New A.net upload terms Photogs need to read

[T-Bird76]

You may want to read the following regarding A.nets NEW upload terms. Their new terms allow them to use and sell your pictures without any credit or royalty to you. Let the uploader beware.


Subject to your right to terminate your license to us as described in Section 5(C), you hereby grant Airliners.net an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, transmit, distribute, publicly perform and display (including in each case by means of a digital audio and video transmission), advertise in, on, and around, and create derivative works of the Content you submit or make available for inclusion on or through the Service, and to incorporate such Content into other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, for purposes such as (but not limited to) promoting the Site or promoting the availability of such Content on the Site.

You also hereby waive any moral rights you may have under the laws of any jurisdiction in Content you submit or make available on or through the Service. While it is our general policy to include your name alongside your Content, we are not obligated to do so.

[flyboy 28]

That's f'in ridiculous.

[Administrator]

Before we get started here, keep the expression of your opinions here civil, no matter how angry anything pertaining to Anet might maker you. There are to be no blanket anti-Anet statements, no profanity, or name calling.

Voice your thoughts about this change, if you'd like, in a mature manner, please. I just don't want this to get out of control.

-Phil

[PhilDernerJr]

This really does concern me. They said that they will explain more on Monday, so I'll avoid any reactions until then.

I wonder what their plans are.

[lijk604]

I wonder what kind of backlash this will have. Heck, I only have 35 pics there, which if pulled off the site would be nothing, but if some of their "power" users were to not agree to this and pull their pics...WOW!

It was only a matter of time, Johan was in it for the love of aviation. Demand Media, as we now see, is in it for the money.

[Derf]

I do not care what they "explain" it is layed out there what the deal is PERIOD. According to this, they can use or sell your images to the media or any other sources. They can say anything like (NOT A QUOTE FROM ANET) "we only are using it for the website and not other media...but then can LEGALLY sell your image of an aircraft to the media. If a plane crashes and you took a pic, they can do whatever they want with it LEGALLY. Imagine seeing your images in a book of the best airliners.net images or on every TV after a plane you photographed crashed.

WOW, Jetphotos will soon pass Anet as the main Aviation website because the professionals will not have that!

This is gonna get good!

[Midnight Mike]

Oh wow! Talk about losing control of your photos.... Johan would have never came up with that idea

[NIKV69]

Their new terms allow them to use and sell your pictures without any credit or royalty to you. Let the uploader beware.



As Tim DeGroot alluded too in the thread Chris started I doubt this is the case. I will wait until DM clarifies it.


WOW, Jetphotos will soon pass Anet as the main Aviation website because the professionals will not have that!

I know that has been the feeling since DM bought anet but I doubt it. I also doubt you will all be pulling your pictures from there come Monday but as Phil stated it would be better to wait for clarification early next week.

[MarkLawrence]

I agree with Nick and Phil - I'm waiting for the clarification from DM on this.

[T-Bird76]

I think its pretty clear based on the email that A.net just sent out. That reads the same way as what Chris posted. After March 8th if Demand Media wants to use your shots in a revenue generating nature they can without your knowledge or permission. How that is not clear to anyone is beyond me...

[Derf]

I agree with Tom, they can say what they want, but if they make a very large book with the best of Anet and sell it, You can do nothing....reguardless of what they clarify.

[cancidas]

that came as a shock to me, and if they're sticking to this policy then i'm going to want my pictures off. there is no way i'm going to agree to forfeit my copyright just to have my shots up there! [/angry]

(sigh)
i want to know more, waiting for monday to come around....

[Midnight Mike]

Went to airliners.net & many people seem to be shocked as well, the Photo Screeners/Moderator are asking for patience, but, seems that they are equally in the dark....

This posting was interesting:


So, let me get this straight...

You don't have a problem letting Demand Media...

Use...
Reproduce...
Modify...
Transmit...
Distribute...
Publicly display or...
Advertise in, on, or around one of your photos...

