reply 113): I agree that contracts can be written more clearly, but sometimes the legalese is necessary to mitigate the danger of litigation.

It's the legalese that causes the litigation. As N1120A said:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 114): Legalese and the confusion it causes for lay people is a massive reason litigation over contracts of adhesion like this get litigated.

Quoting Michlis (Reply 113): Legalese is a necessary evil. I agree that contracts can be written more clearly, but sometimes the legalese is necessary to mitigate the danger of litigation.

Could you cite an example?

Quoting Michlis (Reply 112): I think DM gets the message that the community is PO'd, and that the ball is in their court to rectify the situation.

What started with the server migration and all the bugs that generated, the lack of responsiveness by DM mamagment, the leaving it to the Mods and (in here) the Screeners and Editors to deal with disgruntled members, to me, demonstrates just how valued we are as customers of DM.
A few simple lines of information asking the membership if this meets the needs would have changed this situation to a constructive debate on TOS/U. Likewise, acknowledgement of members concerns in SR over the various Bugs could have been handled better.
There are ways to do business and DM should send some of their managment back to school to learn a little more on effective communication and customer service.

WrenchBender

Quoting Michlis (Reply 112): The key word is "apparently" lied to. Looking through these threads, I see a lot reactionary comments and accusations. Granted, DM does not seem to be clarifying the issue and yes, the whole TOU issue was mishandled, but by continually fuming about it is not going to make matters better. I think DM gets the message that the community is PO'd, and that the ball is in their court to rectify the situation. Most of the people in this forum are professionals and the best way to convey that to other aviation photography communities/sites is to wait and see what DM's response is and then act accordingly.

Honestly, I can completely agree with that. I, at first, held off on my reaction to see what their response was. That is when it got worse. It was mishandled, and is still continuing to be mishandled. There should be an official statement, or more of a rush to communicate and let people know the deal. Now we're just being told to wait until Thursday for the updated TOU, when the TOU is almost the least of our concerns at this point.

I'm sure I've fallen into the category of people aimlessly whining at this point, but several of us as raising the same concerns as I am...about possible lying and other issues surrounding this whole debacle. Instead of addressing these concerns, one of Paulo's few responses here addressed only a post that COMPLIMENTED him, and did nothing to please the people that were upset. What's the about?

Though the TOU is being revamped, I still don't think that they are getting it. They're not understanding the needs and interests of our community as a whole.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 118): Could you cite an example?

I can think of big one that a contract must have: consideration. Definitely a term of art in contracts and a term that a lot of non-lawyers do not understand.

Quoting D L X (Reply 117): No it's not. Legalese is the product of bad lawyering. At my job, I am CONSTANTLY dealing with issues that could have been resolved by lawyers not trying to be tricky or overprecise, and thus missing the mark. Had they said what they meant, they'd have been better off.

Well then, we have a professional disagreement.   Suffice it say that IMHO the level of legalese is determined by the intended audience. I won't go into analyzing the TOU because frankly I haven't been hired to do that and I certainly don't want to go spouting off anything that might be considered legal advice.

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 120): Though the TOU is being revamped, I still don't think that they are getting it. They're not understanding the needs and interests of our community as a whole.

Things like this are usually a two-way street. I remember a quote by Richard Covey: "Seek first to understand and then to be understood." Frankly, I am more concerned with the gossip going on in other aviation sites about this. Personally, I think it is our responsibility as A.net photographers to exercise restraint and set the example. I am not siding with anyone but myself, and I am not on DM's payroll either (must defuse that one before someone gets the idea to point a finger.)

Quoting Michlis (Reply 121): I can think of big one that a contract must have: consideration. Definitely a term of art in contracts and a term that a lot of non-lawyers do not understand.

You can explain consideration without using the word... "In exchange for D.M. doing X, the user agrees to do Y." A contract doesn't have to explicitly recite anything about consideration; it simply must be sufficiently definite. (There may be a few states left in which leases or deeds do require a recitation of consideration, but we're not conveying property so that's a moot point.)

