At the request of the staff I'm starting another thread as the original was getting a tad bit too long. See the original discussion here: New Terms - What It Means For Photographers (by Flynavy Feb 8 2008 in Aviation Photography).

After having read the 350+ replies following my original post, and having had time away from the site, I can now come back and say I'm going to wait this out and let DM provide us with CLEAR terms regarding the site and its purpose/intentions for the community. Should any indication of violating our copyrights be included in the new TOU (which I'm doubting at this point), we all will do what we individually feel is necessary to protect our work. Until such time, I'm going to allow them reasonable time rectify this horrendous error.

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

I posted this at the end of the last thread..I don't know if it'll get attention or not waaaaayyy down there, so i'll post it here again:


I have been keeping touch with this thread since it was brought to my attention Saturday morning. Even though I have a couple of pictures on anet, the DM TOUs being argued about are just unacceptable, and I’m glad that we have reverted back to the original anet ones. One thing that raises a flag is part of the statement that was added from the Terms page:

Quote: ...DECIDED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW POLICIES FOR PRE-EXISTING USERS...

What about new users? How does this affect them, are the old anet TOU still applicable to them or do they have to deal with the crap-ones we are arguing about? This also shows that for new members the intent of the Revised TOU still remains the same.

I don't want to get ahead of myself, anet, it's members, and DM, however I feel that the new revised TOU will be revised to still reflect the policies that are so blatantly stated in the TOU we are arguing. As it says on the DM homepage:

Quote: With a proprietary media platform that powers the company's highly-trafficked domains and wholly-owned content media properties.

The way I understand this [and I am no lawyer, please correct me if I am wrong] is that all content, including that which is user submitted on DM's websites is property of Demand Media and not that of the user. So the way I understand that, and under the new TOU you the photographer will submit all rights and liabilities (which is contradicted by the TOU) of your content to Demand Media. I also feel this way because if you look at other DM websites such as some of those listed above in Reply 203 and flightlevel350. They are the same, now I think it is intentional that these websites which are owned by the same company have the same or nearly identical TOUs.

I, as well as many other members see no problems with the original airliners TOU, and would like someone from DM to explain why they are insufficient for further use. However if the original airliners TOU stayed then it wouldn’t allow DM to use our content to make a profit for themselves. I believe this because the TOU on other Demand Media

Finally I love the fact that yes the Demand Media personnel have chimed in on this thread, yet they have thoughtfully neglected to respond to the questions our members have directly asked Direct Media. In particular those questions in Posts 311 and 313. I don’t know if you, Direct Media, realize it but in customer service you DO NOT neglect your customers. Since others have set a deadline to revise the TOU, I will do something similar, I challenge YOU...Direct Media to answer the questions that have been directed to you by the photographers of this board, and don’t beat around the bush, don’t lie to us...we are all very intelligent people and will catch it.

Nathan

Quoting N737er (Reply 2): What about new users? How does this affect them, are the old anet TOU still applicable to them or do they have to deal with the crap-ones we are arguing about?

Not unless they are somehow required to sign up to the new TOUs, even though these have been removed from the site.

Quoting N737er (Reply 2): I don't want to get ahead of myself, anet, it's members, and DM, however I feel that the new revised TOU will be revised to still reflect the policies that are so blatantly stated in the TOU we are arguing. As it says on the DM homepage: Quote: With a proprietary media platform that powers the company's highly-trafficked domains and wholly-owned content media properties. The way I understand this [and I am no lawyer, please correct me if I am wrong] is that all content, including that which is user submitted on DM's websites is property of Demand Media and not that of the user.

This is in no way sufficient to give DM rights to our photos.

No point in more recriminations. DM have promised to consult photographers in the process of drawing up fresh TOUs, and they have said that they intend to respect our rights. We just need to wait in the expectation that these promises will be kept.

Charles

Thanks for clearing those parts up for me

Quoting N737er (Reply 2): I challenge YOU...Direct Media to answer the questions that have been directed to you by the photographers of this board, and don’t beat around the bush, don’t lie to us...we are all very intelligent people and will catch it.

