Digital Imaging etiquette and WIX
Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:30 am
This thread has been modified to carry on an important discussion about digital imaging and how it pertains to WIX.
Hear are the rules as posted in the RULES OF CONDUCT thread.
Thanks Holdigger for the Hijack allowance.
ZTex
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5
Rules for the WIX forum regarding copyright
The Warbirds Resource Group forums are not legally responsible for the writings of its individual members, and thus it is the members responsibility to make sure thier posts are legal in regards to copyright. Regardless, repeated copyright violations will make the forums look bad and will I would ask that we all strive to avoid this! Here are some rough guidelines for copyright:
Every country is different, but there are some general guidelines:
- Copyright on text and drawings/artwork typically expires after 70 years after the creators death.
- Copyright on photographs expires either 50 years after the photo was taken, or 70 years after the photographers death, depending on country.
- Copyright for materials originating from the Third Reich expired when the war ended. All materials produced by the U.S. Governement (including U.S. Army War Photographers) are in the public domain.
- Copyright is granted at the moment of creation and needs not be marked as being under copyright for that protection to exsist. The burden of proof is on the copyright holder but we should respect that and not compel them to have to enforce thier rights. Its just not cool.
- 'Fair use' is a vague concept at best. In General it should be okay to use one or two photos from a book, typically for educational use. More than that is pretty much getting into copyright violation. Regardless, full source disclosure and credit should accompany these items. If not the it is essentially plagarism.
- You can't copyright facts. No matter what, no one may e.g. copyright the technical data of an aircraft. What can be copyrighted is how the information is presented.
In general I do not want to have to create any strict rules on the subject. If a copyright holder requests a picture removed from the forums or even the rest of the site I will see that it is removed. So let's police ourselves and try to honor the rights of the copyright holders.
Hear are the rules as posted in the RULES OF CONDUCT thread.
Thanks Holdigger for the Hijack allowance.
ZTex
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5
Rules for the WIX forum regarding copyright
The Warbirds Resource Group forums are not legally responsible for the writings of its individual members, and thus it is the members responsibility to make sure thier posts are legal in regards to copyright. Regardless, repeated copyright violations will make the forums look bad and will I would ask that we all strive to avoid this! Here are some rough guidelines for copyright:
Every country is different, but there are some general guidelines:
- Copyright on text and drawings/artwork typically expires after 70 years after the creators death.
- Copyright on photographs expires either 50 years after the photo was taken, or 70 years after the photographers death, depending on country.
- Copyright for materials originating from the Third Reich expired when the war ended. All materials produced by the U.S. Governement (including U.S. Army War Photographers) are in the public domain.
- Copyright is granted at the moment of creation and needs not be marked as being under copyright for that protection to exsist. The burden of proof is on the copyright holder but we should respect that and not compel them to have to enforce thier rights. Its just not cool.
- 'Fair use' is a vague concept at best. In General it should be okay to use one or two photos from a book, typically for educational use. More than that is pretty much getting into copyright violation. Regardless, full source disclosure and credit should accompany these items. If not the it is essentially plagarism.
- You can't copyright facts. No matter what, no one may e.g. copyright the technical data of an aircraft. What can be copyrighted is how the information is presented.
In general I do not want to have to create any strict rules on the subject. If a copyright holder requests a picture removed from the forums or even the rest of the site I will see that it is removed. So let's police ourselves and try to honor the rights of the copyright holders.
Re: Why couldnt the 747 ever been designed as a low alt bomb
Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:54 am
Why would you need to? OTOH, Boeing did have a proposal in the '70s to offer a 747 ALCM carrier, but that wouldn't be low altitude..
flyingheritage wrote:
Here the most VALID arguement to show it could do the job.. fit external MERs with napes, snakes and zunis and it would be a bomber
747SP
Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:12 am
That looks to be a 747SP
SP for "Special Performance", not "Short Plane"
Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:59 am
sp was the long range jobster wasnt it ?
Re: Why couldnt the 747 ever been designed as a low alt bomb
Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:01 pm
Dude, I hope you have permission, or are John Wright because that photo is CLEARLY copyrighted. Also, how on earth does a picture of a non-warbird, down low prove that it could've/ should've been a bomber? Lot's more to that statement.
Ryan
Ryan
Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:33 pm
Well there is already a 747 running around with a ball turret in the nose, looking more like a B-24J than a B-17G... A couple more waist guns and a tail gunner... Seriously, there are tons of military engineering work already done on the 747, and much of that could be used.
I suppose the biggest issue is all that unneeded space in the fuselage. That translates to a huge aerodynamic penalty from the cross section. Of course, if it was configured as a multi mission bomber like the P8A Poseiden, then lots of that space could be utilized. Or, narrow the fuselage the way they did when they transformed the Huey into the Cobra gunship. Maybe some slab sides like the B-52.
I suppose the biggest issue is all that unneeded space in the fuselage. That translates to a huge aerodynamic penalty from the cross section. Of course, if it was configured as a multi mission bomber like the P8A Poseiden, then lots of that space could be utilized. Or, narrow the fuselage the way they did when they transformed the Huey into the Cobra gunship. Maybe some slab sides like the B-52.
