The only issue i'm seeing with these TOU's is going to be from an international stand point. EG, what may pass in the US to protect the photographer etc may not provide the same level of protection in say, Russia, or China. I'll say it right now that these TOU's are a hell of alot more acceptable than the old ones. Remember there will be people who will compain for the sake of complaining. Businesses change, but our rights as photographers are still there, in black and white. Any money made from the photos and the photographer will still recieve what their entitled to.

In reference to Mike's earlier post, i do believe that an agreement like that would have to still be passed by the photographer community.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 44): DLX, I am very happy that we have US law in the ToU. I think worldwide the US must be the easiest country in the world to get legal advise, and the US law (state and/or federal) protects our copyrights like very few others.

I'm not suggesting that we abandon US law when dealing with DM. I think choice of law is a great idea. I think choice of forum is the problematic one. Choice of law helps us figure out exactly what the contract means, at least in theory. Choice of forum means that no matter what the contract says, to enforce it, you have to spend the thousands of dollars (on top of legal fees) to sue in Los Angeles. Are you willing to go to Los Angeles should DM do something through "The Service" that you disagree with? The fact that DM can make it very expensive for you to sue them menas they can (not saying they will) jerk you around that much more before it hurts you bad enough that you'd do something about it.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 44): Or would you prefer to go to Lulea in Sweden to sue Johan???

Yes. If you sued a US company in Chile and other places, there are treaties in force to allow you to enforce a money judgment issued by a foreign court in the US. (Conditions apply, of course.)

Quoting Acontador (Reply 44): Or would you prefer to go to Lulea in Sweden to sue Johan???

That's the whole point! I would not want to go to Sweden to sue Johan, when Johan came to the US to do business with me. I've never been to Sweden, but Johan's company came to me in Massachusetts. Under normal laws, I could sue Johan in Massachusetts.

Quoting D L X (Reply 51): I'm not suggesting that we abandon US law when dealing with DM. I think choice of law is a great idea. I think choice of forum is the problematic one.

I'm too lazy to go get about six checkmarks for this one. A choice-of-law clause cuts out a lot of unnecessary wrangling and also, importantly, sets out the ground rules for the interpretation of the contract. Now here's the catch. The leading case in choice of forum (as far as I know) was Shute, and that upheld the forum selection pretty widely. But as far as I know (at least I never ran across it in CivPro or since), nobody's ever fought the forum selection on a worldwide scale. The way we learned Shute was as basically a "lower-48" rule, that the Court would almost certainly uphold the forum selection of a non-random lower-48 forum against a party living in the lower 48. But there's nothing in the decision that indicates an enforcement against someone from, say, Chile.

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 46): Why leave it up to lawyers to refute, simply remove the questionable text.

"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."

Given the definition of "the Service" elsewhere as:

"AIRLINERS.NET WEBSITE (the "Site") OR ANY SOFTWARE, GAMES, APPLICATIONS, NEWSLETTERS, OR OTHER SITE-RELATED FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY AVAILABLE ON OR THROUGH THE SITE (COLLECTIVELY, THE “SERVICE”)"

it seems pretty unambiguous. What I'd say is the biggest problem is that by a plain grammatical reading (the fact that it's written in the disjunctive), the "service" doesn't include the actual website, but rather just site-related features and functionality; presumably, the site-related features and functionality doesn't include "the Site." You could make a decent case from that text that the main page itself therefore isn't covered by this license. Not that I'd ever want to have to make such an argument, but if you parse it enough, you can get it. However, that's true of just about any contract. A fair reading of this license seems to do about what Monique says it does, but I'm no expert in California law.

Quoting D L X (Reply 51): Choice of forum means that no matter what the contract says, to enforce it, you have to spend the thousands of dollars (on top of legal fees) to sue in Los Angeles.

I don't want a country with a civil law tradition trying to interpret American law... choosing an American forum seems like a good idea if we're going to choose American law.

BTW, what kind of IP work do you do?

[Edited 2008-03-06 20:50:00]

Quoting IADCA (Reply 52): But as far as I know (at least I never ran across it in CivPro or since), nobody's ever fought the forum selection on a worldwide scale.