Can I ask the question of how airliners.net fits into Demand Media's business portfolio without these terms and conditions.

The DM website says on its front page:
"With a proprietary media platform that powers the company's highly-trafficked domains and wholly-owned content media properties, Demand Media leverages cutting edge, user-driven publishing, community and monetization tools in its quest to define the next generation of new media companies."

So if DM's business is "wholly owned content", how then does airliners fit into that if its Terms do not give DM those rights?
Seems to be a square peg in a round hole.

I don't believe for one second DM will continue to pump money into the site and retain it in its business portfolio simply out of the generosity of their heart for the benefit of the community.

Demand Media is not a small company operating out of a small office with a few enthusiastic volunteers.
Its a global media enterprise that is just like any other business - out to make as much money as it possibly can.

Quoting Atco (Reply 123): Demand Media is not a small company operating out of a small office with a few enthusiastic volunteers. Its a global media enterprise that is just like any other business - out to make as much money as it possibly can.

Converting the intellectual property of others is not the way to go about doing that, and I think they figured that out after the uproar over the past half week

Quoting Atco (Reply 123): I don't believe for one second DM will continue to pump money into the site and retain it in its business portfolio simply out of the generosity of their heart for the benefit of the community.

A.net is profitable out of the box, so generosity is not particularly necessary there.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 122): You can explain consideration without using the word... "In exchange for D.M. doing X, the user agrees to do Y." A contract doesn't have to explicitly recite anything about consideration; it simply must be sufficiently definite. (There may be a few states left in which leases or deeds do require a recitation of consideration, but we're not conveying property so that's a moot point.)

Like I said, it depends on the audience.   

Quoting UA935 (Reply 107): Grow up Nick, through all of this and all who have posted over the two threads you have to attack everyone, you are the only person in these threads who has had the exact opposite view to everyone else.

Hmm that is strange read thre replies I see a few that don't share the doom and gloom.

Quoting UA935 (Reply 107): Are you getting a kick back from DM?

You got me, though I am not using the money I donated it to Hillary's campaign.

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 110): I can agree with the need to calm down some, but if you read, our current concern is not about the wording of the TOU, it's that we apparently have been lied to and treated as idiots. There is practically a list of ways this was all mishandled, and there seem to be no accountability.

If that is how you feel Phil I respect it. As for what you are looking for in accountability I am a little confused. The cycle here whenever something happens whether it is feeling the site is looking to cash in on your work, mods treating people unfairly etc is the same drama that really lead to nowhere. If you are looking for DM to constantly apoligize or hang out in the forums with their counsel so they can instantly answer any questtions and change whatever looks wrong I don't think we are going to see that. We have reached a point where people threaten and threaten and threaten and after a while it get's really tiring. Do I think DM acted well through this? No, but I fail to see how they are going to behave or run this site they way Johan did. So people have a question to ask themselves. If someone truly feels DM is bad for the hobby than it is better for them to leave. These constant episodes just make for a poisonous atmosphere and some don't want to see it when they come here. The site has said they don't intend to use our work in a manner detremental to us or the hobby. If someone doesn't want to believe it why are they here?

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 120): I'm sure I've fallen into the category of people aimlessly whining at this point, but several of us as raising the same concerns as I am...about possible lying and other issues surrounding this whole debacle. Instead of addressing these concerns, one of Paulo's few responses here addressed only a post that COMPLIMENTED him, and did nothing to please the people that were upset. What's the about? Though the TOU is being revamped, I still don't think that they are getting it. They're not understanding the needs and interests of our community as a whole.

