Dear All,

As you know, the old Terms of Use and Privacy Policy is currently in effect. We have rolled back our initial release of the new Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We would like to incorporate photographer and user feedback before re-releasing the new Terms of Use and Privacy Policy on Airliners.net. We have worked very closely with the crew to bring you the best Terms of Use and Privacy Policy possible and ensure that all copyrights to your photos remain with the photographer. We understand that there may still be questions and/or feedback and we want a chance to answer all your questions. Your input in this process is very important to us.


Terms of Use key facts:

1. You as the photographer/copyright holder retain ownership of the submitted picture, and only grant a limited license to Airliners.net so that other members of the community may view and enjoy your photograph. You may remove your photograph from Airliners.net and terminate your license to us at any time by sending us an email.

2. Your picture will undergo a screening process. We will try to notify everyone who submits a picture of the outcome of the screening process by email.

3. If your picture is accepted to be displayed at Airliners.net, Airliners.net may modify your picture for the following limited purposes only:

a) for technical purposes such as compressing the submitted JPG file or converting it to another format such as TIF;
b) adding a copyright bar to your picture;
c) adding a watermark in accordance with your stated preferences. Airliners.net reserves the right not to display the watermark to some users at our own discretion.

4. Your picture can be displayed in one or many of the site's sections, either in thumbnail, mid-or full size version. It can also be linked to by other websites. For more details, please view photo linking at https://www.airliners.net/ownsearch/.

5. If your picture is not accepted, we will endeavor to send you an email explanation. If you think your picture was incorrectly screened, please feel free to use our appeal function as detailed in the same email. It is our intention to notify you the result of the appeal by email as well. The result of the appeal is final."


Please read the REVIEW ONLY version of the Terms of Use by clicking www.airliners.net/reviewtermsofuse/.


The comment period will be open for seven days, starting on 2/21/2008 and ending on 2/28/2008. We will answer questions and if needed, amend the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before we re-release at the beginning of March. We truly value your opinions and want to ensure you feel protected and confident uploading to Airliners.net. Please don't hesitate to ask any questions, the crew and Demand Media will both be fielding as many questions as needed to ensure that our community feels 100% comfortable uploading now and in the future.

I truly apologize for how this was initially released. We simply were inexperienced and didn't take the right steps to making sure we rolled out the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy correctly. There was never any ill intentions in our method and we hope this process of integrating and fielding your questions is a step in the right direction. We understand that trust is earned and we ask for your understanding, help and patience moving forward. The photographers and users make this site what it is and we have every intention of protecting the rights of our community.


Respectfully,

Airliners.net Management and Crew

much better...now I can upload with confidence.

Quote: Airliners.net reserves the right not to display the watermark to some users at our own discretion.

Please give practical examples of that 'discretion'..

Otherwise, this Mark II version is welcome.

Gerry

Hi All

Maybe the term 'service' is too vague and it needs to be made explicit exactly what that service is. Later it says this

Also, this limited license does not permit Airliners.net to distribute your User Photos in any way other than on and through the Service.

So your photos will not be used in any other way but if 'service' does not comminucate clearly what the usage is it will need to be made explicit.

if te term service is problematic perhaps it should be explained what exactly is meant by service: something like "the display oof your photos on a.net's image database'

Tim

Quoting Lennymuir (Reply 2): Please give practical examples of that 'discretion'..

For the last few years, one of the benefits of the first class membership is to be able to view all photos without the watermark. That is the example we were talking about here. We would like to maintain that for our first class members. Hope that makes sense, let me know if it doesn't.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): Quote: 1. When you post User Photos to the Service, you hereby grant Airliners.net a limited, revocable, perpetual (subject to your right of revocation), worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, transmit, distribute, publicly perform and display (including in each case by means of a digital audio and video transmission), and advertise around the User Photos. This limited license only allows Airliners to use your User Photos on or through the Service. 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. That looks a lot like the previous TOU that were deemed unacceptable by the Community.

I answered you in site related too... my answer is below.