Nathan, if you want them to believe you are intelligent, at least get their name right.... It is Demand Media, not Direct Media.

Geebus! What the hell happened over the weekend?

Can someone, preferably Monique, give a summary in large print of where we currently stand? Use the < font=size+2> and < /font> tags.

From the bit I was able to gather, DM wants an irrevocable, perpetual license. In short, my opinion is no way in hell will I grant that. I know I'm not a big player on this site, but how could you possibly ask your photographers to give up, FOREVER the right to tell A.net they can no longer use their photos? No way in hell.

Furthermore, how can you change the contract for existing photos? The way I see it, you cannot reform the contract without bargaining again with the photographers with whom you have previously contracted. For the non-lawyers here, that is like saying "even though you bought this car last year, the price is now $1000 more, so pay up." In other words, the terms of use under which the photos were originally uploaded will apply perpetually to those photos.

Quoting D L X (Reply 6): Geebus! What the hell happened over the weekend?

All hell broke loose, that's what happened  

Quoting D L X (Reply 6): Furthermore, how can you change the contract for existing photos? The way I see it, you cannot reform the contract without bargaining again with the photographers with whom you have previously contracted.

I guess "if you're still here on 8th March, you've agreed to the new terms" is what DM's lawyers understand by bargaining. You might want to discuss it with them in more detail ... as for myself I won't be reassured until I see new terms of service which give cast-iron protection to photographers' rights. The current set does not do so, in my opinion at least, so it's in our interest to get them replaced.

Charles

On a lighter note, Can't we make TOU for our existing pictures that if DM has pay us x$ for each of our pictures on the DB if they want to use beyond March 8, 08 and if they continue to use our pics beyond that date it implies that they have agreed and owe us that amount  





I'm sure they'll fix before that  

Yesterday, the total number of accepted shots was 1 264 xxx.

Today, it is 1 261 603.

Looks like the exodus has started ...

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):

Hi Damon, I've been waiting for your reaction.

Well as you're probably aware, DM have withdrawn the proposed new Terms and are now writing new ones. I'm not sure Monique or anyone at DM would give a relibable summary of what happened, because they have said a few contradictory things. The new Terms were NOT just a mistake apparently.

Quoting D L X (Reply 6): Furthermore, how can you change the contract for existing photos? The way I see it, you cannot reform the contract without bargaining again with the photographers with whom you have previously contracted. For the non-lawyers here, that is like saying "even though you bought this car last year, the price is now $1000 more, so pay up." In other words, the terms of use under which the photos were originally uploaded will apply perpetually to those photos.

Yes, I've hinted at the proposed new Terms being probably illegal as far as existing photos are concerned, although I may have used incorrect wording. Using common sense, I feel that at least you cannot change the Terms for existing photos by what I'd call in my language 'silent consent', ie, if you do nothing (because you never saw that e-mail, for example), you agree to the new terms. I think that is an illegal procedure.

What they could do I'd say is kick your photos off their site if you don't actively agree to their new Terms - they didn't promise to host your photos perpetually, right?

This is not very urgent any more since the new Terms have been withdrawn, but I think it's still good to establish that what DM wanted to do, as far as existing photos are concerned, was simply illegal (if indeed it was).

Peter 

Quoting Viv (Reply 9): Yesterday, the total number of accepted shots was 1 264 xxx. Today, it is 1 261 603. Looks like the exodus has started ...

Just to clarify: this rather large deletion (accounting for the entire drop) was from a user who had requested deletion a few weeks ago and was totally unrelated to this weeken'd incident.

Tim

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10): 'silent consent', ie, if you do nothing (because you never saw that e-mail, for example), you agree to the new terms. I think that is an illegal procedure.

I believe you are right. If it is not illegal, it is certainly nowhere near "best practice".

It seems that DM believes that its "Content Providers" (the photographers) deserve no better.

I will, of course, eat my words and apologise if the next version of the Terms of Use provides fully appropriate protection and rights to the Content Providers.

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 11): ust to clarify: this rather large deletion (accounting for the entire drop) was from a user who had requested deletion a few weeks ago and was totally unrelated to this weeken'd incident.

