Quoting N1120A (Reply 48): but I don't necessarily see the A.net crew as having much of a choice at this point.

Pardon? There's going to be many different viewpoints coming in from all sides regarding any TOU issues on a site like this.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 48): Not only is that line patronizing, it is factually inaccurate.

Well granted its hyperbole based on how the American legal system is viewed by the general public, but the owners do have to cover all their bases. It's an expression my personal view and certainly not meant to be patronizing, I don't think I'm in a position to act that way towards someone who's stated educational level in the law likely exceeds my own. However, we are all entitled to input in this process I'm sure you'll agree absolute consensus even in the legal circles is a difficult task.

I believe some members of the crew sought legal counsel in reviewing the terms, I certainly did, and i trust the input provided, but as I said complete 100% consensus and agreement be in in legal circles or among thew many users here is quite the task.

Quoting Moo (Reply 49): Regardless, I am still paying for his photos to be hosted

Actually the ads pay for that.

Tim

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 51): Actually the ads pay for that.

Right, and my monthly membership goes 100% into your holiday fund.

Much better - I guess I'll start uploading again.

Still, I don't understand why such a hoolabaloo had to be made in the first place, and that the ToU had to be changed at all!

N1120A

1) I get the sense that you, and a few others, will be unhappy with whatever terms Demand Media offers. I find it funny that most of these same people also want to praise a certain other site (you know, the one that was started with source code stolen from Airliners.net). The crew, working side-by-side with Demand Media, has made every effort to ensure that each photographer, their photos, and their rights, are protected. If, at the end of the day, you still feel uneasy about said terms then you need to do what makes sense for you.

As a photographer who sells a shitload of images, mostly through contacts initiated through this website, I am not worried about Demand Media stealing, repackaging, blowing their noses, or any other kind of "usage" of my images. But it is okay for Demand Media to make money off of my images. In fact any website that shows banners ads and/or sells memberships is making money off of your hard work. The exposure that I get from the traffic numbers A.net puts up makes that all worth while. In fact the traffic numbers here are, excuse my language, *beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep* huge. Wan't to see for yourself? Go to your favorite Airliners Image Website and enter in N701DN.

2) You have misquoted me. My reply about a "100% safe method" is about people viewing watermarked vs. non watermarked images. If you are the type that worries someone is going to right click your image and not pay you for it, better to keep those images on your harddrive.

Also, a side note to all haters, don't bother refuting my claim about the stolen code. Most of you weren't here way back then. Those of us who were know the score.

Quoting AC320 (Reply 50): There's going to be many different viewpoints coming in from all sides regarding any TOU issues on a site like this.

Given the recent history with the crew, I don't think that such differing viewpoints will come from your end.

Quoting AC320 (Reply 50): It's an expression my personal view and certainly not meant to be patronizing

Well, it is, especially seeing that this has been discussed over and over again.

Quoting Moo (Reply 52): Right, and my monthly membership goes 100% into your holiday fund.

They have multiple revenue streams

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 54): I get the sense that you, and a few others, will be unhappy with whatever terms Demand Media offers.

That is absolutely not the case. My issue is with the ambiguous wording that can still be construed as virtually limitless license

Quoting N1120A (Reply 55): My issue is with the ambiguous wording that can still be construed as virtually limitless license

As far as I can see you are the only one calling it a "virtually limitless license."

Can you back this statement up, or are you trying to just be a fly in the ointment?

When you use alarmist vocabulary such as 'virtually limitless license" it sounds like Demand Media is trying to steal your pictures to sell mousepads, tv commericals, and god knows what else, when in reality they are saying that if you post a picture here it might show up on other properties owned by Demand Media, such as the FlightLevel350 content on the front page, or on sites that use the A.net photo viewer to display images on other websites.

In one of your previous posts you cite knowledge about Intellectual Property law.

I would like to know if a) you are an IP lawyer, and b) if so, are you giving out legal advice in this thread?

