Rogue's Gallery Almost Got Me in Trouble

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

We had an incident a few days ago at my home airport with a couple in a Cessna 182 that never showed
up after a local flight. It still hasn't been determined whether the flight ran into difficulty or where they
went. The story was on the news last night and as we're watching the TV coverage, my wife says, "hey
that's our airplane". Sure enough, the TV story was using a picture of MY airplane. I recognized the
picture and knew it was on the Rogue's gallery website. The original story just showed the picture as an
example of a typical Cessna 182, and in fact the story reported the tail number of the actual subject
aircraft. But then in a later news story last night, the newscaster clearly referred to my picture as THE
aircraft involved in this incident.

I emailed the TV station and they pulled the picture off their website, but said "you might want to check
with the Phoenix police department. They issued a missing persons bulletin with this picture on it." Great,
now my airplane is a fugitive from justice! So, I called the police dept, and the detective got back to me
right away and said they had just done a search for a 182 similar to the description, but should have
obscured the tail number before publishing it. Well, they immediately updated their bulletin to obscure the
tail number, but as he told me, "there could be some of these posters already printed." Great - maybe I
won't go to Sedona tomorrow! I can just see some Barney Fife-type impounding my airplane, "We got a
bulletin says the Phoenix PD is looking for this airplane".

http://www.phoenix.gov/police/missing_william_homer_westover.pdf
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/rogue's_gallery_a-h.htm

It is a good picture if I do say so myself - good Arizona scenery, perfect for television! Jay, do you have
any copyright disclaimers on the website?

Mike

[[email protected]]

Word on the street is that Alexis Park Inn is to be the new place where
America's Most Wanted will be filmed and produced. I can see it now,
Come stay in the Jerry Springer" suite and watch reruns of real true
to life stories........... I am tellin ya that Jay has a way with
marketing for sure. <G>

Snickerin..
Ben
Mike Adams wrote:
> We had an incident a few days ago at my home airport with a couple in a Cessna 182 that never showed
> up after a local flight. It still hasn't been determined whether the flight ran into difficulty or where they
> went. The story was on the news last night and as we're watching the TV coverage, my wife says, "hey
> that's our airplane". Sure enough, the TV story was using a picture of MY airplane. I recognized the
> picture and knew it was on the Rogue's gallery website. The original story just showed the picture as an
> example of a typical Cessna 182, and in fact the story reported the tail number of the actual subject
> aircraft. But then in a later news story last night, the newscaster clearly referred to my picture as THE
> aircraft involved in this incident.
>
> I emailed the TV station and they pulled the picture off their website, but said "you might want to check
> with the Phoenix police department. They issued a missing persons bulletin with this picture on it." Great,
> now my airplane is a fugitive from justice! So, I called the police dept, and the detective got back to me
> right away and said they had just done a search for a 182 similar to the description, but should have
> obscured the tail number before publishing it. Well, they immediately updated their bulletin to obscure the
> tail number, but as he told me, "there could be some of these posters already printed." Great - maybe I
> won't go to Sedona tomorrow! I can just see some Barney Fife-type impounding my airplane, "We got a
> bulletin says the Phoenix PD is looking for this airplane".
>
> http://www.phoenix.gov/police/missing_william_homer_westover.pdf
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/rogue's_gallery_a-h.htm
>
> It is a good picture if I do say so myself - good Arizona scenery, perfect for television! Jay, do you have
> any copyright disclaimers on the website?
>
> Mike

[Jim Burns]

Sorry for your trouble Mike, but thanks for the laugh. This has to be one
of the best Rec.Aviation stories I've ever heard. :)

