?????
Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:44 pm
We are not selling the images, we are selling access to our copies of the images
David, I'm mean holy cow!! Is this double talk or what.
That said, whenever we have a photographer ask for us to stop using their photographs we always comply. Many of these men have passed away along with their widows, but we always want to credit properly and comply with their wishes we much as we know them.
Please do not display, use, sell, share my slides in any way shape or form.
I would like the copies either destroyed or returned to me.
I think the whole enterprise is just wrong.
Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:46 pm
David
I am appalled by your 'explanations' and feel ashamed on how you place your personal financial interests (you call it enterprise) before any respect to veterans !
That's classy ! Because you know exactly that a bigger number of the original photographers no longer are among us, you prefer to err on the side of the deceased to justify your greedy attitude.
And don't lecture me on copyright issues - I am too old for this poo poo.
How convenient, eh ? - There sure are historians, authors, etc. who have the money to pay for some photographs to finish a project. Why not. Sometimes it sure is easier to spend a wad of greenbacks in acquisition of a photograph offered by 'your enterprise' instead of travelling hundreds or thousands of miles to the respective archives to retrieve a copy of that particular photograph. But we are only talking about those photographs held in official archives accessible to the public.
BTW: There are other 'enterprises' who also sell copies of official photographs through various channels - you have strong contenders there.
I am talking about those other photographs now, those from private sources:
I just wish Jeff would be able to contradict you right here and now ! From my correspondence with Jeff, I have a totally different picture of that man, for whom I have great respect.
I can only second Jack's comment - that's double talk and also sounds rather arrogant. Who the heck you think you're talking to - some first grade students or what ? Think again !
You had a dad who had the foresight to collect as many photographs as possible during a time where the original photographers were still around. Jeff collected the photographs in order to preserve them and make them available to the interested public in form of various projects like books, articles, etc.
These photographs were tools in his trade - tools to work with, to build something, to illustrate history, to tell a story.
Jeff had the knowledge - he knew the people behind these photographs, he knew the sacrifices connected to these photos, he knew the stories of lost friends, of frostbitten crewmembers crippled for life, of homesickness, of broken relationships - and also the stories of heroism, of sense of duty, of doing a job during war and peace.
I have know Jeff as a man of honour, full of honour of all those that have lent him photographs and have told him those related stories. He was some sort of a speaker for them - he brought their stories to public knowledge by publishing books, which luckily also created some income for himself and his family over time.
And you only want to have a 'viable enterprise'. - I don't buy your smokescreen of "make the collection accessible" - That is not preserving Jeff's spirit, definitely not !
I am angry, very angry - with you !
Martin Kyburz / Swiss Mustangs
I am appalled by your 'explanations' and feel ashamed on how you place your personal financial interests (you call it enterprise) before any respect to veterans !
dethell wrote:Certainly there will always be potential issues with the images in the collection and that's why we always want to err on the side of the photographer.
That's classy ! Because you know exactly that a bigger number of the original photographers no longer are among us, you prefer to err on the side of the deceased to justify your greedy attitude.
And don't lecture me on copyright issues - I am too old for this poo poo.
dethell wrote:As for other authors using them, we do have many authors using them who pay the fees. I know my father was very generous in allowing others to use pictures as well, but that he also had intention to use the collection as his income generator for the remainder of his life so he balanced the idea of preserving the history with also making a living from using that history effectively.
How convenient, eh ? - There sure are historians, authors, etc. who have the money to pay for some photographs to finish a project. Why not. Sometimes it sure is easier to spend a wad of greenbacks in acquisition of a photograph offered by 'your enterprise' instead of travelling hundreds or thousands of miles to the respective archives to retrieve a copy of that particular photograph. But we are only talking about those photographs held in official archives accessible to the public.
BTW: There are other 'enterprises' who also sell copies of official photographs through various channels - you have strong contenders there.
I am talking about those other photographs now, those from private sources:
dethell wrote:In our position, we want to preserve that spirit, but we are not a non-profit museum and are using the collection to generate revenue. We work as well as we can with various authors to make the collection accessible while still having it stay a viable enterprise for us.
I just wish Jeff would be able to contradict you right here and now ! From my correspondence with Jeff, I have a totally different picture of that man, for whom I have great respect.
dethell wrote:We are not selling the images, we are selling access to our copies of the images to save others the time it would take for them to find and duplicate them. That's not meant to be a small symantical difference, but is a crucial idea. We are charging for the time and effort to keep the photos maintained and organized.
I can only second Jack's comment - that's double talk and also sounds rather arrogant. Who the heck you think you're talking to - some first grade students or what ? Think again !