The last sentence in that paragraph says, "this limited license only allows Airliners to use your User Photos on or through the Service." These means that we cannot use your photos anywhere else except Airliners.net, with the exception being the linked photos which has been there for a long time, which allows users to drop html code on their homepage and show "the picture of the day." https://www.airliners.net/ownsearch/

Does this answer your question?

Thanks,

Monique

Ok, ....first class memberships .....


Thanks

Gerry

These terms are much better, I'll be uploading once again, I agree with Tim that the term 'service' needs to be made more clear, on my first read through I was a little worried with what the term service applied to, technically, it could mean just about anything, but after another read through I got what it meant, but I would like it changed.

-Matt

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8): Not particularly, considering that the sentence is not specific as to what "through the service" means.

Service is define at the opening of the terms:

THE SITE COLLECTIVELY, THE ("SERVICE")

It's clearly Airliners.net itself.

Quoting AC320 (Reply 9): Service is define at the opening of the terms: THE SITE COLLECTIVELY, THE ("SERVICE") It's clearly Airliners.net itself.

That's exactly true. The service is defined below:

THESE TERMS OF USE ("Terms"), ARE A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN AIRLINERS.NET ("Airliners.net" or "we") AND YOU ("you"). YOU MUST READ AND AGREE TO THESE TERMS, INCLUDING THE PRIVACY POLICY, BEFORE USING THE AIRLINERS.NET WEBSITE (the "Site") OR ANY SOFTWARE, GAMES, APPLICATIONS, FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY AVAILABLE ON OR THROUGH THE SITE COLLECTIVELY, THE ("SERVICE"). BY USING THE SERVICE, YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, DO NOT USE THE SERVICE.

Again, hope this better helps.

Hi all,

I'm heading out for the night and will return in the morning to respond to any new comments or questions. Please be patient, I know you want your questions answered and I'll get to them first thing when I get in the office.

Thanks,

Monique

Thanks for posting Monique. I'm sure many others will finally be at ease.

Regards,
Brandon

Thanks to all at Demand for their work on the "new" terms.

Vastly improved, in my opinion.  

Can the service make a dime from someone's posted image without that persons consent? e.g. t-shirt sales, video sales, picture books, etc. Or if the service does make money from someone's image, what percentage goes to the copyright owner?

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 1. You as the photographer/copyright holder retain ownership of the submitted picture, and only grant a limited license to Airliners.net so that other members of the community may view and enjoy your photograph.

Jeff,
That question of yours is actually covered in the above.
So the answer to your question is no. If DM wants to use a photograph of yours, they, like any other customer will have to get your permission and pay if necessary.
Mick Bajcar

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): We will try to notify everyone who submits a picture of the outcome of the screening process by email.

I would limit that to the photographer who submitted the picture...not necessary to inform "everyone"  

On a more serious note: Is somebody keeping track of the suggestions/comments that are accepted and/or will be considered as changes?

Best regards,

Walter

These revised ToUs appear to me to be much more acceptable to the photographer community. My thanks to all colleagues who have clearly been putting a lot of time and effort behind the scenes to formulate these revisions.

I would add one point again - 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. This Forum should not be seen to be the only means of communicating on such an important topic area - especially as we saw how strongly people felt about this issue and how it was handled.

All the best.

Paul

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 5): For the last few years, one of the benefits of the first class membership is to be able to view all photos without the watermark. That is the example we were talking about here. We would like to maintain that for our first class members. Hope that makes sense, let me know if it doesn't.

This does not protect us from misuse of the photo. Any first class member could save any photo to their computer and then use it for any purpose without the watermark, right?

Ander

Quoting Ander (Reply 19): This does not protect us from misuse of the photo. Any first class member could save any photo to their computer and then use it for any purpose without the watermark, right?

It has always been that way so, yes, you are right.
DM is saying that it will not use them for itself and if someone abuses your copyright, then that is for you to address yourself.
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)

Mick Bajcar

Quoting Ander (Reply 19): This does not protect us from misuse of the photo. Any first class member could save any photo to their computer and then use it for any purpose without the watermark, right?