All while not being able to guarantee that they will give you credit for the photo?

Sure, wait till more information is passed on, but, it does not sound good & I am the one that usually tells everybody to relax......

[nwafan20]

I got that email as well and read it. This is completely ridiculous!

I, too will wait for DM to clarify, but if their clarification does not satisfy me, I will take my photos off that site, even though I don't have that many. I will also encourage all of the A.net photographers to do the same thing as well.

But still, we should not jump too quickly to any conclusions without the clarification.

[pgengler]

I'm not really sure what they could say in a clarification that would make this any better, except to say "Oops, those aren't the real terms, what we meant to say was..." because with terms like that, it doesn't matter much how they say "we probably won't do that," the fact is that the terms are a lot more binding than that 'promise' would be.

[wunaladreamin]

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. I will never upload to ANet again.

[hiss srq]

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. I will never upload to ANet again.
I agree and I will also be removing the ones I have up as of current abait that number is small. I spend the money for the equipment to take the pics, put the effort and than they have the right to make a profit off of it. Nope that flys like a brick with me.

[nwafan20]

Wow, Jetphotos.net owner Chris Kilroy sent a great letter to all photographers today, good marketing on his part! He changed the Jetphotos.net terms of use to basically address all the A.net terms, the change is quoted below:


By uploading your photos to this web site, you grant JetPhotos.Net a non-exclusive license to display your images under the .jetphotos.net domain name. JetPhotos.Net will not, under any circumstances, use your copyrighted images in any other way. We will not barter, sell, trade, or otherwise use your photos for the benefit of this web site or any other entity, and if you wish to remove your images from the JetPhotos.net site at a future date, we will accommodate your request in a timely fashion.

GREAT decision by jp.net, I expect to see a mass migration to JP.net if DM does not change those terms.

Here is the full email:


Dear JetPhotos.Net contributing photographers:

In light of some recent developments in the aviation photography community, I felt that I needed to personally write all of you to reaffirm our commitment to protecting your rights as a photographer and copyright holder.

Firstly, while the scope of our usage license was always implied, we have added some specific text to our Photo Usage Terms, which you can see here:

http://www.jetphotos.net/photousage/

This additional text serves one purpose -- to put in writing the policy we've always had regarding use of your photos. In layman's terms, this policy states, uncategorically, that we assume no ownership rights of the photos you upload to JetPhotos.Net, that we will never use your photos for any purpose other than displaying them on the JetPhotos.Net website, and that if, in the future, you decide you no longer want to display your photos on the site, we will remove them from our database, no questions asked. Your photos belong to you, and how you want them to be used is your decision, not ours.

If you feel that we can change any aspect of our Photo Usage Policy to further benefit you, the photographer, please let me know personally by replying to this e-mail. I'd be very interested in hearing from you!

I hope this e-mail has reasserted our commitment to protecting your rights as individual photographers, and indeed the rights of the entire community. From myself, and the entire team at JetPhotos.Net, thank you for allowing us to display your images, and we look forward to serving you in the future.

Kind regards,

Chris Kilroy
Editor, JetPhotos.Net
http://www.jetphotos.net


That is seriously a refreshing change from the A.net/DM way of doing things. Thanks JP.net and Chris!

[wunaladreamin]

I'm really curious to know what Johan makes of all this.

[moose135]

I'm really curious to know what Johan makes of all this.

He's too busy counting the money he made from the sale to worry about it...

[nwafan20]

I'm really curious to know what Johan makes of all this.

He's too busy counting the money he made from the sale to worry about it...

Was that ever disclosed? Is DM a public company (I.e. has to report financial statistics)?

[moose135]

Was that ever disclosed? Is DM a public company (I.e. has to report financial statistics)?

They are a private company. I've heard rumors about the number, which I won't repeat, but if they were at all accurate, Johan is living quite comfortably these days.