Jim

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
news:s4lTg.15970$nm1.10571@fed1read04...
> We had an incident a few days ago at my home airport with a couple in a
> Cessna 182 that never showed
> up after a local flight. It still hasn't been determined whether the
> flight ran into difficulty or where they
> went. The story was on the news last night and as we're watching the TV
> coverage, my wife says, "hey
> that's our airplane". Sure enough, the TV story was using a picture of MY
> airplane. I recognized the
> picture and knew it was on the Rogue's gallery website. The original story
> just showed the picture as an
> example of a typical Cessna 182, and in fact the story reported the tail
> number of the actual subject
> aircraft. But then in a later news story last night, the newscaster
> clearly referred to my picture as THE
> aircraft involved in this incident.
>
> I emailed the TV station and they pulled the picture off their website,
> but said "you might want to check
> with the Phoenix police department. They issued a missing persons bulletin
> with this picture on it." Great,
> now my airplane is a fugitive from justice! So, I called the police dept,
> and the detective got back to me
> right away and said they had just done a search for a 182 similar to the
> description, but should have
> obscured the tail number before publishing it. Well, they immediately
> updated their bulletin to obscure the
> tail number, but as he told me, "there could be some of these posters
> already printed." Great - maybe I
> won't go to Sedona tomorrow! I can just see some Barney Fife-type
> impounding my airplane, "We got a
> bulletin says the Phoenix PD is looking for this airplane".
>
> http://www.phoenix.gov/police/missing_william_homer_westover.pdf
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/rogue's_gallery_a-h.htm
>
> It is a good picture if I do say so myself - good Arizona scenery, perfect
> for television! Jay, do you have
> any copyright disclaimers on the website?
>
> Mike

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jim Burns" wrote)
>> http://www.phoenix.gov/police/missing_william_homer_westover.pdf
>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/rogue's_gallery_a-h.htm
>>
>> It is a good picture if I do say so myself - good Arizona scenery,
>> perfect for television! Jay, do you have any copyright disclaimers on the
>> website?


> Sorry for your trouble Mike, but thanks for the laugh. This has to be one
> of the best Rec.Aviation stories I've ever heard.


"...copyright disclaimers on the website?"

I nearly wet myself. <g>


Montblack
Hope it works out ok for the two in the "other" Cessna.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote:

> "...copyright disclaimers on the website?"
>
> I nearly wet myself. <g>

Yea, I realize that's a big stretch!

> Hope it works out ok for the two in the "other" Cessna.

Yes, I don't mean to trivialize the situation, which could still be very serious.

Mike

[Jay Honeck]

> Sure enough, the TV story was using a picture of MY airplane. I recognized the
> picture and knew it was on the Rogue's gallery website.

God almighty, Mike, that's the weirdest tale I've heard in a long time.


Sorry for the headache -- what *are* the odds of that happening? There
must be hundreds -- thousands? -- of pictures of Cessnas on the
internet!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Mike Adams > wrote:

> It is a good picture if I do say so myself - good Arizona scenery, perfect for television! Jay, do you have
> any copyright disclaimers on the website?

The story of the mix-up and the fact that the police and/or news research
crew using Jay's site for the picture were amusing. However, the
underlying incident is not.

Any word about the missing aircraft?

--
Peter

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"Peter R." > wrote:

> The story of the mix-up and the fact that the police and/or news
> research crew using Jay's site for the picture were amusing. However,
> the underlying incident is not.

I agree.

> Any word about the missing aircraft?

Nothing new. The CAP conducted searches a few days ago between here and Sedona, but nothing new
has been announced in the media. We've had good weather all week, so that's not a factor. But even
though the path between Phoenix and Sedona is well-travelled, there's still a lot of open country between
here and there.

Here's an earlier story: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/0929missing0929-CP.html

Mike

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:59:36 GMT, Mike Adams
> wrote in
<s4lTg.15970$nm1.10571@fed1read04>:

> The story was on the news last night and as we're watching
>the TV coverage, my wife says, "hey that's our airplane".
>Sure enough, the TV story was using a picture of MY airplane.
>I recognized the picture and knew it was on the Rogue's
>gallery website.


Is there a copyright notice on the page of the web site on which your
picture was published? If not, why not? If so, you may be eligible
for a little royalty (or tort compensation) income. :-)

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> Is there a copyright notice on the page of the web site on which your
> picture was published? If not, why not? If so, you may be eligible
> for a little royalty (or tort compensation) income. :-)

I recently learned (on usenet, so take with a grain of salt) that everything
now has an implied copyright.

