# Mr Refit Enterprise References



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

*My Refit Enterprise References*

Uploaded 500+ Refit photos to:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/Refit Enterprise/

All of them came off the web over the last 15 years, so these may be nothing new. But for a limited time, they're all in one place. Took two hours with high speed to upload. It appears I've uploaded some videos as well? No idea what they are. Tried to weed out duplicates but I missed a few.


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

Nice seeing all that Reference material in one spot :thumbsup:


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Thanks for the file.


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

I can see you have taken photos from my site and reposted without permission. Do you realize this is stealing? 

Steve


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> I can see you have taken photos from my site and reposted without permission. Do you realize this is stealing?
> 
> Steve


Are they your photos that you took? He never claimed them as his own, he claimed them as a compilation of pictures from the net. He probably should/could have said where he got some of them... I agree.

EDIT: I did see some which were from your website... which also have the information that it is from your website on them... Is that what your beef is?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry! I sorted through them as soon as I saw your message and deleted any marked Cultman. Then I saw some copywritten by Mark Dickson and deleted those, too. Then I saw a couple that I had scanned from from magazines and books and posted here and thought that those should go, too. Then I thought.... 
Actually, none of those photos are mine and re-posting them to photobucket (which is a Really public place, much more so than a small modelling forum) really is an infringement on someone's rights somewhere, so I've deleted both reference photos albums. 
But that's got me thinking first about the nature of Photobucket. It is a public place (as are to a much smaller degree but still public nonetheless, modelling forums). And that got me thinking: I've posted my drawings of the Seaview, Excelsior, Jupiter 2, etc, there. All those designs are copyright. Posting drawings, graphics, renderings of things created and owned by Fox and Paramount without their permission is very likely infringement (stealing, as you say), too. And it's not like no one is looking. I've got something like 12,000 visits since I started putting my stuff there instead of juggling attachment space to post them (illegally?) here. 
I'm just going to nuke the whole photobucket thing until I can think this through a little better. And I'm not being reactionary by doing so. This is of real concern to me, something I've always been a little sensitive and concerned about.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

starseeker said:


> Sorry! I sorted through them as soon as I saw your message and deleted any marked Cultman. Then I saw some copywritten by Mark Dickson and deleted those, too. Then I saw a couple that I had scanned from from magazines and books and posted here and thought that those should go, too. Then I thought....
> Actually, none of those photos are mine and posting them to photobucket (which is a Really public place, much more so than a small modelling forum) really is an infringement on someone's rights somewhere, so I've deleted both reference photos albums.
> But that's got me thinking about the nature of Photobucket. It is a public place (as are to a much smaller degreee but still public nonetheless, modelling forums). I've posted my drawings of the Seaview, Excelsior, Jupiter 2, etc, there. All those designs are copyright. Posting drawings, graphics, renderings of things created and owned by Fox and Paramount without their permission is very likely infringement (stealing, if you'd rather), too. And it's not like no one is looking. I've got something like 12,000 visits since I started putting my stuff there instead of juggling attachment space to post them (illegally?) here.
> I'm just going to nuke the whole photobucket thing until I can think this through a little better. And I'm not being reactionary by doing so. This is of real concern to me, something I've always been a little sensitive and concerned about.



Honestly... I wouldn't worry about it. In the same vein, anyone who posted pictures of the actual refit model (like Cloudster, SSM) is guilty of "copyright infringment". They don't own the model, or the pictures (unless they physically took the pictures of the model themselves). 

You are not claiming them as your own photos, but rather as a collection of all the reference photos you collected from the internet. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't sound to me like it would be a real issue of copyright.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