Of course it doesn't, and that doesn't change the current situation - I as a First Class subscriber can currently view your photos without the watermark, and I must say that that is *the* reason I continue to pay the subscription. If that ability were to be taken away from me then I would stop paying.

The photographers on this site strive for excellence in the photos they upload, does it make any sense to subsequently lower the quality of those photos through the addition of a watermark to those actually paying for the service? By limiting the watermark to non paying visitors, you have pretty much mitigated 99% of your problem anyway.

These terms of use look fine to me. I agree with Psych that their availablility for review should be communicated as soon as is practical to all users by e-mail.

My only very minor question would relate to the potential for a site ban for spam attacks, (which I whole- heartedly support). My e-mail address has been used recently by spammers and I would like an assurance that action will not be taken against members as a result of the unauthorised use of their e-mail address by spammers.

[Edited 2008-02-22 01:58:43]

Quoting Moo (Reply 21): Quoting Ander (Reply 19): This does not protect us from misuse of the photo. Any first class member could save any photo to their computer and then use it for any purpose without the watermark, right? Of course it doesn't, and that doesn't change the current situation - I as a First Class subscriber can currently view your photos without the watermark, and I must say that that is *the* reason I continue to pay the subscription. If that ability were to be taken away from me then I would stop paying. The photographers on this site strive for excellence in the photos they upload, does it make any sense to subsequently lower the quality of those photos through the addition of a watermark to those actually paying for the service? By limiting the watermark to non paying visitors, you have pretty much mitigated 99% of your problem anyway.

Anders. Moo has summed up perfectly the main reason why we pay the FC fee. No watermark. 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. Of course, there are bound to be a few 'bad apples' but that's the same in many walks of life.

Farcry

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13): hat doesn't clarify whether it means using them only on the site or using the site as the medium with which to use the photos for other reasons in other places.

Wouldn't that be something that has always existed?
I mean e-mail-able postcards of the pictures have existed for ages, there's the photo of the day viewer, print sales etc...

Is restricting the use of photos through Airliners.net and it's features via a limited, non-exclusive license that states ownership remains with the individual and guarantees proper credit while assuring Airliners.net and its parent entity make no ownership claims and will remove said photos upon request not going to cut it?

I know faith in DM is probably at or near zero, but this certainly stops anything underhanded or nefarious from going on. Per these terms, if they even look at you funny and you can request photo removal or rain down legal trouble upon them.

Can we therefore be more detailed or specific as to what the concern is? What are the other places that you worry about and how would the pictures be used there?

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): a) for technical purposes such as compressing the submitted JPG file or converting it to another format such as TIF; b) adding a copyright bar to your picture; c) adding a watermark in accordance with your stated preferences. Airliners.net reserves the right not to display the watermark to some users at our own discretion.

Just wanted to ask about (a) in the above quote. What exactly is a TIF? If a picture is submitted as a JPG why would it need to be converted or compressed? Sorry folks. I'm not 'that' computer savvy.

Farcry

Quoting Farcry (Reply 25): Just wanted to ask about (a) in the above quote. What exactly is a TIF? If a picture is submitted as a JPG why would it need to be converted or compressed? Sorry folks. I'm not 'that' computer savvy.

TIFF = Tagged image file format. A file format that, unlike JPEG, does not use lossy compression. It's generally used in the print industry.

It just means that they can add extra JPEG compression to your photos. I hope it doesn't mean to EVERY photo because the competition does it and it can cause problems. I just want my pictures displayed as-is.. which is why I generally don't use watermarks and save out of Photoshop at 100% quality.

In this case I believe it means that if someone uploads a file larger than 1600, it will be resized and therefore recompressed. Am I incorrect in this guess?

Looks ok to me i think.

Chris

Much better! These terms looks pretty good to me.

Sam,

Quoting Dvincent (Reply 26): Quoting Farcry (Reply 25): Just wanted to ask about (a) in the above quote. What exactly is a TIF? If a picture is submitted as a JPG why would it need to be converted or compressed? Sorry folks. I'm not 'that' computer savvy. TIFF = Tagged image file format. A file format that, unlike JPEG, does not use lossy compression. It's generally used in the print industry. It just means that they can add extra JPEG compression to your photos. I hope it doesn't mean to EVERY photo because the competition does it and it can cause problems. I just want my pictures displayed as-is.. which is why I generally don't use watermarks and save out of Photoshop at 100% quality. In this case I believe it means that if someone uploads a file larger than 1600, it will be resized and therefore recompressed. Am I incorrect in this guess?