You had a dad who had the foresight to collect as many photographs as possible during a time where the original photographers were still around. Jeff collected the photographs in order to preserve them and make them available to the interested public in form of various projects like books, articles, etc.
These photographs were tools in his trade - tools to work with, to build something, to illustrate history, to tell a story.
Jeff had the knowledge - he knew the people behind these photographs, he knew the sacrifices connected to these photos, he knew the stories of lost friends, of frostbitten crewmembers crippled for life, of homesickness, of broken relationships - and also the stories of heroism, of sense of duty, of doing a job during war and peace.
I have know Jeff as a man of honour, full of honour of all those that have lent him photographs and have told him those related stories. He was some sort of a speaker for them - he brought their stories to public knowledge by publishing books, which luckily also created some income for himself and his family over time.
And you only want to have a 'viable enterprise'. - I don't buy your smokescreen of "make the collection accessible" - That is not preserving Jeff's spirit, definitely not !
I am angry, very angry - with you !
Martin Kyburz / Swiss Mustangs
Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:50 pm
Everyone calm down. If this post gets anymore antagonistic then I will be forced to remove the thread, something I do not want to have to do. I know some of you are passionate about this but be civil.
I will be watching.
I will be watching.
Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:46 pm
Scott is making a very good point here.
Issues of copyright have been very well discussed here. However now the discussion is crossing a line. Perhaps it could be resumed via email between those directly involved.
Just my suggestion.
Mike
Issues of copyright have been very well discussed here. However now the discussion is crossing a line. Perhaps it could be resumed via email between those directly involved.
Just my suggestion.
Mike
Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:48 pm
mrhenniger wrote:Perhaps it could be resumed via email between those directly involved.
Just my suggestion.
Second the suggestion...
Ryan
Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:31 am
Martin and Jack and anyone else offended,
I am sorry the discussion has degenerated to this point and that what I'm saying appears to be doublespeak, dishonorable, whatever else it may seem. I agree that the best course from here is to have direct communication, offline from this forum.
Regardless of what you may think you know about my father, I know my father better than probably anyone else alive in the world except my mother. I know what his intentions were for the collection and I know his belief that it could be a profitable enterprise while also preserving history. I also know he balanced the idea of making a living while also honoring the veterans better than I ever will. He was a tremendous man.
Jack, as you request we will no longer use any of your photos and the same goes for anyone else who desires us not to use their pictures anymore. I almost wish I had never answered in the first place on this forum, but I had hoped it would help clear up some issues regarding what we're trying to do. Alas, that is not the case.
Out of respect for the members of this forum let's please have any further discussion via email or telephone directly.
Sincerely,
David Ethell
I am sorry the discussion has degenerated to this point and that what I'm saying appears to be doublespeak, dishonorable, whatever else it may seem. I agree that the best course from here is to have direct communication, offline from this forum.
Regardless of what you may think you know about my father, I know my father better than probably anyone else alive in the world except my mother. I know what his intentions were for the collection and I know his belief that it could be a profitable enterprise while also preserving history. I also know he balanced the idea of making a living while also honoring the veterans better than I ever will. He was a tremendous man.
Jack, as you request we will no longer use any of your photos and the same goes for anyone else who desires us not to use their pictures anymore. I almost wish I had never answered in the first place on this forum, but I had hoped it would help clear up some issues regarding what we're trying to do. Alas, that is not the case.
Out of respect for the members of this forum let's please have any further discussion via email or telephone directly.
Sincerely,
David Ethell
Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:04 am
Rob... TAKE IT OFF LINE! "End of discussion"!
Mike
Mike
Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:26 am
I have offered Mr. David Ethell (through PM) to continue this topic in private.
Anyone who has inputs / insights / questions shall contact me privately, too.
This is an important issue and shall be treated as such.
Scott - I respect your words of warning.
Willco, Over and Out.
Martin
Anyone who has inputs / insights / questions shall contact me privately, too.
This is an important issue and shall be treated as such.
Scott - I respect your words of warning.
Willco, Over and Out.
Martin
Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:40 am
To all, Martin, Jack and I have moved this to private discussions now so please contact me through PM if you have further questions.
Thanks,
David Ethell
Thanks,
David Ethell
Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:21 pm
On the subject of Jeff Ethell's estate photos there are two sides of the coin from what I remeber about copyright law versus common courtesy.
I loaned (with no expectation of protection) quite a few photos in my personal collection which included many shots from my father's plus a host of 355FG crew chiefs and pilots and other officers.
As I understand the law, Cal Sloan and others who took so many of the fabulous phots would have had rights to copyright his color shots (many of which are on the ww2 website) but the Ethell Estate has no proprietary right in the context they could seek legal remedy for the use of a Sloan photo extracted from their website.