As a writer (commercial, not artistic) (and certainly not a great typer, as you can tell from the title of this thread), this is an area I'm very sensitive about. Eg, Cultman's photos were posted in a "public" place. Is posting photos like he's written a letter? Is downloading them like receiving a letter? If it is, then that letter, no matter how many copyright symbols pasted all over the pages, becomes my property, and I can reproduce it and share it at will with whoever I like. Or is it like an I-tune without electronic protection, but still "owned" by Apple? My guess is that it's the former, that if you put something on the web, baby, it becomes public property. 
But we're a small community here. Our very survival (let alone usefulness to ourselves) depends not on Law but upon nothing so much as courtesy. 
I've probably deleted my Photobucket albums too quickly but I really want to re-think about what I put into a very public area. Not that Very public (Photobucket) is any different than very small (Hobbytalk or Cultman). But the absolute last thing I want to do is upset anybody. 
And as for my own drawings of corporate properties, I need to think about them, too. I've never laid claim or exclusivity to any of them (and certainly not copyright) because they're not my designs. I'm just trying to re-create plans for modelling the sets or ships that other people have built. But even then that is no different than producing models or model parts or decals from those corporate designs without permission from the corporate owners, even if they are not for profit.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

starseeker said:


> Uploaded 500+ Refit photos to:
> ...But for a limited time, they're all in one place.


You weren't kidding. Unless Cult personally shot those photos himself, they weren't his either. Dickson's though are his. The rest, who can say not knowing what they were...

This utterly sucks. For dozens to hundreds of people to try and hunt down all these references across the net is near impossible and a massive waste of time and duplication of effort. When one person finally takes the time, effort and patience to be as thorough as Star likely was, only to get petty recriminations instead of being hailed as a hero is bogus. 

There is also little point in compiling links to any and all sites for reference, as any (supposed) copyright owner can at any moment for any petty reason remove the photos, and so is also a waste of time.

For Star to have copied all those photos, put them on a disc for sale or posted them at a website charging admission, that is stealing! To post them in one central location for all to use as a library is a service to the community. 

But then again, there are still those even today who would call Robin Hood a criminal.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

Model Man said:


> You weren't kidding. Unless Cult personally shot those photos himself, they weren't his either. Dickson's though are his. The rest, who can say not knowing what they were...
> 
> This utterly sucks. For dozens to hundreds of people to try and hunt down all these references across the net is near impossible and a massive waste of time and duplication of effort. When one person finally takes the time, effort and patience to be as thorough as Star likely was, only to get petty recriminations instead of being hailed as a hero is bogus.
> 
> ...


^^ this. 100%.

I looked at the photos posted while they were up and many of them I had never seen before... lots and lots of great reference material. But no.. someone had to get their knickers in a twist.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

No, Cultman's correct. It IS stealing. I spent some time on the 'Net checking it out. It is not lawful to reproduce any image you find on online. Therefore, unless we actually took the reference photo ourselves, or unless we have permission from the owner, we are breaking the law whenever we post a reference photo we we didn't take ourselves. Or a screen capture. Or anything of the sort. 
As to my own drawings, I think I'm going to have to copy a selection onto disks and mail them to the legal owners at Fox and Paramount and see if they have any problems with me posting this stuff. I'll also ask them some questions I have about making some extremely short run aftermarket bits and hull shapes. I know Cultman and JT and Paragraphix have all had to be very careful with licensing so using their examples, I think I better look into this, too, before C&Ds fly. 
Getting proper answers; I'll feel much better when I know.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

Paramount isn't going to care. These images, as you say, are all over the net. They have not gone after these places, such as Cloudster, or any of the big sites that hold these types of images. Not to mention they have not shut down any of the aftermarket makers for correction pieces, addon kits, conversions, etc.

You are making this into an issue that is not existent. It isn't like you are claiming it as your own, on infringing on their money. It isn't like they are releasing reference DVDs of their stuff, nor do they care to do so... nor are they getting into the aftermarket business.

Don't let 1 person scare you into taking this stuff down with fear of prosecution when there is no grounds for it.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Well that blows. 