Phil forget Paulo for a moment. Others including respected contributors have said they are satisfied that DM was not a dark evil force against us and are confident their work is safe. What short of Moses coming down with rock tablets can DM do to reassure anyone? What are they not understanding about our interests? Phil let's face it DM bought this site. By all accounts they were never going to be accepted as part of the hobby from the get go. They provide a site where we volunatarily upload our work and we all do because it gives our photos the most exposure hands down. If it didn't we wouldn't and wouldn't have this issue and the scale we have it. Now back to Paulo, it is obvious that Paulo has been overwhelmed and is doing his best to respond to the posts here. Remember he has a language barrier and if I remember correctly Paulo did respond to the topic at hand and assured us the terms would be changed and our work would not be used without our permission. It just seems that people here want blood from DM and I think it's beginning to drag and intefere with the normal flow of the site.

Now, I might be being a complete idiot here, but upon going to the TOS on the frontpage, it says that the new policy implementation is suspended indefinitely...so presumably that means we're going to get things worked out, yes?

The bottom line is, this is all about respect.

And so far I haven't seen any which is one of the reasons I won't renew my membership again.  

[Edited 2008-02-13 15:21:06]

Dear Phil
You seem like a very knowlegegable guy and you are liked on Anet. You also have a cool looking website so you are running a business. Congrats!
I go there often although I'm a little at the end of my rope with you as many things bug me about your recent post(s) on Anet. First of all your article "Crash and Burn" does a great job of expressing your side of the story but geeze your inaccuaracies begin to add up so if you want to bird dog me I wanted to at least clear some things up.
First of all I F__d up letting those TOU get pushed. I run Anet and I told Monique to work with legal on this project and legal gave it the full monty.
Can you see this as one mans mistake and not a corporate monster walking over your house? If so, then please let all the corporate nonsense talk disapate quickly. - at least on this issue.

Phil from NYC Aviation article Crash and Burn***One of the things that are starting to tire me are the attempts by Demand Media's staff to convince us all that they are enthusiasts just like you and I. At the end of his first reply, Paulo explained that he'd have replied sooner, but he was at the Confederate Air Force Museum with Dad. I'm not doubting his explanation, and I think that's very sweet and special, but when you're replying to all of us who are concerned that our creative works are about to be yanked from a site we've supported for years, we don't care what you were doing…we just want the problem addressed. And it wasn't truly addressed with that post. It was a "Sorry, we'll get back to you Monday".

PAulo**Why am I trying to convince anyone that I'm an enthusiast? I am one according to you (I'll refer to your descrition on your site below)
Please see that I let everyone know I would be back in a couple of hours I said 6:30 and I was back way before 6.
That kind of BS really disturbs me. +Please fix that in your article+ Aand the new TOU was pulled on Sunday.

From www.NYCaviation.com***What is aviation enthusiasm about?
Aviation enthusiasm is a hobby practiced by people all over the world. It started in World War II when civilians in Europe began learning aircraft types and watching the skies in order to identify friend or foe and warn others of incoming attacks.
Today, people young and old, pilots, airport employees or anyone else who enjoys aviation will often go to the airport and watch aircraft, keep registration logs, take photographs or just sit back and enjoy the sites and sounds of flight.

Paulo***Well... I was raised in a house with a crop duster in the back yard, grew up at my uncles (who was a P-38 pilot) FBO riding in the gas truck from 2-18yrs old, My dad was a WWII B-25 pilot and retired as a LT Col in the USAF when I was 16, and we lived within 5 minutes of Barksdale AFB. My little brother was in the USAF. I live next door to SMO (Santa Monica Airport). I park my car in my hangar every night next to my precious YAk-52, I fly almost every weekend wether in a Helicopter or fixed wing and have been since 1994. I could go on but thats silly. Monique came to us from an airshow marketing company that works with Boeing, Airbus, the Blue Angels and the USAF Thunderbirds. She is a an enthusiast too right Phil?