When took a journalism class in 1982, the copyright laws were different.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:22:37 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> Is there a copyright notice on the page of the web site on which your
>> picture was published? If not, why not? If so, you may be eligible
>> for a little royalty (or tort compensation) income. :-)
>
>I recently learned (on usenet, so take with a grain of salt) that everything
>now has an implied copyright.
>
>When took a journalism class in 1982, the copyright laws were different.
>

Send the PD an invoice. :-)

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Send the PD an invoice. :-)

Right. I'll get right on that!

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steve Foley" > said:
>I recently learned (on usenet, so take with a grain of salt) that everything
>now has an implied copyright.
>
>When took a journalism class in 1982, the copyright laws were different.

I was surprised to find that while much of the rest of the world
recognized that all works were copyright on creation for some long time,
the US only implemented that change in 1988.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part2/

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Home pages are the pet rock of the 90s. They all have them, they all think
they're very cute. But in a few years they're going to look back and be
pretty embarrassed. -- Kim Alm

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>>I recently learned (on usenet, so take with a grain of salt) that everything
>>now has an implied copyright.
>
>Send the PD an invoice. :-)

They'll probably pay it right after AvWeb starts paying us for the picture
of one of our club planes that they use (without permission) for every
story they do about bird strikes.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:59:36 GMT, Mike Adams wrote:

>It is a good picture if I do say so myself - good Arizona scenery, perfect for television! Jay, do you have
>any copyright disclaimers on the website?

*HAHA* .. this was a good one. Jay and copyright ... *ROTFL*

>Mike

too bad for you what happended. You might want to redo all the pics you
have public accessible and wipe out the tail number ...

#m
--
Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm>

I Am Not A Terrorist <http://itsnotallbad.com/iamnotaterrorist/>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:58:09 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in >:

>In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>>>I recently learned (on usenet, so take with a grain of salt) that everything
>>>now has an implied copyright.
>>
>>Send the PD an invoice. :-)
>
>They'll probably pay it right after AvWeb starts paying us for the picture
>of one of our club planes that they use (without permission) for every
>story they do about bird strikes.

It's one thing for an aviation oriented publication to infringe on the
rights of a fellow airman. It's another thing entirely if the
infringement is perpetrated by those sworn to uphold the law. It's
presidential! :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Is there a copyright notice on the page of the web site on which your
> picture was published? If not, why not? If so, you may be eligible
> for a little royalty (or tort compensation) income. :-)

The copyright belongs to the photographer. If the image is used
commercially, the owner of the aircraft usually has to sign a release
(editorial use does not require this, in the U.S.).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:10:54 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>The copyright belongs to the photographer.

So the police don't own the copyright. They just infringe without
benefit of following the law.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> So the police don't own the copyright. They just infringe without
> benefit of following the law.

Correct.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bill Watson]

We had a weird if not really troublesome incident with our Rogue Gallery
pics too. A couple of weeks ago, some non-flying friends sent us a link
and said that a pic of ours was on a music group's fan forum. Ever
heard of Ween?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2D1131ED
Whoa! Where did that come from. We racked our brains and then it
finally occurred to us that we had posted this piece of cheesecake on
Jay "I don't need no stinking IFR" Honeck's site. We went back to our
friends to find out more. They went back to the poster of th pic and
the poster came back and said to just do a GIS for biplane. GIS?
That's Google Image Search for us stiffs. If you do, you get this:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K1A2241ED
All you have to do is go to google, select Google Images, and search on
'biplane'.

Well, we're honored but wierded out a bit.


Mike Adams wrote:
> We had an incident a few days ago at my home airport with a couple in a Cessna 182 that never showed
> up after a local flight. It still hasn't been determined whether the flight ran into difficulty or where they
> went. The story was on the news last night and as we're watching the TV coverage, my wife says, "hey
> that's our airplane". Sure enough, the TV story was using a picture of MY airplane. I recognized the
> picture and knew it was on the Rogue's gallery website. The original story just showed the picture as an
> example of a typical Cessna 182, and in fact the story reported the tail number of the actual subject
> aircraft. But then in a later news story last night, the newscaster clearly referred to my picture as THE
> aircraft involved in this incident.
>

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:59:36 GMT, Mike Adams wrote:
>
> >It is a good picture if I do say so myself - good Arizona scenery,
perfect for television! Jay, do you have
> >any copyright disclaimers on the website?
>
> *HAHA* .. this was a good one. Jay and copyright ... *ROTFL*
>

I'm gonna send Jay a fancy letter saying I'm from the AIAA (Aviation Image
Association of America), and if he wants to host any aviation images, he has
to send me $99 per year.