[PhilDernerJr]

This is what I posted on Anet:

As I've said in the past, I've been a big supporter of DM through the transition, and have tried to calm people down and open them up to the thought that this could be a good thing for the hobby.

Now, for the first time, I'm having seconds thoughts.

First, as mentioned, it is very sad, and perhaps downright frightening, that screeners had no idea that this was coming. The lack of communication is a horrible sign of the site's new operation. That alone is huge cause for concern. I recently changed the rules on my own site, and I think I might have even over-communicated with my team. That's how you run such a site.

As for the new terms here, I will still give them the benefit of the doubt until they explain in more detail on Monday. However, even if their intention is to not really exercise what they wrote, and only put it their for unforeseen protection, then they will most certainly need to re-word it. Many people will have no tolerance for wording that makes it easy for them to do as they please with others' creative works.

One can't even say that we are interpreting it wrong. It really is pretty clear. DM's intention, though, is what we need to hear, and they need to address our concerns accordingly, or they clearly will stand to lose hundreds of shooters, and surely hundreds of thousands of killer photographs.

This is perhaps the biggest shakeup in the hobby since I've gotten involved in it. I've never seen so many shooters get so upset, and so ready and willing to leave en masse like this. In fact, I am almost insulted that DM is not coming in on the weekend to address this ASAP....as the ****storm is clearly in full swing.

Something I've always said; "If you don't explain something, people are left to assume the negative". How DM can post something like that, with no explanation, and not be around for several days is shockingly and completely reckless.

However, I am sorry to say that regardless of their true intentions, I don't know if I can leave my photos on this site with that kind of verbage present. My above points add to the distrust and concern.

This is the kind of thing that digs your own grave.

[wunaladreamin]

Phil, I don't think there's anyone that could have said it better.

[cancidas]

very well said phil, and i'm sure that most photogs on that site share the same sentiments you wrote about.

[T-Bird76]

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. In this case that has not happened. All you see are people saying "Please be patient." Monquie lied to the entire community by saying it took them weeks to write this, yet Florian pulled the same terms off DM's older sites. As for interpretation...lets get serious...the terms are very clear. They can use your photos as see fit, you don't need a translator to interrupt that.

If they were serious about calming things down the GM of DM would have stepped in and categorically said the verbiage would be removed pending further review and no change to the current TOU's would be made. That hasn't happened. Why?

The fact is the crew of A.net is nolonger running that site, instead they serve as mere custodians. This fact is very evident given it was member who brought the new TOU to the light of the crew. What does that say for DM's opinion of the crew? Not much... The crew members should be up in arms over there demanding answers as to why they were blindsided. This is business 101...you do not change a policy or procedure without first informing your staff...simple as that and this raises serious questions to the management and competency of Demand Media.

[Derf]

Sorry Phil, but I frankly do not care about any explanation from them. Explanations do not hold up in court...the contract does. They really miffed up good and pissed off most of their users. Start the egg timer, ANET is now about to die! This will make them a minor player next to Jetphotos. I am glad that I do not have any photos as I would have pulled them already. I do not want clarification on a contract that I understand takes all the rights from the photographer. I am soo glad I do not need to request the photos pulled.... I am grabbing some popcorn! As for all you guys that have photos uploaded. I am really sorry about the turmoil you now have to deal with. In a few days when 60% of the uploads die, that is when you will really start to see the beginning of the end. Even if they revert to the old way...they lost most of the confidence of their submitters.

[PhilDernerJr]

I printed out the entire thread from Anet....all 70 pages, and went through it post by post.

I agree. It's not acceptable. Even if they fix it. There are so many things wrong with it.