Fair enough, thank you for the clarification.

Regardless if it was illegal or not, Demand Media simply destroyed the trust of the users in this database and as collateral damage in other databases on the web.
Who knows e.g. what the owners of JP will decide in 1, 2, 3 or 5 years?

This is the main point where the world of modern spotting has changed over the last weekend.

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 11): Just to clarify: this rather large deletion (accounting for the entire drop) was from a user who had requested deletion a few weeks ago and was totally unrelated to this weeken'd incident. Tim

So fair to assume now that there is no problem with deleting photos those who have requested deletion will have their deletions taken care of promptly correct?

Quoting Krohmie (Reply 14):

One could think of a 'statute' or 'charter' similar to the 'editorial charter' (again translated from my language) used at newspapers to protect the journalistic content from the publisher's commercial interests. Not sure how that is protected from being changed, but it does seem to work.

Of course it's a long shot, but if DM would be serious about winning photographers; confidence back, maybe that would be a good way to go.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10): Well as you're probably aware, DM have withdrawn the proposed new Terms and are now writing new ones.

Good. I'll reiterate: there is no way I'm giving an irrevocable, perpetual license to anyone. No way.

I will be patient and see what the new terms are. It will take some thought in reviewing them before I can decide what I would do. But I will say this now: I am not going through the expense of revoking my copyrights from A.net by registered mail to their legal department. I will email them, for free, if I choose to revoke my rights. Demand Media cannot convert my property because I did not jump through their hoops in exerting my property rights.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10): What they could do I'd say is kick your photos off their site if you don't actively agree to their new Terms - they didn't promise to host your photos perpetually, right?

Yes. This is what credit card companies do - they send you new terms of usage for which you can opt out. If you decide to opt out (as I have done before), the old terms apply to you until the expiration date of your card, and your account is canceled. If you do not opt out, the new terms apply once the opt-out period ends, and the credit card company may automatically renew your account if it's in good standing.

DM is not obligated to host our photos and can decide that they will not host them unless photographers accede to the new terms. I will take a careful look at what terms they plan to apply before I decide to leave my photos on their site.

I wonder if anyone at DM received the email from Brand X over the weekend.

I have followed this since Saturday morning and can safely say that all the primary points have already been dicussed ten times over.

So perhaps its time to cool it for a while, (conserve your ammo) and wait for the new terms to be published????

Quoting D L X (Reply 17): Brand X

Let's just call it Jetphotos.net (JP) from now on.

I don't like to, but I'll move my photos to Jetphotos.net if the upcoming Terms don't respect photographer's rights. (Or maybe to some other, perhaps new, site with fair rules of play which might be more than willing to accept former a.net shots in batches   (which would make a lot of sense, even business sense))

[Edited 2008-02-11 15:17:08]

[Edited 2008-02-11 15:25:56]

Quoting LeadingEdge (Reply 18): can safely say that all the primary points have already been dicussed ten times over.

Not all, the new privacy policy is still in place and it still seems to give DM the right to share email addresses.

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 15): So fair to assume now that there is no problem with deleting photos those who have requested deletion will have their deletions taken care of promptly correct?

If you call "a few weeks" promptly.   

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 20): Not all, the new privacy policy is still in place and it still seems to give DM the right to share email addresses.

And all other personal information that we gave Johan, not DM, at sign up.

They can Share my E-mail address with other comapniaes with out my permission, I dont think I like that as i get enough SPAM as it is.

Quoting D L X (Reply 17): Good. I'll reiterate: there is no way I'm giving an irrevocable, perpetual license to anyone. No way.

Given the fact that the proposed ToU were substantially similar to what DM used for all of its other sites, I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that DM intended to include this term. Of course, its inclusion demonstrates sloppy legal work and a host of other administrative issues, but until we get an explicit statement from them, I think I'd treat that proposal as an honest mistake (about which they could have been MUCH more forthcoming).