Thanks for making the effort in compiling the references, starseeker.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

Model Man said:


> You weren't kidding. Unless Cult personally shot those photos himself, they weren't his either. Dickson's though are his. The rest, who can say not knowing what they were...
> 
> This utterly sucks. For dozens to hundreds of people to try and hunt down all these references across the net is near impossible and a massive waste of time and duplication of effort. When one person finally takes the time, effort and patience to be as thorough as Star likely was, only to get petty recriminations instead of being hailed as a hero is bogus.
> 
> ...


what he said. Did anyone get them 'cuz I missed the boat.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

starseeker said:


> No, Cultman's correct. It IS stealing. I spent some time on the 'Net checking it out. It is not lawful to reproduce any image you find on online. Therefore, unless we actually took the reference photo ourselves, or unless we have permission from the owner, we are breaking the law whenever we post a reference photo we we didn't take ourselves. Or a screen capture. Or anything of the sort.
> As to my own drawings, I think I'm going to have to copy a selection onto disks and mail them to the legal owners at Fox and Paramount and see if they have any problems with me posting this stuff. I'll also ask them some questions I have about making some extremely short run aftermarket bits and hull shapes. I know Cultman and JT and Paragraphix have all had to be very careful with licensing so using their examples, I think I better look into this, too, before C&Ds fly.
> Getting proper answers; I'll feel much better when I know.


Do what your heart and mind tells you, not what others tell you to think. As a graphic artist, just because I post something online, that does not give anyone else permission to use my art for their own use. CultTVman asked that you not use photos that were submitted to his site, by the people taking the pictures, and were intended only for him to post. Why people need to get upset by this is beyond me!


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

because if it were me, I'd freely and openly share reference materiel instead of hoarding and holding a monopoly over them.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

RSN said:


> Do what your heart and mind tells you, not what others tell you to think. As a graphic artist, just because I post something online, that does not give anyone else permission to use my art for their own use. CultTVman asked that you not use photos that were submitted to his site, by the people taking the pictures, and were intended only for him to post. Why people need to get upset by this is beyond me!


Actually he never stated as such. He just told him he was stealing. He didn't ask anything. If the images were submitted to Cult from someone else, then the images are not even Cults for him to bitch about. No where was it stated the images were JUST for Cult to use. No where. I don't know of anywhere on his site where it is stated the images are only for use by Cult.

I find it frustrating to finally have someone make a solid compilation of reference material, and then someone who gets his *self-edited* in a wad decides to accuse the person of stealing an image that that person himself doesn't even own the rights to, making the person who did the work take down the resource from all other modelers to make use of.

All Cult had to do was say "hey these images *image list* are my own property, can you please remove them", and then the rest of the images could have stayed up. Only a small handful of images even stated they were from Cult's site, so even link-back was provided! But he didn't, and it is a damn shame to the community.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

This is a perfect example why there will never be any more Complete Imbecile's guides coming from me. Sad, very sad that people can't share in the spirit of reference material for personal use. Copying any image is technically infringement, and we ALL do it with wreakless abandon. I wouldn't cast stones if you live in a glass house.


----------



## Wolvster (Mar 14, 2006)

Don't worry Cult, _" some "_ of us _*" get it "*_....


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Magesblood said:


> because if it were me, I'd freely and openly share reference materiel instead of hoarding and holding a monopoly over them.


This is a double edge sword, it's great to share info. But at the same time this info is somebodies income. One guy posted a bunch of stuff(he was told not to share, but did it anyway), and killed a whole lot of reference for a whole lot of people. I'm talking reference from ST and SW, it put jobs in jeopardy and put the hobby back years. We all suffered from the loss. 

This is a very touchy subject. When taking things off of websites it's always best to ask the site owner if you can re-post.


----------



## goodtexan (Dec 31, 2009)

Removed by the Goodtexan.


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

Amazing! People need to drop to the level of 4 year olds with it's mine... No it's mine, so I'm taking my marbles and going home. I guess some people feel the need to exhibit what little perceived "Power" they may or may not have. No harm no fowl by posting. This whole attitude ruins the "HOBBY...and make no mistake, it is just a hobby" and why many people are just lurkers on the forums. Some peoples kids  Maybe Cult should have gotten CBS's permission to post pics of their filming model or maybe from the model builders that built the miniature or from Roddenberry. You can go on and on about ownership. Build a model for Christs' sake (or in the case of Cult go sell models which is why your're in this hobby in the first place) and quit looking for something to bitch about.