I have retained an IP lawyer in the past to pursue a couple of copyright infringements and he gave these revised TOUs a thumbs up.

So, please, clarify your position.

Thank you.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 56): I have retained an IP lawyer in the past to pursue a couple of copyright infringements and he gave these revised TOUs a thumbs up.

Royal,

Is this the same one that gave the old TOUs a thumbs up as well?

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 56): As far as I can see you are the only one calling it a "virtually limitless license."

Oh really. How about you take a look at Halls120's posts on the thread in Site Related.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 56): Can you back this statement up, or are you trying to just be a fly in the ointment?

Back off there tiger. The language of the TOU is rather plain and contains no modifying words, which creates the problem.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 56): b) if so, are you giving out legal advice in this thread?

I'm not giving legal advice to anyone, I am stating my concerns.

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 57): Is this the same one that gave the old TOUs a thumbs up as well?

Yes.

It seems very cut and dry to me.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): The way this reads, that part about "Through the Service" can absolutely be read to mean, and I fear will be read to mean by DM's IP lawyers, that photos posted on A.net may be distributed, without royalty or consent, to others at DM's choosing.

From the TOUs:

This limited license only allows Airliners to use your User Photos on or through the Service.


The Service: ANY SOFTWARE, GAMES, APPLICATIONS, FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY AVAILABLE ON OR THROUGH THE SITE COLLECTIVELY, THE ("SERVICE").

which references;

The Site: THE AIRLINERS.NET WEBSITE (the "Site")

So, Demand Media can only use your photos on or through "The Service." "The Service" is defined as 'ANY SOFTWARE, GAMES, APPLICATIONS, FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY" available on our through the sire ("THE AIRLINERS.NET WEBSITE").

Please tell me where I, as a photographer will a lot of valuable photos on this website, should be concerned about Demand Media stealing my photos and/or the rights to my photos.

Hi N1120A and all,

I want to answer your questions but you must be specific. Throwing out "virtually limitless license" seems to me that you may be stirring the pot versus trying to get questions answered. It says multiple times that Demand Media would have a "limited license" and even goes as far as to specify exactly what type of limits are on the license.

I think this sums it up right here:

"This limited license only allows Airliners to use your User Photos on or through the Service. In addition, you hereby grant Airliners.net the limited permission to modify your User Photos to add a watermark and copyright notification in a manner generally consistent with past practice and for technical purposes to enable the display of the User Photos on or through the Service. For example, we may need to compress a photo image to create a thumbnail. For clarification, the limited license to modify your User Photos for technical purposes does not permit Airliners to make modifications to your User Photos for creative purposes. Also, this limited license does not permit Airliners.net to distribute your User Photos in any way other than on and through the Service, but does permit Airliners.net to make your User Photos available for viral distribution such as by providing HTML code for aviation enthusiasts to embed the “photo of the day” on other websites and allowing Airliners.net to share User Photos with members of the Airliners.net community through, for example, email and newsletters."

Examples of how currently we have licenses to display your photo "through" the Service:
- Links via photo of the day (https://www.airliners.net/ownsearch/)
- Post Cards (https://www.airliners.net/postcard/process.main?filename=2/7/9/1328972.jpg&photo_id=1328972&photographer=Mark%20Carlisle)
- Photobox - Selling photos via a third party

Again, I'm more than happy to answer your questions but be specific... I'm here to help.

Thanks,

Monique

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 60): OR THROUGH THE SITE COLLECTIVELY

That maybe where the problem is coming, a suggestion would be a defined limit of what types of usage are allowed through the service.

Quoting Farcry (Reply 23): Also Anders, please realise and respect the fact that most of those who pay to view your pictures are not out to rip you off.

Did I say so?

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 20): By sharing images, by uploading to any website there is a risk that others will/can abuse your copyright. DM (or any other site for that matter) cannot be held responsible for what others might do with your copyright, they can only set out their respect for it (which I am certain they have now done)

Then what is the reason for a watermark at all?

