# Acknowledgement of photo sources



## Colonel Bogey (Feb 9, 2006)

While I'm sure the intentions of the posters on this board are well meaning, it would appear to me that photos are still being posted/held in albums without due acknowledgment of their source. A case in point is this:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=8719

It is my belief that it has been lifted from the following site:

http://users.cyberone.com.au/clardo/el_cooper.html

I would strongly suggest that more active policing of this practice be undertaken to avoid embarrassment/legal action against the site owner.


----------



## Erich (Feb 9, 2006)

you are making a repeat of a global announcement started by kiwimac and true forum members are still ignoring this.

SOURCE ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS PLEASE !!


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 9, 2006)

Erich Colonel Bogey,

Agreed! It is very important that all photos be sourced. This applies even if YOU are the copyright holder. If we source every photo (as I some others here) we use then we are being both educational (posting links to other great sites!) and responsible.

Don't make me come up there! 

Kiwimac


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 9, 2006)

I think Col Bogey is pussy for being such a prick... Ive got some tissues for him if need be... Some people live their lives scrutinizing the faults of others, and it s a truly pathetic waste of a human soul....

That being said, please attempt to source all photos...


----------



## Colonel Bogey (Feb 9, 2006)

"I think Col Bogey is pussy for being such a prick"

Thank you for your warm welcome to the Board  

Gee, and I thought a good old Boy from the South would know all about litigation? 

Cue "Duelling Banjos"


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 9, 2006)

Shows how much of a meatball u are, u cant even read "Long Island Native"... 

And why should u care if some obscure little ol website posts some pics of historic aircraft and doesnt source it.... WTF, are u the internet sourcing police??? 



> Thank you for your warm welcome to the Board


If I felt so inclined, I'd welcome u the same way I welcome my morning bowel movement... How about u go stick ur nose somewhere else it dont belong....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 9, 2006)

Colonel Bogey said:


> I would strongly suggest that more active policing of this practice be undertaken to avoid embarrassment/legal action against the site owner.


Can't be bothered. I've tried once or twice myself, and quite honestly I can't be bothered. Piss on it.

So...any more points to bring up?


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 10, 2006)

Les Non,

Colonel Bogey's comments are appropriate, yours are not. Please act like a: grown-ups and b: moderators. *This warning is in public because your remarks are in public.*

Kiwimac


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2006)

Hey kiwi, kiss my ass.... Bogey is a snooping asshole, and deserves to be harassed, whether he's right or not... U dont use ur first post at a message board to be such a dick, and I think ur a dick for talking to me and NS in such a way...


> This warning is in public because your remarks are in public.


And this attitude is in public because ur BS reply was in public... Its common knowledge that we promote sourcing photos here (Global Message), and we dont need some nosey moron sticking his nose where it doesnt belong....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 10, 2006)

kiwimac said:


> Les Non,
> 
> *This warning is in public because your remarks are in public.*
> 
> Kiwimac


Noted. I've been warned. Gotcha. 



lesofprimus said:


> ...and I think ur a dick for talking to me and NS in such a way...


Goes for me too. *This reply is in public because it...just is.*


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

If I may add something here... The purpose of this site is for informational and/or educational purposes. While I agree that sourcing of images is a good thing, I don't think anyone should be too militant about this. Why? Because this site is free and no one is making money by posting these images. 

I do run an aviation photo business and post some of my images and do not discourage anyone from downloading them for their own collections or even their personal web pages. Now, if someone were trying to sell the image, then of course, I would have an objection. 

That being said, if you post your own photos on the web and do not have your name or web-page as part of the image, then you are not doing anyone any good. Why? One reason is that it gives good exposure for others to see your images and 2, if someone has a question about the image or would like to know how it was obtained or if they want to request others, then they can because they know where it came from.

Unless you are the owner of the copyright of the image, settle down and relax. No one would deliberately "steal" someone else's work. To enable people to see images of things that people may not ordinarily have access to is a good thing. It keeps the history alive.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

In reading all this, I'll throw something else in here....