Ditto for all the photos from my collection that I have freely given to Martin and Peter Randall and 2AD and 8th AF Historical Society, etc, etc. They can and have posted them in various public formats.
Soon after I publish my revised Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons I will donate the image library I have (which has as part of the image name the source from which I received the photo - i.e Randall, Morris, Ethell, etc) as well as the electronic files of the history etc - for public consumption for future historians - the USAF Historical Research Div at Maxwell AFB will be a primary beneficiary - but I keep Martin and Peter Randall and Ted Damick supplied with my updates periodically so they will always be 'at or ahead' of the pack.
I am ETHICALLY obligated to give Martin and Peter Randall and Jeff Ethell(Estate) credit for the photos that they in turn received into their collection if I chose to use such photos that came to them via another source (i.e unlike Sloan, neither I nor Martin, nor Jack, nor Peter actually took the photos and obtained copyright protection!).
Also I would not publish such photos w/o specific permission from the author of the site from which I collected them even if they came via another path.
I have asked Scott for example that the photos I gave to him (not loaned') for this site merely recognize my contribution - which he does well. But I would have no LEGAL recourse because I simply a.) did not take the original photo, nor b.) did I seek Copyright protection.
Does anyone (Jack, Martin, Scott) have a different perspective?
Scott does this email cross the line from your perspective - if so, I would like other feedback to my points and questions as I too am an author 'with a collection' and certainly have a view opposite from the Ethell Estate (this is not a slam at you David. I grew up with your father in Japan and kept in touch over the years. Your Grandfather Erv was a Squadron CO when my father had the 35th FBW in Japan)
Regards,
Bill Marshall
I loaned (with no expectation of protection) quite a few photos in my personal collection which included many shots from my father's plus a host of 355FG crew chiefs and pilots and other officers.
As I understand the law, Cal Sloan and others who took so many of the fabulous phots would have had rights to copyright his color shots (many of which are on the ww2 website) but the Ethell Estate has no proprietary right in the context they could seek legal remedy for the use of a Sloan photo extracted from their website.
Ditto for all the photos from my collection that I have freely given to Martin and Peter Randall and 2AD and 8th AF Historical Society, etc, etc. They can and have posted them in various public formats.
Soon after I publish my revised Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons I will donate the image library I have (which has as part of the image name the source from which I received the photo - i.e Randall, Morris, Ethell, etc) as well as the electronic files of the history etc - for public consumption for future historians - the USAF Historical Research Div at Maxwell AFB will be a primary beneficiary - but I keep Martin and Peter Randall and Ted Damick supplied with my updates periodically so they will always be 'at or ahead' of the pack.
I am ETHICALLY obligated to give Martin and Peter Randall and Jeff Ethell(Estate) credit for the photos that they in turn received into their collection if I chose to use such photos that came to them via another source (i.e unlike Sloan, neither I nor Martin, nor Jack, nor Peter actually took the photos and obtained copyright protection!).
Also I would not publish such photos w/o specific permission from the author of the site from which I collected them even if they came via another path.
I have asked Scott for example that the photos I gave to him (not loaned') for this site merely recognize my contribution - which he does well. But I would have no LEGAL recourse because I simply a.) did not take the original photo, nor b.) did I seek Copyright protection.
Does anyone (Jack, Martin, Scott) have a different perspective?
Scott does this email cross the line from your perspective - if so, I would like other feedback to my points and questions as I too am an author 'with a collection' and certainly have a view opposite from the Ethell Estate (this is not a slam at you David. I grew up with your father in Japan and kept in touch over the years. Your Grandfather Erv was a Squadron CO when my father had the 35th FBW in Japan)
Regards,
Bill Marshall
???
Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:23 pm
Hi Bill,
I'll answer quick before everyone has a meltdown after seeing this thread again. I think Martin would agree with me here that the issue was and is money. Not the activities of you, me, Martin, Peter ect ect. David states that they don't hold the copywrites to the images but still sells them for up to $1000 per image. Do the purchasers of these images understand their liability by publishing these images???
The one and only motivation here is money. I'm going to share with all a email from Orid Need (Bette Ethell's husband) talking franking about the collection and why the images are for sale. Please note at the end were he invites its distribution.
From: Ovid Need <tbe@biblicalexaminer.org>
To: xxxxxxxx
Cc: David Ethell <david@ethell.com>
Subject: Ethell Collection sale
Sent: xxxx, xxxxx, 2005 xxxx PM
Dear xxxxxxx
Let me explain about the sale of the collection to Seattle:
Bettie and I asked all the children if they wanted the collection, and none said they did.
