Makes me sick!!!
Why?
[quote=“lieberma”]
richard-seaman.com/ it belongs to this guy and he is very clear about the copyright on his photos. anp23 takes photos from other sites, a few are taken under “creative commons” like the recent turkish777, but most are stolen, pure and simple!
Gotchya and agree. Wrong is wrong. 
richard-seaman.com/Misc/ConditionsOfUse.html
Just would be helpful for Will to do what you did and post the source that the picture was stolen from.
Also if it was me doing all this discovery, I would be contacting the original author to give them a courtesy heads up.
links were sometimes previously provided in another thread before that one came off the tracks and got locked 
FA has their hands tied on this issue, just like you or I could take a photo off the net and re-post it, FA can’t delete it unless the owner sends in a form letter claiming ownership, or the photo has a watermark on it.
They can delete it just like they delete threads in the forums but they choose not to.
The right thing in my eyes is if a complaint is brought forward as in this particular case with the source being supplied would be to contact the source and either get permission for the repost or simply delete it.
Especially when it’s clear one particular **repeat offending **user is NOT getting permission for the uploads
You are right in your previous posts, it’s an administrative nightmare to manage the photo section however for repeat offenders allowing pictures to remain just seems not right in my eyes.
In this case for PROVEN repeat copyright offenders, guilty until proven innocent should be the mode of operandi.
There’s two conditions that have been stated in order for a picture to be deleted. It must either clearly show a watermark from another site OR the owner requests it to be taken down.
So far, many (not most) of the alleged illegal pictures have not had any watermarks on them. Unless the owner claims the picture and requests that it be taken down then there’s no reason to remove the picture because the other condition (i.e. a watermark) isn’t shown.
Yea, that’s the American way. Let’s consider a repeat offender ALWAYS guilty until proven innocent.
Is this a legit photo or stolen? I can’t tell with the one word posts. 
I’d always thought “yes sir” was two words. Now I know differently!
The guy has eight pages of photos and about ten of the photos are most likely his.
He would have about eleven or twelve pages but through the past few weeks, FA has removed the photos with “strips” at the bottom and watermarks. So now he knows to remove all proof and they will not touch his photos, or the stolen photos that he post here.
Like the “staff pic” on the first page of the space shuttle piggy back on the 747, its stolen and its just another slap in the face. Why not a “three strikes” rule or something of that nature?
We have removed you photo because it was copyrighted on another site, post another and your gone?
Makes good sense to me especially for repeat copyright offenders. And ALL pictures posted by that offender should be deleted not just the one’s challenged by non copyright owners.
I was just pointing out a photo I liked, just your average airshow-hottie!
Here’s an interesting one flightaware.com/photos/view/6558 … ate/page/1
can you actually fly a plane in this condition?
You can fly anything with duck tape on it!
New meaning to simulated IFR.
Everyone’s seems to be assuming it had just landed or is getting ready to take off. Anybody stop to think it is being taxied to another location on the field?
Bush International???
I guess it is an international airport, but it’s Bush Intercontinental… 
The official title, per the Houston Airport System page, is “George Bush Intercontinental Airport”.