[Edited 2008-02-11 16:03:38]

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 20):

Good point, I thought (at Least in the UK) you have to offer the opportunity to customers to opt out of having their details passed around.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 21): Quoting APFPilot1985: So fair to assume now that there is no problem with deleting photos those who have requested deletion will have their deletions taken care of promptly correct? If you call "a few weeks" promptly.

They were all deleted within one day, not over the span of a few weeks. So it appears they now have a method of "quick" mass-deletion.  

Now if only they could get to our requests sooner than "a few weeks"...

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 26): Now if only they could get to our requests sooner than "a few weeks"...

Don't worry Bryan, we all know you want your accounts and all content deleted.

You don't need to post it in every thread.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 27): Don't worry Bryan, we all know you want your accounts and all content deleted. You don't need to post it in every thread.

Please. I've made a total of two posts that indicated I wanted my photos removed, which is far less than some users already. And in one of those posts my intentions were merely incidental, as it was expanding on a previous user's reply.

But I'm honored you somehow managed to single me out.  


(And for the record, I have no intention of deleting the forum account.)

Can someone let me know when we should expect a new TOU to be presented to us?

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 29): Can someone let me know when we should expect a new TOU to be presented to us?

I don't believe the answer to that question is known yet.
At one stage there seemed to be an agreement to have some kind of explanation by COB (CA time) but that was before the ToU were withdrawn and Paulo promised a rewrite.
I doubt he will be able to achieve that aim by COB Monday if at all. I am not sure how much clout he has with the DM legal dept but I would think there will be considerable to & froing before new TOU are available.

Cheers

Chris

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 30):

Thanks Chris.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 30): I doubt he will be able to achieve that aim by COB Monday if at all. I am not sure how much clout he has with the DM legal dept but I would think there will be considerable to & froing before new TOU are available.

It might be an idea that they actually post the proposed TOU before beginning the process of officially publishing it. It might actually provide DM and its lawyers with some very useful feedback.

James

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 29): Can someone let me know when we should expect a new TOU to be presented to us?

My guess is probably on a Friday afternoon, just before the end of the business day in California.   

I cam only say that if DM do not change the terms, I will take my 62 pictures to another site, there's no way that I will gave TOTALLY RIGHTS of my pictures to be used by DM at their will...I have 462+ pictures in other site...

Just a small question re the TOU and if they dont change all that much in this revision.
So if you do not delete your photos by the time the new TOU comes out and it hasn't changed substantially. Would it not be correct to say that you dont even have the right to have them deleted because technically you dont own them any more?
As IP property of DM you have lost your right of deletion because on the day of implementation your photos where still here and hence you had agreed to them by default?
This is all getting way out of hand and even though i havn't uploaded here for some time it really is a disgrace to see what is happening to a fine website and the thousands of hours of work put in like people like Tim,Ed and Co.
Cheers
Darren

TimDeGroot,
You seem as if you are the person here that might have the closest ties to SOMEONE in the know on the DM side of things. What does this mean for us???!!!! If GE aircraft engines e-mails me and wants to make a purchase of one of my photos on a.net, is DM going to get a cut of this? Who owns MY damn photos??

Mark Garfinkel

Mark,
I know you asked Tim but the way I read it the other day and had at least one person agree with my reading was..
If they ask you and you sell your image then DM do not get a cut.
If they ask DM and DM sell it YOU do NOT get a cut. (If GE are happy with the 1024px image you have here)

Cheers

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 37): (If GE are happy with the 1024px image you have here)

1024 pixels is more than enough for an internet or computer based graphic!

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 35): Would it not be correct to say that you dont even have the right to have them deleted because technically you dont own them any more?

I think that since they removed the time contstraint for all current photog's, they cannot do this. I.e. If the revision isn't decent, you still have a chance to remove without them being able to use your image. That's my interpretation.

StealthZ
Thanks!
Ouch...
Mark

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 35): Would it not be correct to say that you dont even have the right to have them deleted because technically you dont own them any more?

Darren,
I guess your question is slightly moot as the wording of the TOU is quite up in the air at the moment,
As released on Friday they did still give you the right to have your material removed at any time.
Having said that if Airliners.net or Demand Media had used that material for any other purpose you would have to write to DM and request they stop doing so(if you knew they were.) This clause (5.C) contained several contradictions including whether you could email or had to mail a letter to DM Media in Bellevue Washington USA and whether they would desist in 14 or 30 days.