Thanks for your reply Dvincent. A good explanation (to me). Just another question though. If photos are uploaded at the correct resolution (or within a whisker) would A.Net be able to resize your photo at their own discretion?

I think your 'as-is' statement is what matters the most in this context.

Anyway, I'm was just wondering as I have a few 'oldish' shots that I'm considering uploading and don't want to walk into a minefield.

Many thanks

Farcry

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 10): THE AIRLINERS.NET WEBSITE (the "Site") OR ANY SOFTWARE, GAMES, APPLICATIONS, FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY AVAILABLE ON OR THROUGH THE SITE COLLECTIVELY, THE ("SERVICE").

So in other words, DM could package up some of the pictures into [say] a screensaver or some other software product or application that is made available (doesn't say they can't charge for it either!) through a.net and that's OK. Well no its not, actually.

A

Quoting Moo (Reply 21): The photographers on this site strive for excellence in the photos they upload, does it make any sense to subsequently lower the quality of those photos through the addition of a watermark to those actually paying for the service?

It absolutely does..... Ever had one of you images stolen and used ? And guess what? Without a watermark on it? I have. Anyone can pay the measly subsription and rip off our photos.


The tiny little copyright bar does nothing compared to a watermark. I might even consider paying to override the first class benefit of not seeing the watermark. It's crazy that everyone is up in arms about the security of their 'precious' images and then agrees to show them to the world without a watermark.

If you are worried about your photos being stolen the only surefire way to avoid it is to not put them on the web.

Or maybe you can build your own site and host 600 pixel wide images.

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 30): So in other words, DM could package up some of the pictures into [say] a screensaver or some other software product or application that is made available (doesn't say they can't charge for it either!) through a.net and that's OK

Not necessarily since the TOU offer the following protection/guarantees:

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.

As consideration for your limited license of your User Photos to Airliners.net, Airliners.net will provide you with prominent attribution for your contribution.

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.

Airliners.net will not use your Content outside the scope of the license set forth in this Section 4 without your express consent.

These terms clarify they (DM) do not own your photos and you can remove them if you feel the hosting here does not meet your satisfaction because you are the sole and absolute copyright owner.

Let's also not forget such things as a screensaver/wallpaper app is not exactly new around here: New Airliners.net "photo Of The Day" Wallpaper App (by Administrator Nov 16 2005 in Site Related)

Quoting JeffM (Reply 31): It absolutely does..... Ever had one of you images stolen and used ? And guess what? Without a watermark on it? I have. Anyone can pay the measly subsription and rip off our photos. The tiny little copyright bar does nothing compared to a watermark. I might even consider paying to override the first class benefit of not seeing the watermark. It's crazy that everyone is up in arms about the security of their 'precious' images and then agrees to show them to the world without a watermark.

I'd say most people have either never had a photo stolen or have had it happen but never known about it.

I too have had pics stolen, and until someone has to go through the process of contacting the violators, dealing with lawyers, making/receiving phone calls, writing letters, going back and forth to the post office sending/receiving registered letters, etc., they can't accurately comment on the importance of watermarking. It's an added measure of protection.

Since my incident, all my photos get the watermark, and they always will. Don't like it, don't look at my pics. It's that simple.

I'd also consider paying an additional fee to make the watermark permanent, even to first class members. Hear that DM? A chance to make even MORE money. I hope you'll consider it.

Hi All,

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): a) for technical purposes such as compressing the submitted JPG file or converting it to another format such as TIF; b) adding a copyright bar to your picture; c) adding a watermark in accordance with your stated preferences. Airliners.net reserves the right not to display the watermark to some users at our own discretion.