Sorry to post twice in a row, but it looks like you crossed paths with my last post. I'm also unaware of any case dealing with a forum choice clause on a world-wide scale. If I had to attack a really absurd forum choice clause (e.g. contract between Japanese and French companies that uses German law chooses US courts), I would probably do it on forum non conveniens grounds (did I spell that right? I always think I put too many consonants in there). I don't know how such a suit would come out, but it's certainly not completely absurd. That doesn't work, however, when the forum chosen makes perfect sense based on the law chosen and the location of one of the parties.

While choosing DM's home state as a forum is sort of rotten, it also makes some sense. If there is a suit arising under the Terms of Use, we know that one party will be in California. We cannot say that about any other forum. Is it unfair? Probably only if the contract as a whole is unfair (if it's adhesive), as from that perspective it's perfectly logical.

Quoting CYYCAIRPICS (Reply 49): I own the pics. I took them and I lend them to Anet to be shared for the enjoyment of others - not to make $$$$$ at my expense. The fun has gone from here!

unfornuate but true

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 37): I'm not saying this is the intention but what if DM/ANET makes a deal with CNN (for a huge fee) to display photos linked from ANET (not top photo, but all photos in the DB) in online articles by using a newly created application/software? As long as it's "through the service" which using this new ANET application/software, it is...the photographer gets ZERO from the deal and we are allowing it based on the TOU, correct?

No, Monique said 50/50....

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 29): Any sales, that are through the site (with photographer's consent) is split 50/50, after the third party takes their cut which is approx. 15-25%. All sales will be documented and accounted for by the third party, we then take that info and put it in our database which makes it available for the photographer to see. All direct sales go 100% to the photographer, again as it always has been.

The new TOU's are still unacceptable as 'through the service' is still present without being clearly defined.

As stated above 'through the service' could mean anything and if some function is offered tihs way then the photographer gets no say.

I do not really want to delete my 2300 images but that is the way it is heading unless this is resolved.

I'm not so fluent in english as I'd like to, that's why I am reading this thread from a certain distance...
But I'd like to point out something nobody recalled yet (I think). Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the new ToU says...

Quoting IADCA (Reply 52): "AIRLINERS.NET WEBSITE (the "Site") OR ANY SOFTWARE, GAMES, APPLICATIONS, NEWSLETTERS, OR OTHER SITE-RELATED FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY AVAILABLE ON OR THROUGH THE SITE (COLLECTIVELY, THE “SERVICE”)"

We do have now A.net games on "plane fun" sleeve, and I think screeners use some kind of software/app web related to reject... err... *cough*... screen the uploaded pictures.
I don't see such a big threat here by now. The future? Let's wait for it and let's face the problems as they come. With this new ToU you can delete all your pics when you want, not like the insulting previous one.

Stil

Quoting Stil (Reply 57): We do have now A.net games on "plane fun" sleeve, and I think screeners use some kind of software/app web related to reject... err... *cough*... screen the uploaded pictures.

If that's the only use DM is intending then put it in writing.

As it is today it CAN be ANY GAME, ANY SOFTWARE etc.
And I do not want to sit back and wait for it to happen. Not with my photos.

DM, be open and clear. Specify the use exactly. Not this blurry 'through the service' wording that can mean anything if you feel like it in the future.

Monique, where did you go ? Your input would be interesting here.

Tommy Mogren

Isn't a way round this a complete re write, in straight English?

Its clear that even those with a legal background arn't agreeing on whats meant, and Moniques explanations are different again.

Even if this version of the TOU's are acceptable in reality, it's clear than very few people completley understand them, that includes the Screeners who have commented, and Monique.

It's probably not helping that for many, thier first langauge isn't English, and composing things in legalese, where the placing of punctuation makes a difference to meaning isn't therefore a good idea.

So, why not cut out the ambiguaty, write the thing in simple term, English setting out, what DM's intentions are, and the definitions of each term, like 'Service' like 'site' like 'use'.