Paulo***Regarding my post on Aviation Photography:
I said I would be back at 6:30 numnuck (read below) not Monday. Sorry you arent a numnuck I was just playing.
btw..I went to CMA not OXR. my bad

Deeplight From United States, joined Apr 2007, 40 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted Sat Feb 9 2008 13:43:08 your local time (4 days 51 minutes ago) and read 9944 times:

Hello Photographers, Crew AND Members,
I want to let everyone know that all photo rights will be held by the photographer and I will personally oversee and take care of any problems over this coming week Photos will ONLY be used the way they are used now and possibly for new features but always in the same form and not modified or for use in any other way.
We will work you on the TOU so you are up to speed on every detail and we will work on changes this week.
please accept my deepest apology as this was a mandate from legal to implement TOU asap. I take full responsibility on this issue and Monique was simply following instructions to move on this. I'm in contact with Legal today and will be working with them over the next week to sculpt this document. Please be patient - Thank you
'm sorry this is going to be quick as I had to log on a computer at the airport as this is a rare day for me - I'm with my 90 yr old Dad on a flight / trip to the Confederate Air Force Museum / hangar in OXR - Oxnard,CA. to see the plane he flew in WWII.
I will be back on after 630pm PST and I'm available all day tomorrow as well.
Best Regards,
Paulo Emanuele

Deeplight From United States, joined Apr 2007, 40 posts, RR: 0
Reply 162, posted Sat Feb 9 2008 16:21:06 your local time (3 days 22 hours 14 minutes ago) and read 8922 tim
Hello Everyone
I'm back on line.
Please remember the TOU were vauge and not proportionate to the size Anet had grown to and were written by someone Johan worked with. We are not a large company but we do have a legal dept and they stepped in. I have been very busy with engineering and programing and general business issues to micromanage these guys. I WILL NOW.
Legal sttepped in and I made a mistake by not sheparding this process to all of you .. MY MISTAKE. I' VERY SORRY and I will make sure this works for all of you.
Please be patient and I will fix this situation. We will provide a summary to everyone that explains everything and note the changes in language...what more can I say for now?
Best Regards to all of you. You ARE Anet
Paulo


Paulo*****Pease let go of the "you were intentionally lied to stuff" and enjoy being a member of the worlds largest aviation photo data base and stop whining or at least be accurate about it.
I hope we can move forward.
Best Regards,
Paulo

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 129): Can you see this as one mans mistake and not a corporate monster walking over your house?

The issue there is that DM's legal department, or your IP counsel up in Washington, are the ones who wrote your TOU. That means more DM employees than just you were involved. The corporate side of things comes into play when the structure of your company as is creates a culture that allows for TOU/TOS like this that can be read no other way other than to give DM a limitless license to profit from the copyrights of individuals.

Further, while you have responded to some of the complaints here, you haven't answered the questions of the thousands of non-photographers or more casual photographers who are upset about other very serious issues.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 114): Legalese and the confusion it causes for lay people is a massive reason litigation over contracts of adhesion like this get litigated.

Right. People found it hard to read the TOU but now you've lost me. And I had no problem whatsoever reading the TOU...

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 126): It just seems that people here want blood from DM and I think it's beginning to drag and intefere with the normal flow of the site.

I agree with you some (certainly not all!) do, and that is bad. Personally, I am not interested at all in putting Monique or Paolo on stand. But:

Quoting Atco (Reply 123): Demand Media is not a small company operating out of a small office with a few enthusiastic volunteers. Its a global media enterprise that is just like any other business - out to make as much money as it possibly can.

On the first point: unfortunately that is how they have been handling many, if not most, issues so far.
On the second point: that is the bottom line. In my view, there are two ways to do this with A.net - one good and one bad.

Good = taking advice from those who know and acknowledge the value (necessity even) of their experience. Say what you are up to, com-mu-ni-cate.
Bad = roll in here without much concern for the specifics, largely ignore the crew that runs it and the community that feeds it.