Please remember that in this ToU everything that TODAY is done within the site had to be incorporated.
For example, as far as I know nobody uploads a picture and its corresponding thumbnail. Since the site does allow to display pictures at other-than-submitted sizes, we as uploader need to allow for some manipulation of our original file, that's all.

Quoting Ander (Reply 19): This does not protect us from misuse of the photo. Any first class member could save any photo to their computer and then use it for any purpose without the watermark, right?

Well, today it is not different. The ToU are just putting in writing what we are already accepting.

As far as I can see, there is really nothing new within these ToU that Airliners/DM can do to our pictures that they are not doing today, but now it is written as a binding document for all parties, which does protect our rights way better than the old ToUs did.
And even in the worst case, that is you do detect some use by Airliners/DM that you don't want, you can always revoke the licence and have your pictures deleted, so it's very easy to control and administer our rights as photographers.

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.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 35): As far as I can see, there is really nothing new within these ToU that Airliners/DM can do to our pictures that they are not doing today, but now it is written as a binding document for all parties, which does protect our rights way better than the old ToUs did. And even in the worst case, that is you do detect some use by Airliners/DM that you don't want, you can always revoke the licence and have your pictures deleted, so it's very easy to control and administer our rights as photographers.

100% agree, Andres. I like these new terms and think they're much better. I would sign off on them.

I didn't lose sleep either. What I lost was time in chasing the thieves.

I wish I could understand why those who don't care seem to think their opinion carries more weight than that of those who do care. Understanding that nothing short of keeping pics on your hard disk is 100% safe, what's wrong with some people wanting some added protection? (especially when people might be prepared to pay for it)

The new terms look much better.

One suggestion:
in point #2:

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 2. Your picture will undergo a screening process. We will try to notify everyone who submits a picture of the outcome of the screening process by email.

The We will try to notify to We will notify . This way we know that the outcome of the screening will be an e-mail. However, one may choose not to receive screening messages.

Because what I understand from #5 is that we will get an email stating the reasons of rejecting the photo. Am I right here?

On a side note, maybe the site can help the photographers with 'stolen' photos, by sending official e-mail to the 'thieves' ? Not always the photographer can achieve the removal of the photo from the website by him/herself.

KS/codeshare

Quoting Codeshare (Reply 40): On a side note, maybe the site can help the photographers with 'stolen' photos, by sending official e-mail to the 'thieves' ? Not always the photographer can achieve the removal of the photo from the website by him/herself.

Since A.net does not own the copyright (the point of the whole TOU) it wouldn't make any sense to tell people to take down photos etc since only the copyrightholder can do so.

Tim

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 10): Again, hope this better helps.

Monique, in DM's eyes, why do y'all need the site/service distinction in the first place? I (obviously) can't speak for N1120A, but it seems like cutting out that distinction might do a lot to allay his concerns. If, as has been suggested above, "service" simply means "site" plus some small (and inconsequential) differences such as linking to photos, I think it might make some sense to simply replace "service" with "site, and in addition XXX" where necessary.

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 41): Since A.net does not own the copyright (the point of the whole TOU) it wouldn't make any sense to tell people to take down photos etc since only the copyrightholder can do so.

Yes, but it's hosting them, and has more 'power'. Anyways that is just an idea.

KS/codeshare

Quoting Psych (Reply 18): I would add one point again - 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. This Forum should not be seen to be the only means of communicating on such an important topic area - especially as we saw how strongly people felt about this issue and how it was handled.

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.

Quoting LeadingEdge (Reply 22): My e-mail address has been used recently by spammers and I would like an assurance that action will not be taken against members as a result of the unauthorized use of their e-mail address by spammers.

Looking into an answer on this.

Quoting Codeshare (Reply 40): On a side note, maybe the site can help the photographers with 'stolen' photos, by sending official e-mail to the 'thieves' ? Not always the photographer can achieve the removal of the photo from the website by him/herself.