[Al[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Sure enough, the TV story was using a picture of MY airplane. I
>> recognized the
>> picture and knew it was on the Rogue's gallery website.
>
> God almighty, Mike, that's the weirdest tale I've heard in a long time.
>
>
> Sorry for the headache -- what *are* the odds of that happening? There
> must be hundreds -- thousands? -- of pictures of Cessnas on the
> internet!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Hey, wouldn't the Rogue's Gallery be a good place to start looking for,
well, you know, "THAT" kind of person?

Al G

[[email protected]]

Mike Adams wrote:

> Nothing new. The CAP conducted searches a few days ago between here and Sedona, but nothing new
> has been announced in the media. We've had good weather all week, so that's not a factor. But even
> though the path between Phoenix and Sedona is well-travelled, there's still a lot of open country between
> here and there.

CAP has been conducting searches every day since the aircraft was
reported missing. According to the news, there were 20 sorties last
Saturday, and 10 (I think) on Sunday. The search is continuing.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-30, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Sorry for the headache -- what *are* the odds of that happening? There
> must be hundreds -- thousands? -- of pictures of Cessnas on the
> internet!

Happened to me once - there was a news story about someone crashing a
Beech Musketeer, and CNN linked to my page on the Beech Musketeer. I
noticed when I was suddenly getting tens of thousands of hits on that
page and checked the referrer!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> CAP has been conducting searches every day since the aircraft was
> reported missing. According to the news, there were 20 sorties last
> Saturday, and 10 (I think) on Sunday. The search is continuing.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't a few good satellite photographs allow
a much wider area to be examined more quickly?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> CAP has been conducting searches every day since the aircraft was
>> reported missing. According to the news, there were 20 sorties last
>> Saturday, and 10 (I think) on Sunday. The search is continuing.
>
> Just out of curiosity, wouldn't a few good satellite photographs allow
> a much wider area to be examined more quickly?
>
> --

The fuel value of moving a spy satellite just 1 degree to cover a specific
area would pay for several 100 if not 1000s of CAP missions. Then you have
to have the NRO use the manpower to examine the images. Where the CAP pilots
are volunteers.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > CAP has been conducting searches every day since the aircraft was
> > reported missing. According to the news, there were 20 sorties last
> > Saturday, and 10 (I think) on Sunday. The search is continuing.
>
> Just out of curiosity, wouldn't a few good satellite photographs allow
> a much wider area to be examined more quickly?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


Spy satellites work well when you don't want someone to know you are
watching. ;<)

If there are survivors, they can signal a live, low-flying aircraft.
The search crew looks not only straight down, but sideways (Searches
can be parallel lines as close as necessary, though 1-mile spacings are
usual. So we can be looking about 1/2 mile sideways, more or less.)
It's surprising how aircraft tend to slide under trees, etc. and can't
be seen from straight up. Many times, we have to look for "clues",
such as ground damage, burn marks in trees, etc. Unfortunately, many
wrecks aren't recognizable--just scattered aluminum.

With multiple aircraft, we can cover quite a bit of territory
simultaneously. If an aircraft is found, we can circle or otherwise
communicate directly with ground teams to lead them to a site.

Speaking of ground teams, there are quite a few people working a search
who are not in the air. Mission base has people handling information,
planning, communications, logistics, dealing with families and other
officials, etc. Ground team members are also trained in their
functions. They are all volunteers.

A major advantage is that the crews work for free! Actually, we pay
for the privilege since we do spend money training, etc.

In addition, CAP members are qualified to assist in other types of
disasters, as part of the national Incident Command structure. We've
worked floods, hurricanes, whatever; this is either with air capability
or just as food-carrying ground pounders.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The fuel value of moving a spy satellite just 1 degree to cover a specific
> area would pay for several 100 if not 1000s of CAP missions.

