Mosquitoes and Cookies

[stona]

I was wondering if it was a policy to mask all mosquito front transparencies to disguise the fact that many bombs were dropped by guidance other than the bomb sight, like oboe for example.

I think it is most likely zealous censorship to obscure the bomb sight. Without knowing the source and time of the picture it is impossible to even conjecture why that one in particular was censored in this way.

I think the same aircraft, uncensored, is the subject of the 6th photo.

Cheers

Steve

 

[dogsbody]

Deleted!


Chris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

A Warning!

I see pampa14 or whatever username he is using now, is up to his usual image theft. He copies images from around the internet and re-posts them as if they were his own, without giving credit to the original sites/owners. Just this past week he has posted the same images on at least three other forums under the usernames johnniewc68 and sjkfly4ever. He has been kicked off/banned from most modelling and aviation sites a few times. Someone thought that he may even get some monetary gain each time someone visits his site. He has been doing this for a few years now. I know that this is at the very least the eighth or ninth username he has gone under.

Just letting everyone know.


Chris

And where has he claimed that the pictures where his own?

 

[dogsbody]

Deleted!



Chris

 

[bobbysocks]

I don't usually site the source of pictures or info...I only do when there is a controversy and the thread is more for research than entertainment. I also never claim any of the info or pictures as my own..

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

He hasn't said they were his own pictures but he also doesn't give credit to where he has acquired the pictures either. He has been doing this for a few years now. He has been caught using other peoples research and images that he has taken from other websites and publications.

Look at his stuff if you want. I just put a notice out there about his information.



Chris

Most pictures on the internet are common domain and are fee to use. Unless specifically stated.

 

[wuzak]

And he linked the host site, not individual pictures.

 

[parsifal]

Ive read somewhere that photos older than a certain age....40 years i think, are not protected by copywrite. might be wrong. not sure

 

[stona]

Ive read somewhere that photos older than a certain age....40 years i think, are not protected by copywrite. might be wrong. not sure

In English law it is rather complicated and depends to a large extent when the photograph was taken. A photograph taken in modern times (after 1st August 1989) has a copyright the length of the life of the photographer PLUS seventy years.

Photographs made before 1st June 1957 are a little different. These photographs were originally protected for a period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were taken (regardless of whether they were published or not). If the photograph was still in copyright as of 1 July 1995 however, the period of copyright was extended to the life of the photographer plus 70 years. If copyright protection had expired before 1 July 1995, there was still the chance to "revive" the photograph. An eligible photograph would then be protected by the new term, ie the photographer's life plus 70 years.

The owner of a revived copyright is the former owner (ie the person who owned the copyright immediately before it expired). If that person died before 1 January 1996 or was a company that ceased to exist before 1 January 1996, then the revived copyright passes to the photographer or the photographer's heirs.

Phew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers

Steve

 

[gjs238]

In English law it is rather complicated and depends to a large extent when the photograph was taken. A photograph taken in modern times (after 1st August 1989) has a copyright the length of the life of the photographer PLUS seventy years.

Photographs made before 1st June 1957 are a little different. These photographs were originally protected for a period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were taken (regardless of whether they were published or not). If the photograph was still in copyright as of 1 July 1995 however, the period of copyright was extended to the life of the photographer plus 70 years. If copyright protection had expired before 1 July 1995, there was still the chance to "revive" the photograph. An eligible photograph would then be protected by the new term, ie the photographer's life plus 70 years.

The owner of a revived copyright is the former owner (ie the person who owned the copyright immediately before it expired). If that person died before 1 January 1996 or was a company that ceased to exist before 1 January 1996, then the revived copyright passes to the photographer or the photographer's heirs.

Phew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers

Steve

By the time you read all that the photo has gone viral.

 

[fubar57]

Canadian law is very similar to English law. Under Canadian law, a copyrighted photo that has been published on the internet is still protected by copyright laws.




Geo

 

[Denniss]

Per EU law the copyright was retroactively extended to life of author + 70 years although some countries like Italy or in scandinavia have shorter terms for very specific types of photographs.
Duration of protection is by nationality of author, not by the country where someone wants to use the image in.
Several countries have some shorter periods for images made by military/government personnel during their official duties.
This is a hell of complicated laws and we at Commons Wiki have to fight with this BS every day.

 

[bobbysocks]

Per EU law the copyright was retroactively extended to life of author + 70 years although some countries like Italy or in scandinavia have shorter terms for very specific types of photographs.
.

I have heard this before too denniss....it may be like that to some degree here in the us for certain items

 

[Denniss]

US law is even more complicated with several date boundaries, registration for copyright and renewal of old registrations to prevent them from falling into PD, having copyright notices in proper format on images or they may be considered free if published in a certain timeframe, etc,etc, etc

 

[parsifal]

so where would we stand with photos pre-1945?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

He hasn't said they were his own pictures but he also doesn't give credit to where he has acquired the pictures either. He has been doing this for a few years now. He has been caught using other peoples research and images that he has taken from other websites and publications.

Look at his stuff if you want. I just put a notice out there about his information.



Chris

If he's not making any money off of this I don't see a legal issue. IMO if you put something on the internet and don't want it copied, then either watermark it or just don't show it in detail. I will say that I will not tolerate any copyright cat-fights to go on in this forum, we've had them here before over some really stupid stuff. If there's an issue take it up with a moderator

 

[Wurger]

I have checked on all his posts here. Everybody has a choice and can click the link or not. Also our board has nothing in common with running of his site. It is his very private matter. As long he doesn't post here pictures under the copyright law the posting here of a link to his site is nothing illegal. If somebody has a problem with that he should go to his site to give an opinion about his behaviour or report it to a proper service, IMHO.

Additionally I agree with the post above. I will not tolerate any copyright cat-fights to go on in this forum.