Yes, it will be a long document, however, it will be one that all sides understand and all sides can then either be happy with, or walk away from the table.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 23): Again, your ultimate protection against misuse is removal of your photos

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 26): However, a user is totally free to remove their photos from the website and assign their photos to whomever they want

FIFO ?

There is a lot of concern here from some of the larger contributors to the site.
Are DM attempting to have these photogs remove their photos and have the newer, less experienced people upload their photos, as they may well be happy just to see their work on the internet ?

Quoting Tommy Mogren (Reply 58): DM, be open and clear. Specify the use exactly. Not this blurry 'through the service' wording that can mean anything if you feel like it in the future.

This is the crux of the matter

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 23): I've addressed this before but have no problem addressing it again. "Through the Service" means postcards, sales of photos that the photographers initiate and must consent to (exactly as we had it before with photobox), Photo of Today linking options (https://www.airliners.net/ownsearch/). If we do anything like create widgets, which is exactly what the linking feature is but more modernized this would fall into this category of "through the service." We have no intention of exploiting your photos in any way shape or form, I understand that this is a trust issue but we have many paragraphs explaining what we can't do and what we can do.

Monique, it would be helpful if you walked us through the new terms to explain what has changed. I see nothing in them that limits the definition of "through the service" in the manner you are saying here.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 23): We are not canceling postcards, photo sales options or photo of today, therefore we have to have "through the service" in the contract.

In the previous thread I supplied alternative wording which was intended to keep these options open for you while eliminating the ambiguity. As a further alternative, you could go a long way to alleviating photographers' concerns by including a clear-cut statement on the lines of "These Terms do not permit Airliners.net to assign to third parties any rights to your Content other than those rights specified in section 8A".

Quoting Acontador (Reply 47): Once again, please show me anywhere in the ToU where do we grant Airliners.net the right to license/sell our rights to a third party - you won't find it. That means that we are granting only to Airliners.net a limited display license, and no third party can use them.

As in the previous version of the terms, a.net can "distribute" photos "through" the service. What this means is open to interpretation. If the current or future owners of a.net choose to interpret it as meaning they can sell rights to third parties through any "applications" or "site-related features" set up for the purpose (which would automatically become part of the "service", as per the definition at the start of the TOUs), there is nothing to stop them.

Charles

Well, this has been a long, constructive, and intelligent debate on the ToU.

The debate is now over - use of the site by photographers after April 5 will signify their acceptance of the ToU.

As I have stated on several occasions, these ToU are not acceptable to me, for the reasons I have explained. Unless they are amended in a way that I find acceptable (unlikely, since this is the final version, not a draft for discussion) I will ask for all my photos to be deleted from the site and will terminate my membership of Airliners.net.

It is a big shame if DM forces a lot of photographers out of A.net, just because they won't change a few words that are cause for concern.


Tommy Mogren

Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 61): As in the previous version of the terms, a.net can "distribute" photos "through" the service. What this means is open to interpretation. If the current or future owners of a.net choose to interpret it as meaning they can sell rights to third parties through any "applications" or "site-related features" set up for the purpose (which would automatically become part of the "service", as per the definition at the start of the TOUs), there is nothing to stop them.

  

Exactly.


Since this was not amended it must be their intention.

/JM

Hi,

Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 61): As in the previous version of the terms, a.net can "distribute" photos "through" the service. What this means is open to interpretation.

No, it's not, and that is something many seem to fail to understand.
You don't assign/sell/lend your rights 'by interpretation'. 'Distribute' is a completely different verb than 'license' or 'sell', and I have not seen one lawyer here who is even hinting that in any US court you can argue that.
Airliners.net, and for that matter ALL aviation photography sites, already distributes your pictures amongst their viewers, as any viewer can right-click on them and save them on their harddrive. That does not give any viewer the right to use them (other than their personal enjoyment), for that the distribution has to include a license, which Airliners.net is not allowed to do according to the ToU.

Again, if any lawyer sees this and thinks I'm wrong, please correct me, but so far nobody has...