As some of you know, I'm involved with guys who own war birds. While at airshows we let anyone photograph the aircraft and if they want to sell prints, we don't care, we never claim or seek copyright for the image. We once deflated an issue with photographer who had a photos on one of our planes on his site; when one of our aircraft owners wife downloaded the photo and placed it on her personal site, the guy made all kinds of threats to the guy's wife and members of our flight demonstration team - we in return told him that if he was going to be so chicken sh*t about this we were going to see to it that other war bird owners charge him for photographing their aircraft....

From what I understand, if you post something on the Internet and someone uses it non-commercially, its open game - The guy who owns the L-29 I fly is a Lawyer - his feeling on this is if you are worried about copyright infringement on the Internet, or even worse, some 16 year old kid posting your photo on a public discussion board (as this) don't download it to the public!

But why make this an issue on your first post is beyond me unless you personnaly know the "owner" of the photo - I don't see that here.....


----------



## Wurger (Feb 10, 2006)

Hi guys !!!
I don't know if I'm allowed to say somethig in this matter because I've been there for a short period of the time. I've become a member of the forum due to its educational and historycal capacity.Everyone, who likes (loves) planes and their history, needs more information than other people. Their main purpose is to find out everything about them but not only. They want to share own knowledge with others. Many of us have a lot of pictures but we don't remember from what sources. So, what should we do? Make them hidden for thousand years ? Certainly, if someone is an owner then he should mark the fact clearly and mention about the charge or emphasize that the photos are not the "freeware" In this way, all will be known.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

you make good points and photos are cirtainly very valuable resorces, baisically we say, if you want to post a picture but don't know where it's from, just make it clear that you're not claiming it as your own, eg i put "Source- Unknown" if i don't know the source, if it turns out someone does own the copywrite and wants it removed it will of course be removed..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But why make this an issue on your first post is beyond me unless you personnaly know the "owner" of the photo - I don't see that here.....



Agreed.....


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

The picture is labelled as part of Cooper's collection. Is it a known fact that Cooper took the picture? If he did, then HE is the copyright owner of the picture, not someone else. Here is the copyright law in Australia, which is where the website is hosted:


> In Australia, the artist or photographer initially owns the copyright in their work with the following exceptions:
> 
> A photograph taken by a photographer as part of their terms of their employment is owned by their employer. (Except in the case where the employer is the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, in which case the photographer will retain the right to control inclusion of the photograph in a book or as part of a hard copy news clipping service).
> 
> For a photograph taken prior to 30 July 1998, the copyright in photograph which was commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person. For a photograph taken after 30 July 1998, the copyright in a photograph commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person only if it was taken for a 'private or domestic purpose' (such as a family portrait or a wedding photograph).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

evangilder said:


> The picture is labelled as part of Cooper's collection. Is it a known fact that Cooper took the picture? If he did, then HE is the copyright owner of the picture, not someone else. Here is the copyright law in Australia, which is where the website is hosted:
> 
> 
> > In Australia, the artist or photographer initially owns the copyright in their work with the following exceptions:
> ...



And with that, the caption on the photo in question reads "The office of a Blenheim I (Bristol Aeroplane Co) The best Mark I cockpit shot in existence. Len worked for the Bristol Aeroplane Co. This is one of several Bristol shots in Len’s collection."


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 10, 2006)

What I am asking for is that folk be _sensible_, that means posting the source if it is known or marking it 'source unknown.'

My problem is not with a failure to source, my concern is that the site as a *general rule* be seen to source where it is possible.

If you don't know the source, once again, just say so.

Les NS, I will take further discussion of your posts on PM.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2006)

Les and NS have done nothing wrong here. If you're gonna get pissy with them you may as well get pissy with me too. Theyre right.