Up till now, we have seen much bad but waited it out. The TOU suddenly put the question of good or bad on a higher level. In stead of 'how long before we are back to normal' has been changed to 'can we ever go back to normal, or will what we feel to be the heart of A.net be sacrifised sooner or later to advertisement profits?'.

A structural change is needed to believe in good. Forget about individuals. What are DM management's plans with this site? I am standing-by for further.


Erik

Quoting Michlis (Reply 125): Like I said, it depends on the audience.

Have a look at Lucy v. Zehmer (84 S.E.2d 516)-- I think it's a bit of a Contracts classic, but it's the best example of a plain-English contract I can come up with.

Quoting RealAir (Reply 127): Now, I might be being a complete idiot here, but upon going to the TOS on the frontpage, it says that the new policy implementation is suspended indefinitely...so presumably that means we're going to get things worked out, yes?

Yes but some feel that all trust has been lost and that DM will try to steal our pics in the future.

Quoting 9VSMS (Reply 128): The bottom line is, this is all about respect. And so far I haven't seen any which is one of the reasons I won't renew my membership again

I agree with you totally and such is your right.

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 129): Can you see this as one mans mistake and not a corporate monster walking over your house? If so, then please let all the corporate nonsense talk disapate quickly. - at least on this issue.

It's not Phil alone, there is a mindset shared by others that DM is an evil corporate empire and this action is true to form. It's kind of a "See I told you so" mentality that is coupled with a pile on sort of thing so you are truly going uphill here.

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 129): Phil from NYC Aviation article Crash and Burn***One of the things that are starting to tire me are the attempts by Demand Media's staff to convince us all that they are enthusiasts just like you and I. At the end of his first reply, Paulo explained that he'd have replied sooner, but he was at the Confederate Air Force Museum with Dad. I'm not doubting his explanation, and I think that's very sweet and special, but when you're replying to all of us who are concerned that our creative works are about to be yanked from a site we've supported for years, we don't care what you were doing…we just want the problem addressed. And it wasn't truly addressed with that post. It was a "Sorry, we'll get back to you Monday". PAulo**Why am I trying to convince anyone that I'm an enthusiast? I am one according to you (I'll refer to your descrition on your site below) Please see that I let everyone know I would be back in a couple of hours I said 6:30 and I was back way before 6. That kind of BS really disturbs me. +Please fix that in your article+ Aand the new TOU was pulled on Sunday. From www.NYCaviation.com***What is aviation enthusiasm about? Aviation enthusiasm is a hobby practiced by people all over the world. It started in World War II when civilians in Europe began learning aircraft types and watching the skies in order to identify friend or foe and warn others of incoming attacks. Today, people young and old, pilots, airport employees or anyone else who enjoys aviation will often go to the airport and watch aircraft, keep registration logs, take photographs or just sit back and enjoy the sites and sounds of flight. Paulo***Well... I was raised in a house with a crop duster in the back yard, grew up at my uncles (who was a P-38 pilot) FBO riding in the gas truck from 2-18yrs old, My dad was a WWII B-25 pilot and retired as a LT Col in the USAF when I was 16, and we lived within 5 minutes of Barksdale AFB. My little brother was in the USAF. I live next door to SMO (Santa Monica Airport). I park my car in my hangar every night next to my precious YAk-52, I fly almost every weekend wether in a Helicopter or fixed wing and have been since 1994. I could go on but thats silly. Monique came to us from an airshow marketing company that works with Boeing, Airbus, the Blue Angels and the USAF Thunderbirds. She is a an enthusiast too right Phil?

Paulo raised a very good point here. Ever since I joined the site I could not help but notice that there were many out there that thought they were the only true enthusiasts and anybody that behaved a certain way were not participaating in the hobby correctly. This of course is rubbish but again it's part of why anyone connected with DM is viewed as the enemy from the start and why things degenerate the way they do.