To neutrally sum things up (no guarantee that I understood everything correctly, though):

DM is basically reserving their right to use uploaded photos under "the service". The service is defined (in simple words) as pretty much everything that is happening through this website.

That seems understandable to me. Also that "the service" is not defined in explicit detail. If it was, DM would have to change the ToU for every feature change they would apply to the site. That would hardly seem practicable.

But the catch is: all DM would have to do to make more money from the content provided by the photographers is to introduce new features to the website. Like (as Mike wrote in reply #30) a commercial access option for image banks like Getty etc. As long as it's done through the site, it would be covered by the ToU, to which the photographer has agreed.

Now, Monique assured us that DM has no plans in that direction whatsoever.

I guess, in the end it will all come down to the question if the photographers would believe and trust DM, or not.

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 66): I guess, in the end it will all come down to the question if the photographers would believe and trust DM, or not.

I think Zak summed it up well with his post. I would say the trust really isn't there, as evidenced by the replies in this thread.

At least in this case if DM does do something unacceptable I can pull the plug on my images. I can at least move with my feet. That's the key. So I can at least give them the benefit of the doubt until they make a mistake.

Quoting Stil (Reply 57): The future? Let's wait for it and let's face the problems as they come.

sounds similar to being told you might have cancer and then the doctor tells you ..."we'll just wait and see what develops..."

Quoting Viv (Reply 62): Unless they are amended in a way that I find acceptable (unlikely, since this is the final version, not a draft for discussion) I will ask for all my photos to be deleted from the site and will terminate my membership of Airliners.net.

sorry to say, but I'm most likely going to as well.

Hi,

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 66): Like (as Mike wrote in reply #30) a commercial access option for image banks like Getty etc. As long as it's done through the site, it would be covered by the ToU, to which the photographer has agreed.

Again, I don't think that's correct. As I said, for any third party to use our pictures they need a license, and Airliners.net is not allowed to sell or license our pictures to a third party.

Quoting Dvincent (Reply 67): At least in this case if DM does do something unacceptable I can pull the plug on my images.

They they have up to 14 days to comply with your request.

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 66): DM is basically reserving their right to use uploaded photos under "the service". The service is defined (in simple words) as pretty much everything that is happening through this website.

Was ATDB through the service? What if another site like that pops up?

Quoting JeffM (Reply 55): Quoting CYYCAIRPICS (Reply 49): I own the pics. I took them and I lend them to Anet to be shared for the enjoyment of others - not to make $$$$$ at my expense. The fun has gone from here! unfornuate but true

Oh I get it, so Johan is poor then? Guys this has been happening since the beginning. You also upload pics here so the most people see them. It's a simple equation that has been going on long before DM came along. You upload your pics and you get maximum exposure and the site makes money. Nothing has changed but since the fear mongering began with this everyone wants to paint DM and something different than Johan? It's laughable.

Quoting 747438 (Reply 60): There is a lot of concern here from some of the larger contributors to the site. Are DM attempting to have these photogs remove their photos and have the newer, less experienced people upload their photos, as they may well be happy just to see their work on the internet ?

No from where I sit she cleared it up pretty well, I think she means that since certain people here will never he happy with the sites TOU and also want ultimate protection the only real choice is removing them. Why would DM want less experienced people uploading? That would just lower the quality of the DB. It's lunacy. It just points out you always have the option. I don't see alterior motives.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 69): As I said, for any third party to use our pictures they need a license, and Airliners.net is not allowed to sell or license our pictures to a third party.

Then how come AirNav,
http://www.airnavsystems.com/ACARS/index.html
a commercial product sold to aviation enthusiasts worldwide, use and show our photos in their software ?? A software you have to purchase and install on your computer. They are very much third party.

See this screenshot if you haven't seen it.


Not a word on who the photographer is either...

Please explain that part to me.

It's all done from the website, 'through the service' and fully ok according to the new ToU as well as Johans own deal with AirNav.

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 70): Was ATDB through the service? What if another site like that pops up?

ATDB must be considered 'through the service' as well. Another use that's outside of Airliners.net.
Still ok since it's 'through the service'.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 69): Airliners.net is not allowed to sell or license our pictures to a third party.