----------



## trackend (Feb 10, 2006)

How about this then, I here by declare that any images either graphic, photographic or literary posted by me, are my own , owned by me, or are from a source that has proclaimed them within the public domain. Should | post any images that are not of the previously mention type any sourcing will be included within my posting of the afore mentioned image/images.
That should about cover it guys?
Apart from that I think if somebody wanted to pursue a scabby old railroad worker like me through the courts, who's Bras-sic then go ahead I ain't got fuck all worth having any-road.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

trackend said:


> How about this then, I here by declare that any images either graphic, photographic or literary posted by me, are my own , owned by me, or are from a source that has proclaimed them within the public domain. Should | post any images that are not of the previously mention type any sourcing will be included within my posting of the afore mentioned image/images.
> That should about cover it guys?
> Apart from that I think if somebody wanted to pursue a scabby old railroad worker like me through the courts, who's Bras-sic then go ahead I ain't got fu*k all worth having any-road.


----------



## Don Clark (Feb 10, 2006)

Firstly I should introduce myself. I'm Donald R Clark, owner and researcher of the 211 Squadron site.

Next, I'd like to thank Col. Bogey for bringing this thread to my attention. 

Fact is, the site and Gallery rules are clearly stated here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1210
and again in the Gallery
"If you hold a copyright on any of the material on this site please email me 'admin at ww2aircraft dot net' to work the problem out. Thanks horse"

The Blenheim cockpit image at
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=8719
is clearly in breach of these rules. It is also clearly taken from my site, without permission or attribution.

All images on _my _site are fully attributed, used with permission, and (after title and attribution) for the most part presented with painstakingly researched sub-captions. Without these, each image is little more than wallpaper.

Contacting me for permission would have been a piece of cake, as my contact details are readily seen on-site. In fact I had already noticed the unauthorised copy here in my never-ending search for material on my main topics. I have twice emailed the Aircraft of World War II contacts about this, without the courtesy of a reply of any sort.

I object strongly to the misuse of the results of my long research into recording the history of brave young men who fought for freedom over 60 years ago. I would have thought that their history deserved more respect than to be filched without permission and without attribution.

Kindly take the picture down. In the light of the attitudes displayed here, I'll not be giving permission for any user of this board, site and gallery to use, copy, or link any material from www.211squadron.org

As for welcome to the boards, Bogey's comments were polite and constructive. I gather he is an ex-serviceman himself, with an interest in WW2 aviation. "Snooping": no-one "snoops" on the Internet - browsing is what it is _for_.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

Don,

Do you own the copyright of that image? Because you have that on your site does not mean that possess that copyright. I suspect that either Mr. Cooper or Bristol aircraft actually hold the copyright on that image. That does not give you copyright ownership, nor does the death of Mr. Cooper.

Who did you e-mail about it? If you think someone posting an image that you feel was "stolen" from your site on a message board that is free and dedicated to WWII aviation is doing a history a disservice, then you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

I will remove the image to make you happy, but know that because you possess a copy of someone else's picture does NOT make you the owner of the copyright. If you think this will be the last time someone uses an image from your site, you have a lot to learn. You will be making objections for the rest of your life. 

The intention here was to let people see what they may not have access to see in the real world. If you think there was malice aforethought, then you are sorely mistaken.

No worries about your images from me. I will steer clear of your precious little empire.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

It appears that i do not have permissions to delete album images. I have sent a message to one of the admins to do so.


----------



## Wurger (Feb 10, 2006)

I completely agree with Kiwimac.The general rule should be kept. Posting pictures and text, we should never state that they are own if they aren't.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

www.211squadron.org 
Hmmmm....

Copyright
© DR Clark and others 1998–2006. This work is copyright. *You may download, display, print or reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation.* Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries may be directed to me in the first instance, at the Enquiries address. Private non-profit users may expect prompt approval.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

Wurger said:


> I completely agree with Kiwimac.The general rule should be kept. Posting pictures and text, we should never state that they are own if they aren't.



Agreed, but the person who posted it never claimed it as his own.