As far as I know A.net implemented the possibility of adding a watermark to protect photogs rights from viewers. But only from some of them. Some who pay the FC membeship fee. So we are being protected only from the ones who pay the fee, and may be not from the ones who may steal a photo. So what is the purpose of the watermark then?

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 32): If you are worried about your photos being stolen the only surefire way to avoid it is to not put them on the web.

Perfectly right Royal. A bit radical IMHO. Most of us want to upload and show our photos here. And most of us don't want our photos stolen. Even more when there is means to prevent the later.

Cheers,

Ander

Quoting Ander (Reply 63): As far as I know A.net implemented the possibility of adding a watermark to protect photogs rights from viewers. But only from some of them. Some who pay the FC membeship fee. So we are being protected only from the ones who pay the fee, and may be not from the ones who may steal a photo. So what is the purpose of the watermark then?

Ander this doesn't make a great deal of sense...fc do not see the watermark and regular viewers do, not the other way around. So the visitor from a business looking to steal your photos will see the watermark. They will most likely not be fc members here. Sure they can sign up and then not see the watermark but I'd have to say that would be unlikely.

Tim

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 64): Sure they can sign up and then not see the watermark but I'd have to say that would be unlikely.

Tim, I hope you are right. But so far my experience (and some others') says the oppsosite.

Cheers,

Ander

Quoting Psych (Reply 18): I believe this matter is of such importance that a separate email should be sent to all photographers, updating them on the situation following the last email and also directing them to this thread.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 44): Agreed and the email was sent out last night. It was planned all along, just ran out of time yesterday... so the entire community should be receiving shortly.

Very glad to hear that Monique - a wise move in my opinion. I am still to receive mine.

Whilst I understand the attempt to ensure this important issue is being discussed as much as possible, is there any way that this thread and the same one on Site Related can somehow be combined or mirrored or something? I can see arguments for and against having separate threads, but it would be a shame if some interesting debate happened in one and was missed by those keeping abreast of the debate by following the thread in the other.

Cheers.

Paul

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 36): I've had photos stolen. By big companies, small companies, and everything in between. 1 shot was in all the Australian newspapers, another a billboard all over Kenya. One stolen shot even made it into a documentary on a big 3 network. I don't loose any sleep over it. The only 100% safe method is to keep your photos small or not online at all.

How many of your stolen images had a watermark across them? Did the watermark show up on that billboard?

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 61): Throwing out "virtually limitless license" seems to me that you may be stirring the pot versus trying to get questions answered.

I'm not stirring anything, I am pointing out what is pretty plain. There is no limiting language that says what "through" is supposed to mean.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 61): Examples of how currently we have licenses to display your photo "through" the Service:

But there is no limitation in the TOU's as to that.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 54): 1) I get the sense that you, and a few others, will be unhappy with whatever terms Demand Media offers. I find it funny that most of these same people also want to praise a certain other site (you know, the one that was started with source code stolen from Airliners.net).

Didn't Demand Media make an offer to buy the 'other site' as well? Can't be all bad despite your slander.

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 64): So the visitor from a business looking to steal your photos will see the watermark. They will most likely not be fc members here. Sure they can sign up and then not see the watermark but I'd have to say that would be unlikely.

Talk about not making sense?!? It makes a lot more sense to pay for a month of FC membership to steal an un- watermarked image then it does save the $6.95 or what-ever it is to have to ask for permission and pay the photographer the going rate.

It's crazy not to watermark your images period, and our inability to have all our images watermarked and then someone making money selling the right to view our images without it is beyond rediculous. In my opinion, it should be the photographer's choice, not the site's how their images are displayed.

N1120A - sounds like your best course of action might be to pull your photos off the site.

Out of curiosity, how many photos, if any, are we hosting for you?