As I said relatively irrelevent right now as we await the next move from DM.

Cheers

Chris

The only way I can see DM re-establishing their credibility with the photographers who built the database is if DM removes this crap they put up and return it to the rules that were set in place by Johan.

If Demand Media try's to meet the photographers even HALF WAY, attempting to gain any kind of ownership what-so-ever over the old terms of our 1.2 million photographs.. I'll have my pictures pulled from this website ASAP.

[Edited 2008-02-11 22:12:51]

Regardless of a new TOU policy which is probably iminent how much credibility have DM lost over the weekend?, As a company backtracking on decisions that obviously must have been well thought out doesn't show any backbone or conviction for future deals...

IF this were my site and i saw this brown stuff hitting my fan over the weekend i would be dedicating my life 24/7 for the next few weeks to my computer and ANSWERING every question each photographer had to throw at me. I would be dealing in a bit of damage limitation and humble pie.

I want to see the people in charge on a QUESTION & ANSWER session where we get total honest answers regarding decisions and thought process, some accountability, transparency and above all a bit of integrity they may have left. Only then will they prove that there is an ounce of respect to be gained.

ANET Heirachy - Its time to pull your ostrich's heads out of the sand and face the music (or the photographers!)

Ryan

I just want a simple answer to this question, Paolo, you've yet to answer it...


how the hell did it make it up in the first place in that precise language? was someone playing us for fools? and for you to approve its posting suggests to me that you knew all along what was being expressed and wanted to see who was & wasn't willing to accept those TOU. Did you really expect that the photographers would agree to this nonsense or did you not read it over in the first place?

I'd love to know the answer for this very simple question...why? because it gives me an idea what your thinking and how your running the show here.

All
As you know, the disputed TOU are now invalid and the old ones will
stay in effect until the new one has been drafted and accepted. We have pulled
disputed sections out, redlined areas of concern and will post with
all to review on Thursday.
As all of you know this was a bad situation and I personally
apologize for the way the TOU was pushed on Friday. This has been a combination of errors -Basically a DM Legal and Administrative Department DUI .....as this TOU is a DM clone. I promise you terms will change over the next 2 days and we can reboot with an Anet friendly TOU.
Best Regards
Paulo

Sorry Quantas 077
I hope this clears up you question:
I just saw your post and yes it would appear that I would have read these over but because my team is so small, I have been swamped with engineering and admin issues this week and when I heard that the TOU were ready to post "I said post so we can get some feed back" - thats exactlyt how the hell they got posted. I relied on DM legal and they put it all down. No fools Quantas077..only my mistake and out they went. If you knew what we are dealing with on a day to day basis regarding preparing for the next implementation and so on you might get a better picture of the 12 hour days we all work. I'm in triage and I'm paying for that delegation. It sucks but as I have said - I will fix this and hopefully the photographers and members will see the situation for what it was.

And for you Ryan - Backbone? - Conviction?...chill out my friend as I'm facing the music. I would appreciate you taking the high road. This is all about backbone.
Best Regards
Paulo

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 45): I hope this clears up you question:

appreciate you answering the question, I'll wait for the new TOU before making concrete decisions.

thanks.

I appreciate your patience Qantas077 (sorry for the typo)  

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 20): Not all, the new privacy policy is still in place and it still seems to give DM the right to share email addresses.

I take exception to this and don't give airliners.net or Demand Media the option to give my email address to all and sundry. If it means I'll be subjected to targeted advertising or "information on interesting offers from our affiliates, I will definitely not renew membership here and have the little amount of photos I have on here removed.

I don't mind someone contacting me regarding a photo request, that is acceptable use, but sharing email addresses around for other uses is not acceptable use. In fact, it's completely unethical.

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 44): I promise you terms will change over the next 2 days and we can reboot with an Anet friendly TOU.

Thanks Paulo. I look forward to this being restored so the community can get on with re-building the wonderful atmosphere we are used to enjoying here.