I'm working on this right now. I've helped a handful of photographers with this issue but the deal is, Airliners.net does not own the rights of your photo therefore we can't represent you legally. What I'm trying to do, is to provide any photographers who have stolen material with a professional letter that carries weight but as of now, we can't do more. I am trying to help out though, it's a catch 22 because obviously you want rights to your photos but that limits us in pursuing copyright infringement on your behalf. For now, please assume that the same process that has happened will still be in place, which is we can and will try to help but we are not obligated to do so.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 15): Can the service make a dime from someone's posted image without that persons consent? e.g. t-shirt sales, video sales, picture books, etc. Or if the service does make money from someone's image, what percentage goes to the copyright owner?

I don't know if I'm understanding the question but the same as always. We cannot use your photos for t-shirt sales as explained in the TOU. Do we make money off your photos through advertisement... yes. There wouldn't be a site otherwise. Let me know if there is more to this question that I'm not understanding.

Thanks,

Monique

Quoting Codeshare (Reply 40): We will try to notify to We will notify

Also, we can not be held responsible for not notifying you therefore the wording "we will try" is accurate. We will do our best but we aren't obligated to do so. If something gets lost via email, we can't be held liable for it.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39): People have always been able to demand photo removal, though the hoops they apparently have to jump through now are tougher. That isn't the issue.

I disagree and think this is the core of the issue.

The process is simple and the same as its always been:

For Content consisting of your User Photos, you may remove such Content from the Service and terminate your license to us at any time. If you want Airliners.net to stop using your User Photos, simply send us written notice or an email at [email protected] requesting us to stop distributing such materials, in which event we will stop using your User Photos within 14 days. So that we can quickly identify the User Photos you want removed from the Service, your notice must clearly identify the Content at issue. The 14 day period for Airliners.net to stop distributing your Content begins only once Airliners.net has received a notice complying with the requirements of this Section 4(C).

Hardly a difficult hoop to jump through, eh?

By clarifying that indeed DM/Airliners makes no ownership claims to the photos, there's no nefarious back alley usage going to go on. The TOU cover everything that pretty much already existed and has been going on. Welcome to America, land of the lawsuit and where I can cash in if my coffee cup doesn't tell me coffee is hot.

Let's Imagine the outcry should they release a program (pay for) that contains photos from the website without photographer consent. Imagine them having to constantly update the software to remove all photos from photographers who withdraw their license. Not a good nor profitable business venture there.

There's always been services offered through Airliners.net that doesn't necessarily display the photos directly on Airliners, as described previously, and let's not exclude the idea that new ones may be developed for the enjoyment of users that also increase photographer exposure. Features such as photo sales were "opt in", correct?

Say this comes around again: New Airliners.net "photo Of The Day" Wallpaper App (by Administrator Nov 16 2005 in Site Related) Why would it suddenly be not okay? Same thing, different owner.

If something needs to be clarified I'm sure it can, but don't think I'm quite on the same wavelength as you yet.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 31): It absolutely does..... Ever had one of you images stolen and used ? And guess what? Without a watermark on it? I have. Anyone can pay the measly subsription and rip off our photos.

Pfft, photos. I've had entire website designs stolen, flash videos I spent weeks on stolen, javascript code I wrote for community websites stolen. I've had code misappropriated by opensource coders (remember kids, just because it says BSD license doesn't mean you can appropriate it for your own code without retaining the license).

And yet I wouldn't change a single thing about the way I contribute my creative talents. Assholes will always exist.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 31): The tiny little copyright bar does nothing compared to a watermark. I might even consider paying to override the first class benefit of not seeing the watermark. It's crazy that everyone is up in arms about the security of their 'precious' images and then agrees to show them to the world without a watermark.

This website has to make money somehow, and one of the best reasons for a First Class membership at the moment is lack of a watermark on the photos. If you don't like that, I guess you are more than welcome to go elsewhere - just as I am if they took that FC benefit away from me.

This site does both yourself and myself a service, and *I* am the one paying for *your* photos to be hosted on it.

If you want total security, don't upload.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 48): Actually, I think you go too far there. The photos bring in significantly more revenue than the first class members.

Regardless, I am still paying for his photos to be hosted, by the very virtue that if I didn't get watermark-less access, I probably wouldn't be paying at all (the forums are a nicety, but most certainly a secondary reason for me). There may be other customers paying also, I don't doubt that.