Hi Everyone,
I'm sure you've all seen the awesome photos uploaded by Gerrit Kok with "Gerrit Kok Collection" in the copyright bar. Gerrit contacted me a couple months ago about uploading some 2000 photos from the 70's and 80's which he had bought over the years. After seeing some samples and realizing how rare they were, I agreed to allow it since 1) The photographer sold the original slide to him, 2) in some cases the original photographer could not be determined as the slide had changed hands a few times over the years, and 3) the photos were simply shared with other enthusiasts and no money was being made off of them. I'm not sure I made the right decision, but as you can see from the Top of 24 Hours slot for the past week or so, they are very popular.

This brings up a lot of questions and has made a few photographers very nervous about allowing others to upload photos that they did not take themselves. Until this, our rules had strictly been to only allow photos taken by the person doing the uploading. I understand this can lead to very dangerous situations, especially if the photographer is still around and doesn't want to allow his photos being displayed here. Of course, we will not allow stolen photos taken from other sites to be uploaded here and simply marked as "Collection of", but should we make exceptions in cases where someone genuinely has bought original slides over the past few decades and wants to share it with the rest of us? So, I would like to ask you guys, the community, how you feel about cases like this? I know there are many gray areas, and this can lead to other people starting to upload their own "collections". So, what should we do? After some discussion and suggestions, I will give you my proposal.

I really enjoyed looking at Gerrit Kok's 'collection' and it would be great if we could have more photos added like those. I suspect that many of the slide sellers of the last century have moved on and if they sold their work without even their name on the slide then they might not have been that worried about copyright even back then. But then again copyright is copyright!

Trouble with 'stick to the rules' is that it deprives us of the chance to view many rare or unusual photos. For example, a few years ago I purchased a few photo scrap albums at a car boot sale, the photos dated back to the early 80's and included many from the 1983 IAT at Greenham Common. One album included a business card for the photographer and I traced him back, I am pretty sure he is deceased and I guess his widow had got rid of his 'junk'! Under the present rules I cannot publish any of these photos even though I have a name I can give credit to. And I have heard of several rare photo collections junked by relatives of deceased photographers.

A couple of years back I asked Ray if I could publish some of my late father's photos dating back to 1946 and I was told that I could if I set up a photographer's account in his name. Now setting up an account in a deceased person's name is not acceptable to me or my family however a 'collection' under my account would be fine as I effectively have adopted his copyright.

I think the solution might be for Airfighters to have a clear and visible policy regards 'collections', something on the lines of "if this photo is yours we will remove it immediately"; that contributors have to state in their photo comments where the photo has come from, also this will be declared when a photo is submitted to the Screeners and ultimately the Airfighters management team will make a decision in each case.

This is a very difficult area, I personally respect photo copyright, but at the same time I am conscious that with time many photos of historic value will become lost to us. This database would be a good place to preserve them.

Michael

Quote

---

ironfan :
So why not have a special feature such as an article for people who want to upload shots "from the collection of ..."? As an example Michael could send in a bunch of shots for an article entitled "1983 IAT at Greenham Common by ...", I don't even think words are necessary. That way we get to see the shots but they are not part of the database.

Just a thought.

---

Now that is a very good idea. The responsibility/risk then remains with the uploader which is where it should be. I would be very happy to post both the collections I have under that format. The facility to do this already exists here too.

Michael

Running a database like this, I think the rules should be respected and not freely interpreted. When it says: "you need to be the copyright holder, then that is what it is". And although in personal collections there might be very interesting images around, they don't belong in a database where one has to be the copyright holder. Should they then never make it to the internet? Of course not, I'd suggest that the ones who have photographs like that, create their proper website (Flickr and others) and make 'em available there. Afterall, a database like AirFighters isn't by no means a personal repository of images. To me, it's a contribution to a quality database where certain rules are set and to be followed.
I have quite a few images that didn't make it here or wouldn't make it here, for the simple reason they don't fit the criteria. For all those - where I do overprocessing, etc. or which I just like - I have my flickr account. Unless the collection owner can show evidence he holds the copyright, then there is of course no problem.
Afterall, regardless if you got 50 or 2000 images accepted, the rules should be the same for everyone.

Just my 2 friendly cents.