I didn't say anything about moving a satellite, nor did I say anything
about spy satellites. There may have been satellites already covering
the area. Commercial satellites already have enough resolution to
spot wreckage.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Skylune[_2_]]

Mike Adams wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
> > The story of the mix-up and the fact that the police and/or news
> > research crew using Jay's site for the picture were amusing. However,
> > the underlying incident is not.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Any word about the missing aircraft?
>
> Nothing new. The CAP conducted searches a few days ago between here and Sedona, but nothing new
> has been announced in the media. We've had good weather all week, so that's not a factor. But even
> though the path between Phoenix and Sedona is well-travelled, there's still a lot of open country between
> here and there.
>
> Here's an earlier story: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/0929missing0929-CP.html
>
> Mike


Maybe its listed here:

http://members.aol.com/jkprodco/stolen-aircraft/stolen-list.htm

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"Skylune" > wrote:

> Maybe its listed here:
>
> http://members.aol.com/jkprodco/stolen-aircraft/stolen-list.htm
>

It's not and I don't see why it would be. It's the airplane owner that's missing. The airplane is just
incidental.

Mike

[Peter R.]

Mike Adams > wrote:

> It's not and I don't see why it would be. It's the airplane owner that's missing.
> The airplane is just incidental.

Ignore him. He is nothing more than a troll here.

--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The fuel value of moving a spy satellite just 1 degree to cover a
>> specific
>> area would pay for several 100 if not 1000s of CAP missions.
>
> I didn't say anything about moving a satellite, nor did I say anything
> about spy satellites. There may have been satellites already covering
> the area. Commercial satellites already have enough resolution to
> spot wreckage.
>

So you think those pictures on Google Earth are real time. Satellites both
commercial and government are in orbits that are designed to cover areas of
interest. To task a satellite to cover a specific area that isn't under its
flight path requires fuel to be used. The chances of any given place on any
given week being covered is low. The exception to this is places where the
government has special interest. I'm sure the Mid East is covered pretty
well about now.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> So you think those pictures on Google Earth are real time.

I didn't say anything about Google Earth, either.

You can save a lot of time by concentrating on what I actually write,
and skipping the speculation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:49:23 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net>
wrote:

> So you think those pictures on Google Earth are real time. Satellites both
> commercial and government are in orbits that are designed to cover areas of
> interest. To task a satellite to cover a specific area that isn't under its
> flight path requires fuel to be used. The chances of any given place on any
> given week being covered is low. The exception to this is places where the
> government has special interest. I'm sure the Mid East is covered pretty
> well about now.

Not quite. There are few low-earth orbits where a given satellite can't see the
entire Earth in a week. The major exceptions are those cases where the
satellite inclination (orbit tilt with respect to the equatorial plane) low; in
these cases, the satellite won't pass over higher latitudes at all.

In any case, satellites that take imagery in natural light are generally in a
sun-synchronous orbit. In this kind of orbit, the satellite's orbit plane stays
in a fixed relationship with the sun. In this way, the satellite passes
overhead at the same approximate ground time each day (and 12 hours later at
night, too). The satellite's photos then always have the sun at the same local
angle to optimize the images taken.

The other factor is the altitude of the spacecraft. The lower the orbit, the
closer the vehicle is to the target and the higher the photo resolution (too
low, of course, and you quickly use up your propellant just keeping the thing in
orbit). But by flying low, you lessen your Field Of Regard... the satellite
can't see as much of the surface at given moment. A given target may fall
right between two adjacent satellite passes, for instance. But unless the orbit
meets some pretty specific criteria, it should pass over that target area within
a couple of days.

A satellite CAN change its orbit to catch that target, but the propellant cost
is pretty fierce. It's traveling at ~18,000 MPH; changing the orbit may require
the expenditure of enough propellant to change the velocity by ANOTHER 2,000
MPH. It's a lot cheaper just to put up a second satellite with complimentary
coverage.

As to why the news media don't have fresh S/C pictures every time something
happens, the answer is "tasking." These satellites are pretty busy, and
resources (including onboard storage capacity) have to be carefully planned.

Ron Wanttaja