----------



## Wurger (Feb 10, 2006)

Sorry Evanglider.I shouldn't do so much as utter one word.Unfortunately, I haven't noticed that the discussion took two sits. From my point of view You are absolutely right .First of all, someone who claims that is an owner should prove that he is really.Everyone could write down that his site is under copyright.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

Wurger said:


> I completely agree with Kiwimac.The general rule should be kept. Posting pictures and text, we should never state that they are own if they aren't.



Agreed, but the person who posted it never claimed it as his own.


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 10, 2006)

I will remove the Image Don. I am really trying to understand where folk are coming from in this discussion. Let's try to keep it civil.

Ray <tiredly>


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 10, 2006)

I apparently don't have the permissions needed. I will email David.

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 10, 2006)

It took some working to do but I *think* I got rid of it!

Yes, I'm getting this message now when I try to link to it!



> General Error
> 
> This pic does not exist



Kiwimac


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2006)

> I object strongly to the misuse of the results of my long research into recording the history of brave young men who fought for freedom over 60 years ago. I would have thought that their history deserved more respect than to be filched without permission and without attribution.


Sounds like someones either alittle insecure or completely and totally in love with himself... Misuse???? Gimme a freakin break... Its called educating the masses.... But now that the pic is gone, we can lock this BS thread and move on....

BTW, the dudes site sucks anyways...


----------



## Don Clark (Feb 10, 2006)

I'd like to thank Kiwimac for his civil and constructive reply. Caught with your hand in the cookie jar, there are two options: go ape, or say gee sorry, we'll fix it. Thanks, Kiwimac.

Ignoring all the bull posted previously, all you need to do is follow your own site's rules, and follow the rules of any site you find interesting stuff on, and you'll get on fine.

In this case, all that was needed was to 
1. ask my permission (my rules) and 
2. cite my site and the original pic title and source (your rules).

The image debated here, taken by a Bristol staff photographer c1936, would have been Bristol Aeroplane Co copyright, falling out of copyright in 1996. My original title and source acknowledge that, to anyone who grasps copyright. In addition of course I had Len's permission to use his print. The Title itself and the extended caption are my original work and hence copyright until 2050 somep'n. 

So the beef isn't about copyright as such. It's about courtesy and researchability. In acknowledging sources, you open the doors to further research and pay due respect to the work done by others. Without it: well, you just get guys good and mad.

To repeat: anyone wanting to use stuff from my site needs to ask my permission first. Piece of cake.

Th..th..th...that's all folks!


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2006)

> The image debated here, taken by a Bristol staff photographer c1936, would have been Bristol Aeroplance Co copyright, falling out of copyright in 1996. My original title and source acknowledge that, to anyone who grasps copyright. In addition of course I had Len's permission to use his print. The Title itself and the extended caption are my original work and hence copyright until 2050 somep'n.
> 
> So the beef isn't about copyright as such. It's about courtesy and researchability. In acknowledging sources, you open the doors to further research and pay due respect to the work done by others. Without it: well, you just get guys good and mad.
> 
> To repeat: anyone wanting to use stuff from my site needs to ask my permission first. Piece of cake.


Blah blah blah blah blah.... Im not civil or constructive.... We have it posted on our site about the rules.... Enough said.... The fact that u dont own the copyright to said picture makes this whole freakin subject moot....

Lockin this one up, waste of O2 anyways...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Don Clark said:


> I gather he is an ex-serviceman himself, with an interest in WW2 aviation.



What is your point. I am a service member. What does being a service member have to do with anything?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 10, 2006)

Well, I certainly tried. But I will go on record here and state that because you do not own the copyright on that photo and as you stated, it has fallen out of copyright, you do not own the image. So why all the fuss? It was ONE image out of thousands on this site. No one is making a profit from it and it was put there for others to see and/or use as an informational tool.

You might do yourself a favor and put your we address on the image so that people know where it came from. It doesn't have to be very big and it will not detract from the picture if place in the proper place.

To say that we were like a child with a hand in the cookie jar is just tripe. No one claimed the image as theirs and since it is NOT under any copyright, it is de facto public domain. You cannot claim that something that is not your property as stolen.


----------