I had also asked David Ethell some time ago if he would like to work with the collection, and he said his job at the time would not permit his investment in the needed time. Jay Miller, representing David Kennedy of the Seattle Air Museum, contacted us about its purchase. The offer was much below the appraised value. Since the children did not want it, we agreed by e mail to the offer.
After we agreed with Mr. Kennedy, the company in which David was part owner decided to disban, and he was left with no job. He had enough set aside to see him through for a period of time, so he said he would like to work with the collection. The appraiser, Allen Stypek, had said it could produce a good income if properly worked. He also said that the Seattle Air Museum would surely work with the collection, because there is too much here to let set idle.
When David said he wanted to work with me with the collection, I told Mr. Kennedy that the family decided to keep the collection and see if we could make a income producing project of it. (Jeff had worked to collect it for his retirement. He enjoyed working with the images, and I knew next to nothing and only a little more now. David is more familiar with them, as he worked some with his dad with the images.)
I told you on the phone that the offered price was insufficient from Seattle. However, we had agreed by e mail to the price, and we would have followed it with the written contract, had not David said he wanted to work with the collection.
The above may be freely shared as needed. I am surprised that having only spoken to three people of the sale, Allen Stypek, Jay Miller and David Kennedy, that there is such a wide public misconception of the situation.
...xxxxxx...
Thanks for your time.
Ovid
ww2color.com
I'll answer quick before everyone has a meltdown after seeing this thread again. I think Martin would agree with me here that the issue was and is money. Not the activities of you, me, Martin, Peter ect ect. David states that they don't hold the copywrites to the images but still sells them for up to $1000 per image. Do the purchasers of these images understand their liability by publishing these images???
The one and only motivation here is money. I'm going to share with all a email from Orid Need (Bette Ethell's husband) talking franking about the collection and why the images are for sale. Please note at the end were he invites its distribution.
From: Ovid Need <tbe@biblicalexaminer.org>
To: xxxxxxxx
Cc: David Ethell <david@ethell.com>
Subject: Ethell Collection sale
Sent: xxxx, xxxxx, 2005 xxxx PM
Dear xxxxxxx
Let me explain about the sale of the collection to Seattle:
Bettie and I asked all the children if they wanted the collection, and none said they did.
I had also asked David Ethell some time ago if he would like to work with the collection, and he said his job at the time would not permit his investment in the needed time. Jay Miller, representing David Kennedy of the Seattle Air Museum, contacted us about its purchase. The offer was much below the appraised value. Since the children did not want it, we agreed by e mail to the offer.
After we agreed with Mr. Kennedy, the company in which David was part owner decided to disban, and he was left with no job. He had enough set aside to see him through for a period of time, so he said he would like to work with the collection. The appraiser, Allen Stypek, had said it could produce a good income if properly worked. He also said that the Seattle Air Museum would surely work with the collection, because there is too much here to let set idle.
When David said he wanted to work with me with the collection, I told Mr. Kennedy that the family decided to keep the collection and see if we could make a income producing project of it. (Jeff had worked to collect it for his retirement. He enjoyed working with the images, and I knew next to nothing and only a little more now. David is more familiar with them, as he worked some with his dad with the images.)
I told you on the phone that the offered price was insufficient from Seattle. However, we had agreed by e mail to the price, and we would have followed it with the written contract, had not David said he wanted to work with the collection.
The above may be freely shared as needed. I am surprised that having only spoken to three people of the sale, Allen Stypek, Jay Miller and David Kennedy, that there is such a wide public misconception of the situation.
...xxxxxx...
Thanks for your time.
Ovid
ww2color.com
Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:45 pm
..
Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:25 pm
I am not going to get into this. I just have a question...do I understand correctly that this website is taking photos from other websites and posts and adding them to their website without permission? Thats not good...... 
Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:37 pm
Nathan wrote:I am not going to get into this. I just have a question...do I understand correctly that this website is taking photos from other websites and posts and adding them to their website without permission? Thats not good......
No, the issue is that they have access to the collection of the late Jeff Ethell, many of the photos there were supplied to Jeff by veterans and historians for specific projects and the copyright still resides with the original photographer. They are selling copies of these photos as a commercial enterprise, even though they do not hold the copyright on many of the images nor permission from the source of the images.
Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:50 pm
Thank you very much Mike.
Doesn't seem fare to the original owners.
What if someone payed for a photo to be put in a book. Would the copywrite still be with the first owner?
Doesn't seem fare to the original owners.
What if someone payed for a photo to be put in a book. Would the copywrite still be with the first owner?