New A.net upload terms Photogs need to read

[njgtr82]

Well the new terms have been "postponed indefinitely"

http://www.airliners.net/disclaimer/

[Derf]

"It is our policy to terminate in appropriate circumstances an account or the access rights of a subscriber for repeated copyright infringement, and we also reserve the right to terminate a account or subscriber for even one instance of infringement. "


ahahaha, yet this is what they wanted to do to the sub's ahahahah :borat:

Great job guys!!! I will no longer look over there, I want no part of giving them any views. Wow, for leadership...they win the darwin award.

[Derf]

"WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK AND HAVE DECIDED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW POLICIES FOR PRE-EXISTING USERS."

But new users????

[Midnight Mike]

Well the new terms have been "postponed indefinitely"

http://www.airliners.net/disclaimer/

Don't feel comfortable, airliners.net has the right to change the rules whenever they want, that too is also on their website.

[Midnight Mike]

The fact is DM is handling this totally wrong..Any large company that has upset its "Shareholders" so to speak would have stepped infront of this with in the first 24 hours an put a stop in place

But we are not shareholders Tommy. We have no stake in the site and are pictures are uploaded voluntarily.

Tommy used the word "Shareholder" as a way to say that you own a piece of airliners.net & most people that are a part of airliners.net pay or have paid the fee to be a part of airliners.net. You are not just a customer as you have a vested interest in the success of airliners.net....

[Mateo]

Shareholder, as a legal owner of part of the concern's equity, no. Stakeholder, as a holder of an interest in the concern's success, yes.

Two quick notes:
1.) Terrible PR move by releasing it on a Friday and then saying they'd explain everything on Monday. It's let a whirlwind of anger develop over the last 48 hours with nothing to stop it.
2.) We all knew this was coming. DM was trying to get a hold of a content base to leverage for future revenues. Even if you read the original thread here when Demand bought a.net, the arguments foreshadow what eventually happened.
Under normal circumstances, I'd pull my content, but I started uploading right around the time of the original sale, and "pre-pulled" any of my material by not submitting it in the first place.

[T-Bird76]

Yes Mike that is exactly what I meant but you know some people interpret things in different ways. I mean didn't ALL of us interpret these rules wrong according to some? I'm not sure how we did...if we did why would they have taken them down? If we were all wrong then one would think the rules should stand, right? I'm probably interpreting that wrong to. You know A.net should have a spokesman to help clear things up for us.

[njgtr82]

You know A.net should have a spokesman to help clear things up for us.

If they did they probably wouldn't be back in the office til after the weekend anyway.

[Matt Molnar]

Well...

WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK AND HAVE DECIDED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW POLICIES FOR PRE-EXISTING USERS. WE WILL REVISE THE POLICIES TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE RECEIVED. THIS IS A PROCESS OF COLLABORATIVE RULE-SETTING. WE LISTEN TO OUR MEMBERS AND WILL ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS.

I wouldn't say Demand is evil, they are simply morons. A.net is not DailyPuppy.com, where people are uploading un-edited photos of their stupid dogs wearing Santa hats from the Kodak EasyShare grandma got them from Wal-Mart for Christmas. I love that "Monique" claims to have spent weeks going over this with their legal team to ensure everyone would like it. Either a.)she's lying, b.)she's a complete idiot who has no concept of what their users need, or c.)she gave the lawyers ideas that would be agreeable to us and the lawyers were just like "LOL yeah, right, whatever."

[wunaladreamin]

Well...

WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK AND HAVE DECIDED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW POLICIES FOR PRE-EXISTING USERS. WE WILL REVISE THE POLICIES TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE RECEIVED. THIS IS A PROCESS OF COLLABORATIVE RULE-SETTING. WE LISTEN TO OUR MEMBERS AND WILL ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS.

I wouldn't say Demand is evil, they are simply morons. A.net is not DailyPuppy.com, where people are uploading un-edited photos of their stupid dogs wearing Santa hats from the Kodak EasyShare grandma got them from Wal-Mart for Christmas. I love that "Monique" claims to have spent weeks going over this with their legal team to ensure everyone would like it. Either a.)she's lying, b.)she's a complete idiot who has no concept of what their users need, or c.)she gave the lawyers ideas that would be agreeable to us and the lawyers were just like "LOL yeah, right, whatever."

My guess would be D.) All of the above.

I'm still over them.

[stuart schechter]

All of my shot's although there were only 5, that's 5 less for them. This is just rediculus. And to go into this shareholder thing, we are not shareholders, but we, we meaning the photographers could be see as them for the reason that if they start selling our photographs the money they make would essesntially be coming from our pockets. We spend $3000+ on equipment and then when we want to make some small revenue on our photo, they can just go to the all-mighty overpower and just make the sale and claim it as there own as if we were DM's children, and making shoes, just to have our parents sell them and we see no return. I'm done. My $.02

[PhilDernerJr]

I posted the following editorial on the whole Anet TOU issue: http://nycaviation.com/editorials#derner021208

I've been the biggest of Anet fans and supporters for many years, but I hope those of you that might be somewhat passive in regards to this issue read what I wrote and see the importance of it for our hobby as a whole.

I still love the site, but part of me feels the place we've come to enjoy is not going to be the same.

[TedTAce]

I'm sorry but I did see a typo in the article. Coming from me who cares, as my grammar is the worst on any aviation site.

I'm sad that there was an omission in alternatives to a.net which my bias aside are plenty. A.net deserves to loose it's clientèle because it broke the cardinal rule and transformed from hobby to business. EDS used to be a great company until Ross Perot sold it and now it's steadily declining for a lack of un-enthused participants from the CEO to the lowest of the lowly employee. DM is under the delusion that they will be able to recover from this, and while for the next few months and maybe even years it will appear that the users will try to keep it going. The sad reality is that a.net had it's day in the sun, and now it's twilight. It's time for people to move to sites like this one, JP.net and my site and force airwhiners to re-invent itself. While it's sad to see an 'old friend' in a.net go, it's time to realize like Old Yeller, the body of our friend is there, but the friend we knew has long since died.

Please feel free to E-mail me TedTAce at gmail dot com

[cancidas]

All of my shot's although there were only 5, that's 5 less for them. This is just rediculus. And to go into this shareholder thing, we are not shareholders, but we, we meaning the photographers could be see as them for the reason that if they start selling our photographs the money they make would essesntially be coming from our pockets. We spend $3000+ on equipment and then when we want to make some small revenue on our photo, they can just go to the all-mighty overpower and just make the sale and claim it as there own as if we were DM's children, and making shoes, just to have our parents sell them and we see no return. I'm done. My $.02

i too chose to remove my name from the site. you jsut can't trust anyone after they drop a bombshell like that one. anyone else here remove thier pix from the site? i don't regret making that decision, just am glad that the best of my work is still available for anyone to view.

[mirrodie]

having been mum for a while, I think most of you are over reacting to a degree.

They posted this thing to be read and right up front, they said nothing would take affect until it was read.

So they had the good sense to have their users, who in turn acted as lawyers, scrutinize the document.
Therefore the matter of "trust" is nonsense.

Further, people dog Anet/DM for trying to run a business. Meanwhile, Kilroy took advantage of a business opportunity and further HIS business. Yet no one is dogging Kilroy.

Both sites will prosper. Its nothing more than a BA vs Virgin competition. And JP is Virgin, taking advantage of a screw up.

No need for the melodramatics by some!