Hey Royal, rather than criticising the opposition and telling us how many photos you sell and how shit-hot you are post constructively and perhaps address peoples concerns in an appropriate way. Honestly mate, given your so top notch and all.... the fact you upload at the opposition site has to be an endorsment correct  

We've had enough nonsense over the last few weeks, those that can't be pleased will probably pack there bags and leave. Focus on those folk that want to continue working with the site.

Back to the topic at hand, I thank Demand Media for realising our concerns and amending the Terms of Use sufficiently to see the masses happy and ready to upload.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 60): So, Demand Media can only use your photos on or through "The Service." "The Service" is defined as 'ANY SOFTWARE, GAMES, APPLICATIONS, FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY" available on our through the sire ("THE AIRLINERS.NET WEBSITE").

So if I understand this correctly, this means that the deal Johan made with AirNav to show our photos in their ACARS software is ok according to the new ToU ?

Same goes for any other game or software around the world who wants to show A.net photos in their program ?

That means that DM can make good deals with future software developers to show our photos in their softwares.
DM makes a good deal, the software maker makes a good deal. We as photographer doesn't even get our name as credit next to the photo. (This is the case with AirNav ACARS software)

Let me read the ToU again and see what it says about crediting the photographer when showing the photo, on A.net or any of the other "services"

If I'm misreading anything here, please enlighten me. I'm not just bitching. The new ToU is a big step in the right direction.

Tommy Mogren

.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 54): I get the sense that you, and a few others, will be unhappy with whatever terms Demand Media offers

I hope your just not realizing this now.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 54): The exposure that I get from the traffic numbers A.net puts up makes that all worth while.

It's those same numbers that keep most still uploading here. Even the ones who walk around with the "This site is nothing without us" chip on their shoulder.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 56): When you use alarmist vocabulary such as 'virtually limitless license" it sounds like Demand Media is trying to steal your pictures to sell mousepads, tv commericals, and god knows what else

We don't need his alarmist vocabulary, they think this anyway.

Quoting Ander (Reply 65): Tim, I hope you are right. But so far my experience (and some others') says the oppsosite.

By posting your photos online it's the risk you take. I had a pic of mine copied from here for use in publication in the NYC area without my permission. There is nothing you can do, I emailed the editor and they hide behind fair use, they hide behind ignorance etc. Nothing you can do unless you pulll your pics and refuse to upload.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 70): It's crazy not to watermark your images period, and our inability to have all our images watermarked and then someone making money selling the right to view our images without it is beyond rediculous. In my opinion, it should be the photographer's choice, not the site's how their images are displayed.

I have to agree with Jeff here.

Quoting Cathay111 (Reply 72): those that can't be pleased will probably pack there bags and leave.

if that was the case they would have left months ago and we wouldn't have to endure these threads.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 74): By posting your photos online it's the risk you take

Agree on this.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 74): There is nothing you can do, I emailed the editor and they hide behind fair use, they hide behind ignorance etc. Nothing you can do unless you pulll your pics and refuse to upload.

But not on this. We do have the option of a watermark though only for some viewers.

A.

Craig - judging by the emails I would say at least some people who have read my posts have found them constructive. As with all things some people get it and some people don't. As for uploading my shots "there," that was to support my good friend Bruce Drum. As his relationship with them has ended, so has mine.

Tommy - I don't know if Demand Media will continue this arrangement with AirNav. As with the "deal" with ATDB I think Johan was looking for ways to grow the website. I doubt Demand Media would give away our images. It seems to me we have more rights now then we did before. I don't recall there having been opt-in discussions like this in the past, but I could be wrong.

Demand Media is in the business of running websites, not selling trinkets. I have seen a few people say that even if things are fine now, what about the future, that eventually Demand Media will change the terms of use so that they can do all sorts of evil stuff. Everyone knows if that were to happen people would stop uploading and the site would dry up. And how much value would a dried up website with no content be worth?