----------



## goodtexan (Dec 31, 2009)

Removed by the Goodtexan.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

goodtexan said:


> Read the court case Kelly v Arriba Soft Corporation and what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in this case. This case involved website pics and the Fair Use Doctrine.
> 
> After reading this APPEAL, it should be obvious that starseeker did not have to remove any of these pics.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

People sent their photos to Cult, knowing full well they would be posted on his site. As far as Cult is concerned, he is looking out for the interests of the submitter. They did not send in their photos to be used in a "Reference File". If they were asked, odds are they would have no problem with it, but the original photographer was not contacted, the pictures were just copied and used. 

As for the tone and language Steve used, from the attitude and writings of some of the posts here, I would say he was writing in the same style. "NO" is not a bad word, and I don't see the world as a place where I am entitled to everything I want! Steve, protect your contributors so they feel safe sending you contributions!!

Ron


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Regardless, there must be a better/ legit way of getting the photos.....

Starseeker, thank you for making the effort (wish I could have seen them) - would you consider going one step further? That is, instead of posting the photos, is it possible for you to post the links to the "originals" (yes, maybe way too much work, but perhaps you could just track down and list the most uncommon/most helpful image links?)

Maybe too many sources no longer online?


Like I said, just trying to think of an option that would make everybody happy


----------



## goodtexan (Dec 31, 2009)

Removed by the Goodtexan.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Actually, I believe Arriba and Kelly may have ruled against the re-posting of such pictures, as the Arriba had posted only thumbnails and the verdict went in favor of Kelly. Only Arriba no longer existed by the time of the judgment and Kelly had no one to recover damages from. 

At the US Gov't copyright site: 
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission."

Let me just repeat that last sentence:

"There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission"

As far as I'm concerned, not including my inadvertent obvious infringements of a dozen or so Refit photos marked as belonging to Mark Dickson and the half dozen re-posted at another site originally taken from Cultman's site of Gary Kerr's drawings/measurements of the Refit's nacelles, neck and the A's hangar bay, my point by point response to the above would be: 
1: educational non-profit. 
2, who knows? Somebody took them or scanned them for some purpose, and so they are all owned by somebody. Even if they weren't collected over 15 years, there is still no way of tracking down any of the original photographers or scanners. 
3, again, who knows? Are these all the pictures they took or screen grabbed or did one out of 100 end up on the site I plundered them from.
4, probably no effect unless (they're planning on publishing a book [again, who can tell?] ). Some were from the IDIC page and perhaps making them available again for a month or two would hurt the IDIC page in some way if it were ever to start again, tho' I can't see how it would hurt. 

(And the idea that someday the IDIC page may start up again (Please!) makes me wonder how the WayBack Machine and similar engines waiting in the wings play in all of this? Half of the IDIC site is available there now and no doubt Cult's site and this site is indexed and stored there as well, awaiting a day when now is Way Back.)

You might make a case using the fair use argument that it's okay to re-post my collection of the Christie's auction pictures, say. The original photographer posted them all and encouraged downloading. But they are his pictures nonetheless. Would he be happy with re-posting? I have no idea. I have no idea even who he is, so there is no way of asking. 

While re-posting itself may or may not be illegal, without knowing if the owner of the material would approve or object, it's still wrong. 

As for my own reference drawings, etc, I've thought about them a lot and they're mine. Even if they are of someone else's original design, they have been so altered from the originals that the law would be unequivocal about that. As for the Fox blues themselves, well it was Fox who gave them to me, and I still have the envelopes and letters that came with them. They're mine, too. So as soon as I get my new hard drives installed and everything else re-installed, I will re-upload my drawings, etc, back to Photobucket. From where, as I've said before, anyone can do anything they want with them.

As for my reference photo collections, Cultman is completely right. I was wrong in posting them. I very rarely visit his site but I can't ever remember seeing screen grabs or reference photos posted in any of the forums there, so he Is being scrupulous in his respect for copyright. You may not like it, but you have to respect it.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Edit: I realized there's a delicious irony here but it would probably lock this thread and get me banned for life. 
Magesblood, I'll try to get up again as soon as my computer is running. Just reinstalled my old hard drive so I could edit this. Now to get it out again...