[T-Bird76]

Sorry Phil, but I frankly do not care about any explanation from them. Explanations do not hold up in court...the contract does. They really miffed up good and pissed off most of their users. Start the egg timer, ANET is now about to die! This will make them a minor player next to Jetphotos. I am glad that I do not have any photos as I would have pulled them already. I do not want clarification on a contract that I understand takes all the rights from the photographer. I am soo glad I do not need to request the photos pulled.... I am grabbing some popcorn! As for all you guys that have photos uploaded. I am really sorry about the turmoil you now have to deal with. In a few days when 60% of the uploads die, that is when you will really start to see the beginning of the end. Even if they revert to the old way...they lost most of the confidence of their submitters.

Fred I think you hit the nail on the head. Regardless if they correct the TOU they've lost confidence in a good deal of their submitters and some big name submitters to. The key is having confidence in a company and the lack of concern by DM over the last 24 hours is truly an example of poor customer service. I don't think however A.net will "die" its been around far to long and most of the sites visitors probably have no clue what is going on and will continue to visit the site. Over the past year a large number of big names have left A.net and the site still is strong. However I do know for a fact the sites growth has slowed dramatically when compared to JP.net who's growth has more then doubled in 2007. As an example only two years ago a top of the day at JP.net was something like 500 views, today that number often times is 10K plus.

[NIKV69]

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.


Monquie lied to the entire community by saying it took them weeks to write this, yet Florian pulled the same terms off DM's older sites. As for interpretation...lets get serious...the terms are very clear. They can use your photos as see fit, you don't need a translator to interrupt that.

If they were serious about calming things down the GM of DM would have stepped in and categorically said the verbiage would be removed pending further review and no to the current TOU's would be made. That hasn't happened. Why?


I think it is plain to see their terms are generic, Paulo basically tipped their hand and said this would be done. I just don't feel that the wording was designed to give them sole right to start stealing our photos. Then again it's open to interpretation and the negative intrepretation will always win out when it comes to anet.


The fact is the crew of A.net is nolonger running that site, instead they serve as mere custodians.
The crew run the day to day operations. Once Johan sold out I think we all knew that DM would be the last word. No matter what kind of compnay changes hands and keep whomever the owners are always going to have the last word. Nobody on the crew is going to have any say in the legal guidelines of the site. That is not unusual. Was it wrong to make those changes to the TOC without notice to the head screeners? Sure, but they don't own the site. Keep that in perspective.


Fred I think you hit the nail on the head. Regardless if they correct the TOU they've lost confidence in a good deal of their submitters and some big name submitters to. The key is having confidence in a company and the lack of concern by DM over the last 24 hours is truly an example of poor customer service. I don't think however A.net will "die" its been around far to long and most of the sites visitors probably have no clue what is going on and will continue to visit the site. Over the past year a large number of big names have left A.net and the site still is strong. However I do know for a fact the sites growth has slowed dramatically when compared to JP.net who's growth has more then doubled in 2007. As an example only two years ago a top of the day at JP.net was something like 500 views, today that number often times is 10K plus.

I am a little distressed with your low opinion of the sites visitors Tommy. It couldn't be that maybe they didn't interpret the wording of the TOU the same way some have? I still have seen absolutley no proof of DM having any intentions of using our pics in a way that would be detremental to us or the hobby. I also would point out that your stat about JP though probably true doesn't reflect the growth of anet and proof that it is slowing. Consider this stat, two years ago the range of people on the site at any given time was between 0-500. A slow period would be 150-200 and a busy period would have 350-500. Now at the busy periods I have seen 900+ on at the same time. Also you have to remember that anet's forums are much more popular than JPs. Where some of the die in the wool users on anet never even pick up a camera but still go to meets and spot. All of these people pay money and generate revenue for DM. So as far as I see it I am pretty sure DM will rewrite the TOU and things will continue as normal. I still see many of the big names still uploading their work there and I am pretty sure it is safe from DM just doing whatever they want. I could be wrong but I suggest we start a topic on this in 6 months and use actual proof and see what is what.

[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!

[PhilDernerJr]

On the Anet boards, MANY people are dogging Kilroy.

