CAPTURED AIRCRAFT - ODD PHOTOS

evangilder · 06-11-2007, 11:25 AM

Unless you are James Weir, why do you deserve credit for the image?

trackend · 06-11-2007, 11:59 AM

Do you have the copyright SHS ?

Single-Handed-Sailor · 06-11-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

From your collection? If its that important to you why are you posting it on the Internet?

I share my photo collection how I see fit, on the net and in print. The more folks who get to see this kind of thing, the better. That is what is most important to me, and that is why I choose to post some of my collection on the internet. Please do not misunderstand; I do not mind that people take images I have posted on the net and post them elsewhere, so long as credit is given. It's a very simple and plain matter of courtesy. If you find an image on the internet, or take it from another source, such as a book or magazine, and present it elsewhere, the least you can do is mention the source.

Unfortunately, in this day and age courtesy is a quality all too lacking, especially when it is so easy to grab an image from one place (in this case, a website) and put it someplace else. Perhaps it's just a case of oversight, something which we are all capable of. But that in itself is a form of discourtesy. I myself have posted images, forgetting to furnish a credit. I usually rectify it as soon as I realize what I've done, but I have in fact done it and can understand when it happens. A large number of people on forums are in a constant race to post the coolest stuff, and quite often do not think to post the source of said stuff. They simply say "look what I found!".

In this case, I happened to come across an apparent oversight and said something about it. Am I angry? No, but I am naturally disappointed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackend

Do you have the copyright SHS ?

The issue of copyright is not the issue of dispute in this instance. I do not own copyright to the photo because, 1) I am not James Weir and 2) I have not taken legal steps to acquire rights to the photo. I have, however, been given the green light to use the photo however I see fit. More on this below...

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Leonard

Was said James Weir's function during the occupation to take photos?

To be honest, I do not know much about the man. I have never met him and my only "contact" with him, if you want to call it that, was through the individual from whom I received the slide and who merely relayed Mr. Weir's wishes that any of his photos used for whatever purpose be credited to him. I do know that he was a member of the USAAF, but would have to say that he most likely was not an official AAF photographer. The overwhelming majority of official government photography from that period in time was done with black and white film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

Unless you are James Weir, why do you deserve credit for the image?

Do not mistake claim of copyright with a photo/image credit, as the majority of people do. As I've stated, I do not claim copyright to this photo. But I do claim credit for the image that is presented here in this thread, which was most probably taken from a page on my website.

A photo/image credit is like a family tree, and should include information as to the originating photographer as well as whoever else was instrumental in bringing a given photo or image to light for the masses to see.

In this instance, the originating photographer was James Weir. The slide from which the image in question originated is in my possession, and I am the individual who scanned said slide. I went through the trouble to clean up the resulting image and then post it on my website as well as on a few forums to share with others. (Some of which you yourself frequent, Eric, including WIX.) Wherever I have posted this image, mention has been made of the originating photographer as well as my own by-line, when appropriate.

The bottom line is the fact that the individual who posted the image here in this thread should have stated that he found it on a given website or forum, but did not. If he could not remember where it was found, this should have been stated. Again, it's a matter of courtesy. And again, I'm not angry about this, just a tad miffed. I merely wish to see that credit is given where it is due.

FLYBOYJ · 06-11-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Single-Handed-Sailor

The slide from which the image in question originated is in my possession, and I am the individual who scanned said slide. I went through the trouble to clean up the resulting image and then post it on my website.

OK - and website might that be?

FLYBOYJ · 06-11-2007, 04:30 PM

Forget it Blackwolf, in your little pathetic rant you gave yourself away.

Wildcat · 06-11-2007, 11:15 PM

I apologize, I don't even know where I got that pic from. Mods please feel free to remove it, no offence was meant.

FLYBOYJ · 06-12-2007, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I apologize, I don't even know where I got that pic from. Mods please feel free to remove it, no offence was meant.