Re: Why couldnt the 747 ever been designed as a low alt bomb
Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:11 pm
RyanShort1 wrote:Dude, I hope you have permission, or are John Wright because that photo is CLEARLY copyrighted. Also, how on earth does a picture of a non-warbird, down low prove that it could've/ should've been a bomber? Lot's more to that statement.
Ryan
Want some cheese with that whine?
????
Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:39 pm
I'm with Ryan on this................
Scouring the web and then posting stuff here isn't cool.
How many just this morning??? Zane sure noticed
Scouring the web and then posting stuff here isn't cool.
How many just this morning??? Zane sure noticed
Last edited by Jack Cook on Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:42 pm
Who care's then don't post your Pic's on the Net or block them!!!I find Pics I took on other Forum's I can give a .....
Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:54 pm
kenlyco wrote:Who care's then don't post your Pic's on the Net or block them!!!I find Pics I took on other Forum's I can give a .....
Well, this guy seems to mind: http://johnwright.smugmug.com/
And as someone who makes his living as a photographer, I not only mind when someone uses one of my photos without permission and a license, I go after them. Here's a resource to see if anyone's using your images on the web: http://tineye.com/
???
Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:01 pm
I not only mind when someone uses one of my photos without permission and a license, I go after them.
Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:35 pm
Not to cause trouble or anything but I'm curious. If they are not claiming that it is their photo, or using the photo for any sort of monetary/other gain, what is the problem? If you have chosen to put your work out there on the net you should expect that people might like the photo and want to show it other interested people, like here. I know if I had some photos online and someone thought they were good enough to show in other forums I would be flattered. Obviously if buddy was claiming it as his own work and/or selling it there would be an issue, but that doesnt seem to be the case here.
Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:46 pm
Hawkeye wrote:Not to cause trouble or anything but I'm curious. If they are not claiming that it is their photo, or using the photo for any sort of monetary/other gain, what is the problem? If you have chosen to put your work out there on the net you should expect that people might like the photo and want to show it other interested people, like here. I know if I had some photos online and someone thought they were good enough to show in other forums I would be flattered. Obviously if buddy was claiming it as his own work and/or selling it there would be an issue, but that doesnt seem to be the case here.
The owner of the photograph clearly does not want it used without permission, "All photos on this site are copyrighted and therefore may not be used without permission. This includes hotlinking. We can be contated at jphotow@cox.net." Perhaps Wixlova--err,Flying Heritage has permission to use it. Just because someone has a photograph on their website does not grant you permission to use it. The only exception could be under 'fair use' or if it is in the public domain.
Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:48 pm
Hawkeye,
Legally, placing a photo on the web is considered "publishing." It gets the same legal protection as if you'd placed your photo in a book. I'm putting words into Mr. Wright's mouth here, but him placing his photo on the net for all to see, with the clear copyright notation on the photo, is essentially the same as placing his photo in a compilation book of photography for others to enjoy. Following your logic, those who put their photography in books, magazines, etc. "should expect" that others are going to like the photograph and are going to copy/share/publish it anywhere without your permission. Doing so is not only ethically wrong, it's illegal. It's one thing to link a photograph from Mr. Wright's page, or to post a link guiding people to his page. That gives folks the option of patronizing his site to enjoy the photo.
Just my two cents, but if I was a mod this photo would be a comin down, shy of flyingheritage demonstrating that he has either permission from Mr. Wright or that he is Mr. Wright.
kevin
Legally, placing a photo on the web is considered "publishing." It gets the same legal protection as if you'd placed your photo in a book. I'm putting words into Mr. Wright's mouth here, but him placing his photo on the net for all to see, with the clear copyright notation on the photo, is essentially the same as placing his photo in a compilation book of photography for others to enjoy. Following your logic, those who put their photography in books, magazines, etc. "should expect" that others are going to like the photograph and are going to copy/share/publish it anywhere without your permission. Doing so is not only ethically wrong, it's illegal. It's one thing to link a photograph from Mr. Wright's page, or to post a link guiding people to his page. That gives folks the option of patronizing his site to enjoy the photo.
Just my two cents, but if I was a mod this photo would be a comin down, shy of flyingheritage demonstrating that he has either permission from Mr. Wright or that he is Mr. Wright.
kevin
Last edited by tulsaboy on Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:53 pm
Copyright has come up here before & again I'll point out that even if a pic or anything else doesn't have 'copyright so & so' on doesn't mean it's not copyrighted to the owner. By a pic or other publication's nature, it's copyrighted to the person who drew it or photographed it or wrote it. However, I agree with the opinion that if you have something & don't want it plastered all over the WWW without you permission, it's best that you block it. Whenever I post a pic or something of mine, as in copyrighted to me, whether it says so or not, I expect it to be used, without my permission. That's just the way it is when it's in the public domain unfotunately. Now, if someone besides the owner plasters it all over the WWW claiming it to be theirs when it's not, that's another story.
Hawkeye wrote:Not to cause trouble or anything but I'm curious. If they are not claiming that it is their photo, or using the photo for any sort of monetary/other gain, what is the problem? If you have chosen to put your work out there on the net you should expect that people might like the photo and want to show it other interested people, like here. I know if I had some photos online and someone thought they were good enough to show in other forums I would be flattered. Obviously if buddy was claiming it as his own work and/or selling it there would be an issue, but that doesnt seem to be the case here.