Quoting Key (Reply 131): On the first point: unfortunately that is how they have been handling many, if not most, issues so far. On the second point: that is the bottom line. In my view, there are two ways to do this with A.net - one good and one bad. Good = taking advice from those who know and acknowledge the value (necessity even) of their experience. Say what you are up to, com-mu-ni-cate. Bad = roll in here without much concern for the specifics, largely ignore the crew that runs it and the community that feeds it. Up till now, we have seen much bad but waited it out. The TOU suddenly put the question of good or bad on a higher level. In stead of 'how long before we are back to normal' has been changed to 'can we ever go back to normal, or will what we feel to be the heart of A.net be sacrifised sooner or later to advertisement profits?'. A structural change is needed to believe in good. Forget about individuals. What are DM management's plans with this site? I am standing-by for further.

Good points but I think DM feels they have this structure by working closely with screeners and mods. So I doubt you are going to see any change from the existing managment structure.

Paulo,

Sincerely, thank you for your reply, and for your kind words. There is no intention to offend you, but more along the lines of a vent of frustration and a "passing along" of the disappointment that many have expressed to me.

I've spoken to you by email in the past, not sure if you recall or know of me previous to this. I've been a strong supporter of everything on this site up to this past weekend, for the points I mentioned in my editorial.

I do not doubt that you are an enthusiast. I've known that since day one. I just seem to see extra effort to prove that "you" as a COMPANY are going to lengths to convince us that your company truly cares about the members of the community. Meanwhile, we don't want to hear that. We just want actions that support it. That's all.

-Phil

Hi Phil
We can talk via email and look forward to helping each other out. I just get a little bent when hearsay starts morphing into facts and many posts seemed to be heading that way.
The fact that you would take the time to write such an article about your /our beloved Anet as it shows you care  
All is good and thanks for your post.
Paulo

Let's break out a 12 pack and all sing Koom Bay Ya already!

[Edited 2008-02-13 19:12:13]

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 86): We absolutly love Pep

You do?

Wow. I'd hate to see how you treat people you don't love.

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 120): Honestly, I can completely agree with that. I, at first, held off on my reaction to see what their response was. That is when it got worse. It was mishandled, and is still continuing to be mishandled. There should be an official statement, or more of a rush to communicate and let people know the deal. Now we're just being told to wait until Thursday for the updated TOU, when the TOU is almost the least of our concerns at this point.

I don't have a single photo on the database, but it was the photo database that led me to Anet in the beginning, so I have a sense as to how important it is. The forums are great, but when I log into Anet, the first thing I always do is peruse the newest photos. And it is inconceivable to me that a business would be so cavalier about instituting a policy change that so directly affected the heart of this particular business.

All you had to do is contact a random sampling of your contributors and ask them if they would have been willing to take a look at your new TOU, to see if they would be offended. But you didn't. You turned your lawyers loose, apparently with little direction, so they did what lawyers invariably do in a situation like this - they looked out first and foremost for the interests of DM.

To make matters worse, you announced the change late on a Friday, I guess hoping that few would notice.

Phil is correct - this TOU issue was and still is being mishandled, and you are risking the good will of all your contributors by failing to get this issue straightened out.

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 129): Pease let go of the "you were intentionally lied to stuff"

Sure, what's a few lies between friends anyway?  

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 129): Please be patient and I will fix this situation.

Ok, you've got yourself a deal. But please keep in mind a lot of photographers have lost their trust in your company. The margin for error is gone.

I am sure a.net and DM will fix this. A.net has done so much for our hobby, that it would be sad to see the site getting into trouble.

[Edited 2008-02-13 22:40:12]

Quoting Seahawk (Reply 141): I am sure a.net and DM will fix this. A.net has done so much for our hobby, that it would be sad to see the site getting into trouble.

If I were you, I wouldn't be that optimistic about it given their trackrecord with how they've handled the site in the months since the buyout from Johan.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 116): Question: what risks? Airliners.net did just fine with the current TOU for many years. Where's the explanation about these so-called risks?