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

so how long until the pics are back up?

(behind you 110%)

also I wouldn't worry about it. People make accusations of stealing and recasting here all the time.


----------



## goodtexan (Dec 31, 2009)

Removed by Goodtexan.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Okay, I've sorted them and they're back:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/STTMP 1701 Reference Pictures/
and
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/TOS Enterprise Reference Photos/

Have done much more reading into Fair Use Doctrine and am still somewhat confused but it seems the Fair Use Doctrine does permit the reproduction of copywritten material for non-profit educational purposes, which was my only intent here: to share some 15 years of gathering pictures with some of you who might have missed said pictures and might be able to use them for your builds. 
I've used Photoshop Elements to delete duplicated of the same file size and resolution but there are still multiple copies of the same pictures, I guess because they came from different sources. 

I removed Gary Kerr's measured drawings of the STTMP nacelles that came from C-man's site and Andy Probert's hangar bay paintings from his site. All of that is readily available at their own addresses. 

Some of these are clearly marked as being copywritten by someone. 1. I haven't found any of these people by Googling them. 2. I'm not even sure that that matters. Copyright law is very clear about one thing: if you take a picture of an art object, say a painting by Andy Warhol, it's still his picture. You can't copyright it unless you make some substantive change that alters the nature of the image. How is the Enterprise any different than an Andy Warhol painting? It's three dimensional, but it is still a piece of design or art that is owned by Paramount. If you took a picture of your wife, your motorboat, or the NYC skyline, you could copyright that. A Picasso sculpture, the Winged Victory of Samothrace, etc? - not without the permission of the owners of the art objects in question. I can't help wonder if that isn't true of the Enterprise, too.

Or is that just me, trying to justify potentially infringing on potential infringers? 

In any event, I'm not going to lose any more sleep over it.

I do worry, tho, that some of the sites that these pictures were gathered from might be upset. I don't know if many of them exist any more. I'm very deliberately trying to include all my IDIC Page pictures here. The many years the IDIC Page was the best reference and friend a modeller could have. Scattered chunks of it are available still via the WayBack machine but their content is very hit-and-miss. I really wanted to bring back the IDIC references that I have. I so wish that the IDIC Page comes back soon. 
Some of these probably came from sites that may still exist. I know my Excelsior pictures came from a great German site whose name I can never remember. I don't think any of my Enterprise photos came from there. But you would have to be crazy not to be searching for and visiting these sites yourself. I only downloaded what photos I was interested in. The sites that still exist have far, far more. They also have the original photos. Jpgs lose quality each time they're stepped on unless you're using lossless apps, so the quality on the existing sites is better than the quality you'll get from mine, moved and copied and organized 42 times by now. 

So if you recognize these pictures as having come from a site that you know, then you've probably already got them and probably better quality, too. And good for you! - keep visiting these sites and keep supporting the people who are trying to support us. 

As I said earlier, I'm only going to leave these up for a couple of weeks. They take up a huge amount of space that I want to use for some of my other stuff, if I ever get it organized. I just wanted to put them up to share with my fellow modellers here something they might be able to use, in the unlikely event that they haven't seen them all before. (Toward the end of the STTMP photos, there Is a handful of black and white photos of the STTMP E. I have no idea where these came from and haven't seen them anywhere since. In one way I wish they were color but b&w possibly shows off the paint pattern better than color would. Just about the only decent photos of the non-A Refit that I've seen.) (Some photos didn't upload. They may have been too large or I may have been too impatient. Before I takes these down, I'll try to figure out which didn't make it and why and get them up.)


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

don't know why someone would put something on their website if they didn't want to share. If you didn't want to share, just keep them on your hard drive or as 8x10's.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Very cool! Lots of nice shots I have never seen before.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Good to see this back. Thank you Kent for supporting the Hobby.


----------



## cerebralsugar (Jul 21, 2010)

*still available*

are the pics still available? i just found this thread today. I'd love to see them.