The TOUs are designed to protect Demand Media. Steps need to be taken to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and the like. If anyone has real concern they should contact a copyright lawyer and get a profession opinion. It should only cost you a couple of hundred dollars and might well be worth the piece of mind you will get if you are worried about your images, not just on this website.

Jeff - None of my images have watermarks. As long as there is an option to NOT display a watermark that is the option I would choose. But I do understand that some people are worried about unauthorized use of their work, for them maybe a watermark is their best option, other than not uploading. But really that should be discussed in a new thread.

Hi all

For all those that were up in arms with the previous ToU's it would be good to hear your comments on the new version. Many on the previous thread but not many on this one.

Regards

Gary

I think the new TOUs are a great improvement and we're almost there. Good to see DM actively listening and responding to feedback. I do have a couple of reservations about the TOUs, but I need to find the time to sit down and think them through before posting.

Charles

I can't find an issue with the new terms. I'd like to thank the 'old crew' for their efforts in this matter. I'm confident now that DM is willing to respect photographer's rights as before, simply because DM recognize that's the way to make the site flourish.

I do wonder if the proposed method of approval of the new terms by the users (ie, if you do nothing you're supposed to approve of them) is legally kosher.

Peter 

Quoting Granite (Reply 77): For all those that were up in arms with the previous ToU's it would be good to hear your comments on the new version. Many on the previous thread but not many on this one.

I'm fine with these new TOU. They're fundamentally sound to me even if they need some tweaking here or there.

Here are my issues:

19E - This can be read as saying A.net users do not have the right to assign what they own to others and have A.net recognize the assignment, while all the while, A.net can assign away its rights as it pleases without asking our permission. That latter half is more troublesome - I would not be in favor of A.net assigning part of its license to use my photos to a third party without my permission. DM needs to tighten that up.

19F - A.net can have choice of law, but as an international website, you can't have venue too. It is unrealistic to ask a person living in Norway to appear in court in Los Angeles. Please clean up the forum clause. Furthermore, copyright law is federal law, to which California state law is preempted. Your choice of law clause stating that California law applies, and that California courts should not accept any retinue or conflict of laws can leave a situation in which NO applicable law applies to the case. (Precedent may prevent enforcement of this clause anyway.)

Quoting Granite (Reply 77): For all those that were up in arms with the previous ToU's it would be good to hear your comments on the new version. Many on the previous thread but not many on this one.

I'll quote from the thread in the invisible forum:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 7): Quoting N1120A (Reply 6): that part about "Through the Service" can absolutely be read to mean That's exactly the term that caught my eye.

Review Only - New Terms Of Use (by Flyheligirl Feb 21 2008 in Site Related)

That and the legalese in the bit on "holding airliners.net indemnified" or some such were my (main?) grieves.

Other than the few remaining tweaks to be worked through, I'm happy with the new ToU.

Thanks to the crew for chiming in so often, too. Really makes a big difference.

Mike   

Quoting D L X (Reply 81): Please clean up the forum clause. Furthermore, copyright law is federal law, to which California state law is preempted. Your choice of law clause stating that California law applies, and that California courts should not accept any retinue or conflict of laws can leave a situation in which NO applicable law applies to the case. (Precedent may prevent enforcement of this clause anyway.)

The jurisdiction and venue sentence is all right (contracting parties can generally consent to jurisdiction and venue wherever they like-- assuming a court would treat an a.net user as a competent contracting party), but it reads like federal law does not apply to the website (which is a problem with copyright law, as you point out...). Am I missing something?

Quoting Granite (Reply 77):

I'm quite satisfied with the new Terms as well. Good to see things worked out.

Ivan

Quoting Fly747 (Reply 85): I'm quite satisfied with the new Terms as well.

Same here. Now, trusting DM, that's a different story, it'll take a few years for them to prove to me they want what's best for our community and the photographers generating hundreds of thousands of views for them daily, free of charge.