Awww...the site was Swedish before, now it's based in lawsuit country  

Well...

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 133): Good points but I think DM feels they have this structure by working closely with screeners and mods. So I doubt you are going to see any change from the existing managment structure.

I disagree but that may be because we speak about different things. If I say DM management I don't mean Paolo or Monique. I mean their bosses, and their bosses' bosses. Are they willing to have A.net run the A.net way, like Johan and the crew have been doing it? Or will they keep seeing this site as any of their others, to be managed by general marketing rules, and running well as long as it shows up often enough on Google?

The ToU are not the problem, they are just a sign of the problem. P. & M. are the liaison between DM and A.net. They have left many of our questions unanswered, because they don't make the strategy. It is that strategy that needs to be altered, rapidly. We can only hope the current shake is of enough magnitude to reach DM HQ.


Erik

Hi all

I've been very quiet over the past few days. The reason........total embarrasement over the ToU situation.

Not one of the crew knew about these new terms and just like the photographer community it was a bit of a shock. I am probably the longest serving crew member and this has to be the lowest point in my career here.

This has been a total and utter balls up by Demand Media. I have made my feelings clear to Paulo and still expecting to be given my cards any day now. If I am asked to leave I will put up a fight.

When all is said and done I still think that this was a genuine mistake by them, inexperienced you could say. While those terms may relate to their other websites, they do not and cannot apply to Airliners.net. Did they think that they would get away with controlling our images?

Demand Media may have put a lot of money into Airliners.net but what they need to realise is that it's the Crew that run the website, the Crew that issue the rules and the Photographers that keep the website going. If Demand Media balls it up, it's bye bye!

We have lost some photographers already. I was unhappy to see that. This needs to be turned around and I am hoping that I can do something.

I won't be responding to any comments on the forum but please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] or my personal mail address via my profile. All communication will be treated in confidence.

I am really sorry for what has happened.

Regards

Gary

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 132): Have a look at Lucy v. Zehmer (84 S.E.2d 516)-- I think it's a bit of a Contracts classic, but it's the best example of a plain-English contract I can come up with.

Read it in Contracts when I was in school. Sometimes plain language doesn't cut it, but you'll learn this when you start practicing, especially when you have to protect your client's interests.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 139): You turned your lawyers loose, apparently with little direction, so they did what lawyers invariably do in a situation like this - they looked out first and foremost for the interests of DM.

Which is what lawyers are supposed to do unless otherwise instructed.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 142): If I were you, I wouldn't be that optimistic about it given their trackrecord with how they've handled the site in the months since the buyout from Johan.

I.e. let's find a reason to keep the negative undertones of this thread and the gossip going.

Quoting Key (Reply 144): If I say DM management I don't mean Paolo or Monique. I mean their bosses, and their bosses' bosses. ...............

Excellent post.

Quoting Michlis (Reply 146): but you'll learn this when you start practicing, especially when you have to protect your client's interests.

Have you ever litigated over a contract?

Quoting D L X (Reply 148): Have you ever litigated over a contract?

Nope...I write pretty solid contracts. Simple where need be, complex where required.

Quoting Key (Reply 142): The ToU are not the problem, they are just a sign of the problem.

My thoughts exactly....

Quoting Granite (Reply 143): This has been a total and utter balls up by Demand Media.

Gary if you were to have added "again" to that sentence it would be more accurate.

Quoting Granite (Reply 143): Demand Media may have put a lot of money into Airliners.net but what they need to realise is that it's the Crew that run the website, the Crew that issue the rules and the Photographers that keep the website going. If Demand Media balls it up, it's bye bye!

Such a simple concept that seems so difficult for them.

Thanks Gary

I was also just checking out the frontpage of A.net, and it still has a little 'addy' to check out the new TOU and Privacy Policy. I was excited when I logged on this morning - I thought the new one was posted. It might be an idea to take that down until the new TOU is ready.