No, they are not. And they don't have to since it's all done 'through the service'. How many times do I have to write it ?

We have 2 fine examples above that qualifies.
Many more can popup if we accept these terms.

Tommy Mogren

Hi Guys

Understand the through the service thing is problematic as Tommy clearly shows this is not new.

Maybe the TOU needs to state that photos/services etc can only be used non-commercially by any third party?

Tim

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 73): Maybe the TOU needs to state that photos/services etc can only be used non-commercially by any third party?

Well, very diplomaticly put, yeah.

/JM

Hey Tommy - both of those deals were in place before Demand Media bought the site, correct?

Quoting Tommy Mogren (Reply 72): Then how come AirNav, http://www.airnavsystems.com/ACARS/index.html a commercial product sold to aviation enthusiasts worldwide, use and show our photos in their software ?? A software you have to purchase and install on your computer. They are very much third party.

Monique said we will get a 50/50 split of that. I can't wait to see what my "cut" is!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 71): I think she means that since certain people here will never he happy with the sites TOU and also want ultimate protection the only real choice is removing them.

Don't be foolish, protection could very easily be given to the photographer, but it's not with the big loophole they are including.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 75): Hey Tommy - both of those deals were in place before Demand Media bought the site, correct?

Yes, they were. And they were not acceptable back then either. If you use the search function you will find the threads where we try to get some answers from Johan about it, but he decided to put the lid on, as he had the power to do.

It was not acceptable then, and is not acceptable now.

While you are at it, search for my threads about the Terms Of Use that Johan was working on. I challenged him on several occasions to show it, so we could sort these things out.

Maybe it's because Johan made these 2 deals behind our back that I am so protective of my work these days ?


Tommy Mogren

Quoting Acontador (Reply 65): You don't assign/sell/lend your rights 'by interpretation'. 'Distribute' is a completely different verb than 'license' or 'sell', and I have not seen one lawyer here who is even hinting that in any US court you can argue that.

There are a couple of lawyers on this forum - I'd be interested to see what their view on this is.

Charles

Quoting IADCA (Reply 52): The leading case in choice of forum (as far as I know) was Shute, and that upheld the forum selection pretty widely.

As long as the forum is not unreasonably burdensome. That's the catch.

But anyway, don't go too far into the legal scholar part of your brain - focus on the "what's best for the photographers and acceptable to DM" part of your brain.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 53): I don't want a country with a civil law tradition trying to interpret American law...

Why? Contract law is a lot closer to civil law than common law. Common law only comes into play in contracts when the contract is not clear. (Such as the meaning of "The Service".)

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 53): choosing an American forum seems like a good idea if we're going to choose American law.

American courts apply foreign law with frequency, and foreign courts apply American law with frequency. It's just part of the contract.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 53): BTW, what kind of IP work do you do?

Check your PM.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 65): Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 61): As in the previous version of the terms, a.net can "distribute" photos "through" the service. What this means is open to interpretation. No, it's not, and that is something many seem to fail to understand. You don't assign/sell/lend your rights 'by interpretation'. 'Distribute' is a completely different verb than 'license' or 'sell', and I have not seen one lawyer here who is even hinting that in any US court you can argue that.

It does seem open to interpretation to me because it is not clear what "through the service" means, now and in the future. The reason why is because it says:

Quote: "AIRLINERS.NET WEBSITE (the "Site") OR ANY SOFTWARE, GAMES, APPLICATIONS, NEWSLETTERS, OR OTHER SITE-RELATED FEATURES OR FUNCTIONALITY AVAILABLE ON OR THROUGH THE SITE (COLLECTIVELY, THE “SERVICE”)"

What is "other site-related features?" What is "software, games, applications, and newsletters?" According to the terms, that's how "THE SERVICE" is defined. That's a lot of wiggle room for DM to add features and sell our photos in a way that we may not like. Especially open-ended phrases like "other site-related features or functionality".

I think this could be alleviated if DM would create a closed-ended enumeration of exactly all the ways in which our photos will be used, leaving nothing to interpretation.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 75): Hey Tommy - both of those deals were in place before Demand Media bought the site, correct?