-Matt

In light of the revisions I've added a few to the queue. Think that says it all.

Hi all

Thanks Karl, should be screened soon.

Regards

Gary

Goin back a few replies ...

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 54): you know, the one that was started with source code stolen from Airliners.net

Bang out of order Royal ... i thought you were better than that ... i guess i was wrong !

Thanks guys. Rules seems are fine now but one little comment.

It is not a secret that Russia as like as many other countries has less practice of copyright protection. From time to time we face troubles with photo larency. We try to contuct to such media or companies and some time they used explanation like 'we bought this picture at A.net - you have to communicate with them'. Indeed it was brazen lie and we simply addressed such people to the A.net former rules which was simply written on more simple languege.

So, I just would like to advise to put the additional sentence to Item 1 like: 'If any third party (not photographer or Anet) is inetersted in buying or granting rights for the picture it has to communicate to photogrpher directly.' Or something like that.

It will be a great assistance of dealing with unfair publishers.

Regards,

Fyodor

Well these terms are a damn site better than the first set!

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 84): contracting parties can generally consent to jurisdiction and venue wherever they like-- assuming a court would treat an a.net user as a competent contracting party

Of course they can, but WHY should the users consent to that? Especially a user in Europe? A forum clause like that, when we're dealing with individuals, basically means "you have no right to sue" unless you have a lot of disposable cash lying around.

Quoting D L X (Reply 92): A forum clause like that, when we're dealing with individuals, basically means "you have no right to sue" unless you have a lot of disposable cash lying around.

What forum do you suggest? It's lousy, but in a globalized world, there isn't much choice.

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 90): So, I just would like to advise to put the additional sentence to Item 1 like: 'If any third party (not photographer or Anet) is inetersted in buying or granting rights for the picture it has to communicate to photogrpher directly.' Or something like that. It will be a great assistance of dealing with unfair publishers.

I have to agree with this one. In Poland, on many times a photo is describes as : "Internet" for example.

KS/codeshare

I'm glad to see Monique active in this thread . . . I've been (and still am, I admit) a bit hard on the DM crew for not being active.

Clickhappy, from the concerns from the members over the 1st TOU, with your lawyer, it sounds like you could use a 2nd opinion. Just my   

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 93): What forum do you suggest? It's lousy, but in a globalized world, there isn't much choice.

I wouldn't suggest a forum. You don't have to. Besides that, choice of forum is usually the plaintiff's choice.

honestly, I expect a big "F.U." from the legal folks at DM about changing the forum clause. BUT, the users of the site should know, that as long as that clause is in there, you're exposing yourself to being forced to sue DM in Los Angeles if they screw you.

And given their track record right now, I don't think they've earned enough goodwill for users outside LA to give up their right to have their case heard in the forum of their choice.

What good is a set of good terms if it is made too difficult to enforce them???

Quoting D L X (Reply 96): I wouldn't suggest a forum. You don't have to. Besides that, choice of forum is usually the plaintiff's choice.

While this isn't the time for a Civil Procedure debate, there's so much forum shopping possible today that it seems to me like there's at least some value in predictability. In my book, anyway, if you're going to choose California law (for state law claims), you might as well also choose California courts.

Quoting D L X (Reply 96): BUT, the users of the site should know, that as long as that clause is in there, you're exposing yourself to being forced to sue DM in Los Angeles if they screw you. And given their track record right now, I don't think they've earned enough goodwill for users outside LA to give up their right to have their case heard in the forum of their choice. What good is a set of good terms if it is made too difficult to enforce them???

Excellent info. Thanks for exposing this.

Still not keen on 4B of the new tou's - namely "This limited license only allows Airliners to use your User Photos on or through the Service." It is the "through the service" that is of concern (to me) as we have no idea how DM want to expand and anything that is made available 'through the service' could have our pictures on it without us getting a say. The limited license should just be for the showing of images on airliners.net and nothing else.