Rogue's Gallery Almost Got Me in Trouble

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. :-)

Larry Dighera wrote:

Send the PD an invoice. :-)

Right. I'll get right on that!

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

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

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/

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! :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.