Good point, and an interesting one.

Both of these uses are of the third party type we're being assured won't happen under the new TOUs, and yet the new agreement does not mention, nor exempt, such pre-existing arrangements.

If this type of use is not allowed under the new TOUs it seems we have a conflict that needs to be resolved. Do these fall under the disputed "through the service" provision?

I have just shown these new terms to my friend who is an IP lawyer at Canada's largest law firm. Like many here, he is troubled by "Through the Service". He acknowledges Tommy's post in reply 72 as excellent examples of how this is a problem.

As Tim suggests, the TOU should be amended to add the 'non-commercial' qualification to outside use of our photos. If not, I'll also be giving strong consideration to removing my photos from this site.

- Peter -

"Through the service" is indeed the fundamental problem here - something I actually brought up very close to the top of the original thread on the old-new terms of reference.

IMHO, there is a fundamental conflict of interests been created here now. We all know DM bought a.net with the intention of making money out of it. It seems reasonable to presume that, in exploiting the brand and the content more fully, DM will seek opportunities to make money that go beyond the banner and strip ads currently seen on the site. It also seems reasonable to assume that exploiting the brand may involve the photographs. So, we return to the term "through the service" as something DM may try to leverage to make more money from a.net.

For those who don't think the term is challenging (despite the examples Tommy highlighted above), say - for example - DM set themselves up in the image display business. At large aviation trade shows, manufacturers/exhibitors often have video walls or screen shows... So DM come along and say "Hey, we can provide imagery for you at this show or that show - just look through our database, tell us which pics you like, and we'll prepare a special script that'll show those images (closed loop or whatever) on a display wall or screens, over and over again, hosted on a.net". So pics from the database are shown at a trade show, DM makes some money, and because its "distributed" rather than licenced - no come back.

I don't suggest the above is what DM will do, but it illustrates the sort of thing that they COULD do as far as I can tell, given the current definition.

----

Fundamental issue is this - the "service" a.net was providing when I uploaded photographs was an on-line database of pics which people could view. I didn't and still don't want my photographs to be used for anything more than that. As soon as we get scope creep, that changes the equation, and until the potential for scope creep is squashed, I'm not sure I want to be with it anymore.

1233 photographs, average 3031 hits per photograph, quite a few unique subjects... Not suggesting I'm the be-all and end-all, but it was fun whilst it lasted but its getting awefully close to being over...

Andy

We discussed these issues quite extensively in the previous thread. Now we're going over the same issues again - because, as far as I can see, the new TOUs are pretty much the same as the previous ones. In spite of all that happened I was willing to believe in DM's good intentions, but not for much longer.

Charles

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 83): We all know DM bought a.net with the intention of making money out of it. It seems reasonable to presume that, in exploiting the brand and the content more fully, DM will seek opportunities to make money that go beyond the banner and strip ads currently seen on the site.

Demand Media's business model is selling Internet Advertising. Something like a 20+ billion dollar market in 2007. Selling screen savers of DC-3s isn't why A.net was purchased.

Demand Media's brain trust created My Space. I see lots of businesses putting content on My Space yet not worrying about having their content stolen. In fact, if you read the My Space TOUs they are very similar to ours. Do you think P Diddy would post his music to My Space if it was going to be sold?

Shouldn't be a problem to reword it then?

/JM

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 85): Demand Media's business model is selling Internet Advertising. Something like a 20+ billion dollar market in 2007. Selling screen savers of DC-3s isn't why A.net was purchased. Demand Media's brain trust created My Space.

I don't really care what they do with MySpace, but I really do care what they do with my pictures. Big difference Royal.

Quoting Jan Mogren (Reply 86): Shouldn't be a problem to reword it then?

agreed

I have been following this thread and previous discussions with interest - not just because it is in all our interests to know what is going on with this important topic, but because I am relying on colleagues with a better understanding of legalese to unpick what the hell it all means for me.