[Derf]

I do not feel the same as you Mario. My views also differ from Moose. But what I found out that what they tried to do was flat out illegal and it could not holdup in court if Anet did use the image of a user that did not know about it. Anet can not take away the copyright from a user simply because they needed to contact them within 30 days. In Most countries, this will go against copyright laws. You can not change the wording of a contract after the fact to change a copyright. They can have a disclaimer that they can change the rules at any time without notice, but the copyright is not a rule and can not be changed without a new contract PERIOD. My question still stands....DO NEW USERS still have to agree to the contract? It would be legal for the new users to sign a contract.

On a side note, just because you post a picture on a website that says any photos that you post are property of the forum and or website and can be reused. I found out that if the said site does use the picture to make a profit, the person who took the picture and has a copyright will have legal recourse. You can not transfer a copyright or share a copyright that way. IT DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT and it will NOT hold up in any court with an elcheapo lawer in you corner.

I think I would have used more fireworks and color If I made Chris Kilroy's email. Anet this turned the aviation photography community on its head an almost all Anet users were upset.....I do not understand how you were upset by this as anyone in his shoes would have done the same exact thing. Why would he not want to plug his website 24/7. If he did not, Jetphots would suck because he would not have put enough effort in to make it half as good. I am sure that he was just as upset as Me, Tommy, Phil, and many others that posted they were "Upset" about not knowing what a company that was discussing "STEALING" the rights from the photographer (according to the letter of the Copyright law). DM Lawers are not that smart as this just takes one picture with very wide distribution to create a lawsuit to "change the wording".

I spoke to a Copyright Lawer and got facts. If you do not believe me, you too can speak to one for a little more clarification on why what they did requires a contract to be done over...not just a "were taking your photos in 30 days for what ever we want....but WERE NICE and will do the right thing.....TRUST US!"


Mario, Someone taking control over any other photographers photos and getting upset is photography community is NOT overreacting in my book. Every Anet user was about to loose control over their own Copyright and I feel STRONGLY that being upset and voiceing their opinion was not even close to an overreaction. I also think Moose off too. I like that we can take our views here and voice them....but I still love you guys....IN A MANLY BEER DRINKING WAY.

[mirrodie]

Fred, simply stated, this was the opening line by flyheligril on Anet, before the TOU/PP came out:

The new Terms of Use and Privacy Policy for Airliners.net will be live tomorrow. I want to start this thread as a platform to ask any questions related to the new Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. I'll post when they are live tomorrow.

So even before it posted, she gave a heads up and put it out for discussion. I think some have the false perception that DM is trying to pull the shades over our eyes when its clear they didn't.

Did they make a mistake? It seems clearly so.
Are they fixing in? " " " "

Otherwise, yes, most photographers would be gone and that is not what they are looking for.

[moose135]

A.net has posted new terms for review, with a 7 day comment period. Here are the new terms:
http://www.airliners.net/reviewtermsofuse/

And here's the thread with the photo-specific terms, as well as a place to comment or ask questions:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/av ... in/302115/ (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/302115/)

[flyboy 28]

1. Procedure. At any time Airliners.net may change these Terms, which includes the Privacy Policy and any other agreement that is incorporated by reference into these Terms. We will provide notice to you of any material change in the Terms by posting notice to the Site and sending you an email to your Airliners.net email account or to the non- Airliners.net email address that we have on record for you. Your continued use of the Service 30 days after our notice to you of a change in the Terms will mean that you have agreed to be bound by the amended Terms. As used in this Agreement, "Terms" means and includes these Terms of Use as amended from time to time in accordance with this Section 2(a).


Seems like a complete 180° here.

[Matt Molnar]

The whole thing is pretty much opposite of the first revision.