----------



## paustin0816 (Nov 8, 2006)

well i missed the boat on this one too somehow. Thanks Starseeker for trying to do a nice thing. My belief is as long as you dont crop the copyright inro off, its still giving credit to the author...it's not like any of these came from a pay site. Finding enterprise reference photos and behind the scenes tos pictures is a big hobby of mine.
Again Starseeker thank you for trying to do this.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

cerebral, you have a pm
paustin, pm me. I can't figure out how to pm you. ?


----------



## oggy4u (Sep 27, 2007)

I too would love to see pic's of the refit. Any chance they are still available?


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

*Content deleted in frustration*


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

PM me.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

*Content deleted in continued frustration*


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Site owners and managers like Cultman and IDIC and our own Hobbytalk do have a legitimate concern. If I understand how sites work, when people click onto a site, whether or not they click on the ads, the site still generates revenue from from the people visiting. Without revenue, no site. No site, no Cultman, and the hobby would lose one of its biggest supporters and greatest resources. Or no beloved IDIC. Or no Hobbytalk. Piracy bad. Between piracy and malware the current internet's (or anything that we would consider a worthwhile internet) days are genuinely numbered. In my mind this was about trying to share some references, many of which are freely available at other sites, many of which have vanished. I really hope that my posting those pictures didn't keep anyone away from any of the sites still in bidness and, honestly, I really can't see how it would have. No more, say, than posting occasional pages from very old magazines on one's site would hurt those magazines currently. Or posting screen captures so we can count rivets would hurt DVD sales. From some people's perfectly legitimate pov, they may see any encroachment as piracy and a threat and practice zero tolerance. I still can't figure out the law on sharing for non-profit educational and if it applies here so I'm willing to tolerate a little gray. I just hope the material was useful to modellers and that no one was been hurt by my posting it.
Boy, I wish someone would fix the title of this thread...


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

starseeker said:


> ...If I understand how sites work, when people click onto a site, whether or not they click on the ads, the site still generates revenue from from the people visiting...


Nope. No revenue generated from someone just visiting a page* - from BUYING something on a page, yes. Part of the reason to have unique content is to draw people to your site so they then go to the store and buy something. 

ALSO, remember that spending hours and hours tracking down photos and information that you then display for people's enjoyment is one thing ... clicking on a link, downloading it, then publishing to your own site is totally different. 

The old "here's a link to a great photo I found" works.

* Unless you've got advertising that pays on page views, but Cult's site doesn't have that.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Well I *WAS* trying to keep names out of it, but since the cat's out of the bag, I wanted to say I totally get protecting your own work, and to an extent those things you've found and scanned for your own site's content. Anyone using images from someone else's site should AT LEAST reference the source. The same way someone who's upset about it should come directly to you and say "Hey, that's my stuff, can you at least credit me when you use it?" as opposed to public declarations of theft.

Paulbo, you raise good points as well, thanks! One thing that you proffer as an option is, in some circles another no-no, the dreaded deep-link. When you reference a sub-page/part of someone's site without going through the main page it messes up the counters, advertiser's records, and continuity and flow of the site. Plus you add to their bandwidth usage. Some people have problems with this, some don't.

The thing to me is, we're trying to be a supportive community of people with a common interest, it does nobody any good to badmouth people in public who are bringing positive things to the community......which is why I didn't mention any names directly. Nor should public accusations of thievery be made without first trying to resolve your differences privately.

In any case, this has gotten OT and I regret saying a damned thing.

Tib


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Why oh why did I not see this thread when the link was still good and active????????


----------



## eagledocf15 (Nov 4, 2008)

starseeker said:


> Uploaded 500+ Refit photos to:
> http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/Refit Enterprise/
> 
> All of them came off the web over the last 15 years, so these may be nothing new. But for a limited time, they're all in one place. Took two hours with high speed to upload. It appears I've uploaded some videos as well? No idea what they are. Tried to weed out duplicates but I missed a few.


I can't find this file. Has it moved? Thanks


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Eagle, the answer to your question is in the previous posts...read the thread.

Larry


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

starseeker-I respect your diligence and integrity. Happy holidays, my friend!


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Starseeker's a great guy and I appreciate his efforts to share with the community.

I just wish the darn links he sent me would work 

Tib


----------