I have to say I don't feel as hot under the collar about this as some - partly (unfortunately for me and my photography) because I assume mine will not be the photos with a high likelihood of being of much interest to others 'through the service'. Of particular concern to me is the genuine concern of other colleagues who understand these things a lot better than I do, and the lack of trust that is now very apparent across important elements within the A.net community. This is what has to change if A.net is to continue as a vibrant 'aviation community'. DM simply cannot afford to p*ss off a whole section of the community by appearing either not to listen, not to address people's genuine concerns, or give the impression that they are consciously trying to 'pull a fast one' - if not now then possibly in the future.

I really don't know what to think about all this. But I do know that DM need to be seen to be addressing these concerns, or explaining in words of one syllable why they have no basis in reality at all - otherwise it will appear to many as though they 'have something to hide', or have an unspoken motive for not changing things. That, because of things that have happened since the sale last year, might be enough to cause an exodus, whether or not DM are trustworthy in actuality or not.

You don't need to be a psychologist to know that perception is often more important than reality.

Paul

Quoting DustySlides (Reply 81): Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 75): Hey Tommy - both of those deals were in place before Demand Media bought the site, correct? Good point, and an interesting one. Both of these uses are of the third party type we're being assured won't happen under the new TOUs, and yet the new agreement does not mention, nor exempt, such pre-existing arrangements. If this type of use is not allowed under the new TOUs it seems we have a conflict that needs to be resolved. Do these fall under the disputed "through the service" provision?

Everytime we touch on a sticky subject Monique goes silent.   
You would think with this much distrust with DM both she & Paulo would be VERY visible.
Apparently this is their hot-button issue right now, but do not care to be visible.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 87): I don't really care what they do with MySpace, but I really do care what they do with my pictures. Big difference Royal.

There really isn't a difference, Jeff. Demand Media is selling advertising. The same as My Space. They care about page views, not selling screen savers or photo links to a flight sim.

The reason why "terms of service" shouldn't defined is because if it was, Demand Media would have to update the TOUs each time. The discussions would be never-ending and full of drama. Sort of like this thread.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 90): Demand Media would have to update the TOUs each time

Many new things coming up?

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 90): The discussions would be never-ending and full of drama. Sort of like this thread.

So better let them do whatever they wish with our photos, correct?

/JM

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 90): There really isn't a difference, Jeff. Demand Media is selling advertising. The same as My Space. They care about page views, not selling screen savers or photo links to a flight sim.

That's fair enough. I guess for me then, I would be satisfied if the wording somehow reflected that there was no interest or ability to sell any product (in what ever format) that included my images. Page views are just that, anything else I don't agree with.

Thanks, Royal.

Clickhappy

If they don't want to have to change them every time, then all the more reason to get it right and with as many people happy as possible now.

It isn't difficult to do, trust issues have been mentioned, yet nothing has been done to build that trust. Requests for simpiler langague to be used. And nothing has been done. Questions asked of DM staff, and they are ignored. It's all very well you and screeners answering questions with your opinions, but that is all they are, opinions, no matter how well founded you feel they are.

The answers need to be given by DM, they are the only people who know what thier intentions are. It is a mess, and I'm sorry to say it isn't getting any better.

DM have not handled any of the incidents since they took over well, and yet they could have with some thought.

All we want is proper explanation. A better option would be a full re write, closely defining the terms, or legal jargon used. That along with a statement of intent would probably solve things for most people. The fact that that isn't forthcoming, is only causing more damage to the situation, and increasing the perception that DM isn't being completly open or honest.

Bjcc - your post is full of untruths. Demand Media rewrote the TOUs, based on the complaints of both the crew and the user base. This rewrite included direct feedback from every crew member and a large number of photographers, in some cases both.

To make a blanket statement that nothing has been done is false. To say it isn't getting better is your opinion, not fact. Employees of Demand Media have provided direct feedback, both in this thread as well as others.

While we are all entitled to our opinions, lying to make yours is not doing anyone any good.