[lijk604]

1. Procedure. At any time Airliners.net may change these Terms, which includes the Privacy Policy and any other agreement that is incorporated by reference into these Terms. We will provide notice to you of any material change in the Terms by posting notice to the Site and sending you an email to your Airliners.net email account or to the non- Airliners.net email address that we have on record for you. Your continued use of the Service 30 days after our notice to you of a change in the Terms will mean that you have agreed to be bound by the amended Terms. As used in this Agreement, "Terms" means and includes these Terms of Use as amended from time to time in accordance with this Section 2(a).


I read the new TOU and it seems acceptable to me, but this one paragraph makes me shudder to think that they have adjusted the terms to calm everyone down for now. I presume the above paragraph was inserted so that they can change the TOU again at a later date without too much uproar...as we were "warned" this might happen.

[PhilDernerJr]

That does protect us, too. Any TOU will say that they can change it at any time, but unlike most, this one actualyl says that we will be notified and have 30 days to bow out if we don't like it. That's actually a good thing.

I didn't read all of it, but everything I did see looked good.

[hiss srq]

Frankly, even with this new TOU I do not feel I would like to continue to contribute to the daabase at Airliners. To me when Johan sold out to Demand the website lost it's appeal to me. To me it is nothing more than a site I go to so I can enjoy the armchair banter of the Forum's. It is no longer a hobby site to me but another coorperate asset. Let the 15 year olds have it to themselves. Jetphotos has my business for now on. As much as they say that they are an aviation loving company it is sheerly a profit for them. I understand it is also a business but it is not a passion to those people. Sorry Mario but Airliners is no more what it once was. It is a shame because without that site the community would be a very spaced out and un established community really. NYCA and JP will be my two hobby sites for now on.

[hiss srq]

Frankly, even with this new TOU I do not feel I would like to continue to contribute to the daabase at Airliners. To me when Johan sold out to Demand the website lost it's appeal to me. To me it is nothing more than a site I go to so I can enjoy the armchair banter of the Forum's. It is no longer a hobby site to me but another coorperate asset. Let the 15 year olds have it to themselves. Jetphotos has my business for now on. As much as they say that they are an aviation loving company it is sheerly a profit for them. I understand it is also a business but it is not a passion to those people. Sorry Mario but Airliners is no more what it once was. It is a shame because without that site the community would be a very spaced out and un established community really. NYCA and JP will be my two hobby sites for now on.

[TedTAce]

Has anyone noticed JP.net is about a couple months from 'closing the deal' on a.net?

[stuart schechter]

Has anyone noticed JP.net is about a couple months from 'closing the deal' on a.net?

Proof?

[PhilDernerJr]

Sounds like opinion anyway, so no proof is needed.

[stuart schechter]

It was just really out there, abstract.

[T-Bird76]

Has anyone noticed JP.net is about a couple months from 'closing the deal' on a.net?

What do you mean, 'closing the deal?' Do you mean surpassing A.net in terms of the amount of photos in the database? If so that is true, not opinion, and not a secret. Based on the number of uploads we are seeing at JP.net we expect this to happen by December if not sooner (we hope sooner ;) ). Yes of course we don't hold our users to the same standards as A.net but traffic at JP.net has surged by over 50% in terms of both visitors and uploads in the last year. As an example in the last 24 hours there were approx 1600 photos uploaded to the queue at Jp.net. I think the days of the queue being at 0 are gone; it’s a struggle to keep it below 6000 lately.

[moose135]

As an example in the last 24 hours there were approx 1600 photos uploaded to the queue at Jp.net. I think the days of the queue being at 0 are gone; it’s a struggle to keep it below 6000 lately.
That said, even with 6,000+ in the JP queue, I still get my photos screened in no more than 4 days. The folks there keep the line moving.

[Tom_Turner]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the "deal closed" decisively soon after (if ever) JP moves its forums away from Avatars & the like.....

[mirrodie]

Has anyone noticed JP.net is about a couple months from 'closing the deal' on a.net?

Proof?


In the words of the 'wizard', pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Some users jsut pop in here after 2 posts with merely an axe to grind.