Seems to me that the copyright notice should have been sufficient. If
you borrow my car without my permission and return it undamaged and
with a full tank of fuel, it's still grand theft auto.

The images are the PROPERTY of the photographer, and, when protected by
copyright, cannot be used without his permission. Last year I needed
an image for a non-commercial poster. The late Neil Lawson supplied a
great one for a pittance, far less than what it cost him in time and
effort to provide. The terms were one-time use and it was reproduced
with the White Planes Picture Company copyright notice, thereby
crediting the artist and protecting his interests.

BTW, I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in the US, other than for
explicitly commercial purposes such as advertising, pictures taken in
the public commons don't require releases.

Ray Warshaw
1LK



Jack wrote:
wrote:

Jack wrote:

Perhaps Herr Zink should learn not to leave important things lying about.

I don't follow.

Ray,

If he wishes to guard his images so jealously, then he has much to learn
about how to post them on the web so that they cannot be useful to
anyone else.

Zink sounds like a great guy, alright. What is his point in harassing
people, in a case where he lost nothing and he stands to gain nothing? I
wonder if he has photo-releases from all the glider owners and pilots in
his published photos?

see: http://194.78.210.186:80/

Instead of working to increase his sales by cooperating, he has now cut
off numerous potential sales by his selfish and uncooperative attitude.


Jack