Hi all,

Our legal team, the crew and everyone on the team has worked very hard to bring you the most protective terms possible.
The photographers have all the power, you make this website what it is and if we misuse your photographs, you'll leave, simple as that. We've reviewed the comments presented and feel that the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy are in the best interest of the photographer. We have to keep "through the service" for the many reasons stated previously: postcards, widgets (Photo of the Day), photo sales (with photographer's permission as before). We may develop more things along these line such as widgets or newsletters, all that would help the promotion of the photographer, the picture itself and site.

Are we going to build a funky application to somehow sneak your photos to CNN behind your backs? NO!!!! We would lose the community and we know it, that's not what we want. You have full rights to take your photos off our website at any time, and that in itself is the ultimate assurance to you.

Again, we've tried very hard to tailor this by having a 7 day comment period, changing the words and terms to fit the uniqueness of the site. It's up to each photographer whether they want to participate after the 30 days. We feel your rights are fully protected in these Terms of Use and hope you read them carefully before making your decision. We will continue to try our best to make this a positive, successful and ethical place for aviation enthusiasts across the world.

Thank you,

Monique

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 94): Demand Media rewrote the TOUs

Yes, they rewrote it. But not the part where most people had concerns. 'Through the service'




Tommy Mogren

[Edited 2008-03-07 11:02:36]

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 95): We have to keep "through the service" for the many reasons stated previously: postcards, widgets (Photo of the Day), photo sales (with photographer's permission as before). We may develop more things along these line such as widgets or newsletters, all that would help the promotion of the photographer, the picture itself and site.

Can you enumerate the uses that you plan to have for the photographs? I think that would settle a lot of opinions here. The major concern seems to be the risk that something you will add "through THE SERVICE" will expose the photographs to users beyond our control. (And once you let the horse out of the barn, it's hard to put her back in! Especially if you have to travel to Los Angeles to do it.)

You say you're not going to let CNN have our photos, and I believe you. Put it in your terms. What I think we all want to see is something saying that if you want a photo, you have to come to www.airliners.net to get it. Not an A.net game, or an A.net CD collection, but actually to the website www.airliners.net.

Quoting Psych (Reply 88):

As usual Paul, very well put and I am sure you reflect the feelings of many of us using this website. Not many of us are up on, or interested particularly in, the complexities of the TOU's. All we want to do is try and display our pictures, communicate with like minded individuals and above all, have fun!

Currently the climate on A.net is one of trepidation, mistrust and general gloom. Not at all what I would class as a good atmosphere to encourage participation and enjoyment. However, that isn't only down to Demand Media and the Crew. It is down to the current membership, voiciferous and silent alike.

I am now inclined to "hang in there" and see how things progress. I am sure that, should evidence emerge of DM usurping photographers rights and be proved, a mass exodus would occur and thereby killing off the site. DM don't want that and neither does anyone else. Not even the most incompetant businessperson invests in a product and proceeds to deliberately kick it to death!.

I agree that the TOU's should be monitored and discussed by those who have an interest in that field, but I am an amateur photographer who takes , and enjoys looking at, pictures of aeroplanes. I am not a lawyer, a businessman or even a competant accountant (my wife will attest to that one!). I do not want to be innundated with misery and gloom.

Lets just get on with it. After all, we are here voluntarily and if you don't like the kitchen, get out of the heat - or something like that anyway!

Andy   

so if I read Monique's post (Reply 95) correctly...and I read it three times to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 95): Are we going to build a funky application to somehow sneak your photos to CNN behind your backs? NO!!!!

Johan never said he was going to make a deal with AirNav or ATDB yet he did without checking with us, but that was before my first upload so I cant really complain about that deal. Why would you, in a public forum, state you are going to do something to aggravate the photographers even more? Of course you are going to deny it.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 95): Again, we've tried very hard to tailor this by having a 7 day comment period, changing the words and terms to fit the uniqueness of the site. It's up to each photographer whether they want to participate after the 30 days. We feel your rights are fully protected in these Terms of Use and hope you read them carefully before making your decision.

So basically, the TOU's as written right now are it. To me at least, they are not going to change it again to appease the concerned contributors.

What a way to instill confidence: Read the TOU's, stay if you want, or pull your photo's & leave.