That won't be necessary Wildcat. This guy came in here acting so high and mighty and made the mistake of posting his website revealing his true identity, reminded me of a Batman TV show bumbling villain. Anyway as far as I'm concerned you're ok...

trackend · 06-12-2007, 08:32 AM

Bloody hell that was a long post just to say you are a tad miffed.

Wildcat · 06-12-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

That won't be necessary Wildcat. This guy came in here acting so high and mighty and made the mistake of posting his website revealing his true identity, reminded me of a Batman TV show bumbling villain. Anyway as far as I'm concerned you're ok...

Ok Joe, I didn't want to cause anymore trouble thats all.

Hornet_Driver · 06-13-2007, 04:34 AM

Wow... fighting over photographs.

Anyway, I jut wanted to add that some of the German aircraft made their way over to NAS Pax River, MD at the end of the war. In particular, the 262. I do not know what the US Navy wanted with them. Maybe they used them for studies, since that's where a lot of testing and flight evaluations still occur for US Navy/Marine Corps. I do know that in the 1950s, someone/some code within the beltway put out the order to scrap the aircraft. I don't know why, but the aircraft were buried on NAS Pax River. Soooooooo... I'm hoping someone else has some info to add to this.

R Leonard · 06-13-2007, 07:17 AM

Buried at Patuxent?

No, not quite. The 262 they had TacTest was wrecked in a take off accident, the pilot was Bert Earnest of VT-8 fame. Lost power on take off and augered into some trees at the end of the strip, wings and engines ripped off, a total loss. They also had an Ar234 which eventually made its way to the Smithsonian (Garber was, remember, a Naval Reserve officer). Somehow, actually, not somehow, my father was assistant director of flight test at TacTest while all this was going on, I ended up with a copy of the Ar234 manual.

The plain fact was that the 262 was deemed too mangled to repair and was scrapped. These were times where new aircraft and new concepts were rolling out on a fairly regular basis. The technology embodied in the Me262 was already outdated. This was also a time of diminishing budgets, read: there was just so much money to perform so many tasks. This was largely drove the decision not to attempt to repair the 262. It was out of date and there were other fish to fry.

Sad, but true, and that is the way of the world.

Rich

FLYBOYJ · 06-13-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet_Driver

Wow... fighting over photographs.

Amazing, isn't it?

Hornet_Driver · 06-13-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Leonard

Buried at Patuxent?

No, not quite. The 262 they had TacTest was wrecked in a take off accident, the pilot was Bert Earnest of VT-8 fame. Lost power on take off and augered into some trees at the end of the strip, wings and engines ripped off, a total loss. They also had an Ar234 which eventually made its way to the Smithsonian (Garber was, remember, a Naval Reserve officer). Somehow, actually, not somehow, my father was assistant director of flight test at TacTest while all this was going on, I ended up with a copy of the Ar234 manual.

The plain fact was that the 262 was deemed too mangled to repair and was scrapped. These were times where new aircraft and new concepts were rolling out on a fairly regular basis. The technology embodied in the Me262 was already outdated. This was also a time of diminishing budgets, read: there was just so much money to perform so many tasks. This was largely drove the decision not to attempt to repair the 262. It was out of date and there were other fish to fry.

Sad, but true, and that is the way of the world.

Rich

Thanks for the 411 on that. Yeah, I can imagine postwar USA and all the aircraft that were coming into being. During the 1950s, it seemed like Naval Aviation was jumping around so many type/model/series. Looking at some of the publications and books on 1950s Naval Aviation, it seemed like squadrons were in one T/M/S for a few years and then jumping into another. I don't know about you, but it took me 3 years from Pre-Indoc before I hit the fleet, and I can just imagine that Navy/Marine pilots during the 1950s must have been pretty versatile.

Hornet_Driver · 06-13-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Amazing, isn't it?

Yeah... it is. Kinda like winning the race in the Special Olympics... You know what they say, right?

FLYBOYJ · 06-13-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet_Driver

Yeah... it is. Kinda like winning the race in the Special Olympics... You know what they say, right?

YEP!!!