SimonBrownP47-D from Weymouth Bay:-
SimonBrownIt’s only 50ft, but such a delicate job…..
Performing even the simplest of tasks underwater can take ages…the tide never really stops, zero visibility & numbing cold…the damping effect of the water…disorientation to the point of not knowing which way is up…the umbilical dragging the diver off the job, the weight of the kit…then the task in hand itself…lack of touch, restricted movement thanks to the dry suit…stress of being in an alien environment…add into the mix an historically significant airframe of unknown durability and the stress levels might rise a little… I hope it gives a small insight into the kind of task these divers are up against.
The mention of depth is interesting. At 15m the Dornier is not considered a ‘deep’ dive by sport diving standards, but the top 10m can be a risky zone for divers. The pressure acting on the human body effectively halves from 10m to 0m. Breathing gas at 10m means you are working at a pressure of 2 times atmosphere and if you were to breathe in, hold your breath and swim to the surface you would probably burst a lung as the trapped gas doubled in volume (as the pressure halves) and forced its way into your chest cavity. By the time you reach the surface, you would be very sick indeed…
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I hope it helps the non-divers.
SimonBrownIf that animation it right, those engines are going to rip out as soon as the lift starts.
When I dived and photographed the Dornier last year, the port engine was already at 90 degrees to its mounting. Something, or someone, had disturbed it since the last survey. The port engine at least will not be coming up like the animation depicts.
SimonBrownTo be safe embed watermarks or text into photos?
A week ago, I watched a short video on Youtube. It showed a cargo aircraft stall on takeoff and crash in a rather large fireball. Underneath, Youtube decided to run an advert for cabin crew training, and considering the subject of the video was very unfortunate indeed I thought this advert was in rather poor taste. How did Youtube end up doing this? I suspect its an automated process…linking content of videos to adverts by association. The margins are so slim for this kind of advertising to have direct human intervention is just not cost effective, and the volume of new content being uploaded daily would mean an excessive staff overhead. Automated processes are the only way to derive any income.
Watermarks may well deter anything that requires human intervention, but the content aggregators will not be interested – images will be scraped, repackaged and posted with advertising around them automatically. No one will ever think ‘Gosh, nice image…lets contact the photographer’…
So no, I don’t think watermarking will be a sure safeguard from this kind of exploitation.
SimonBrownThis is a very confusing area. It seems there are two sides to this story.
If I were being cynical, I would think that those who will gain most, who have lobbied hardest, fully intended to make things more rather than less complicated.
Surely a photo can only be copyrighted by the person who took the photograph or the company which employs that person as a photographer.
Correct. However, the changes will mean whoever holds the exclusive rights still has the rights, but they are no longer exclusive. Under Orphan Works (Can’t find the rights holder, want to commercially exploit the image – OW) or Extended Collective Licensing (Can’t be bothered to contact the rights holder, want to commercially exploit the image paying a rate that suits the exploiter – ECL) then a third party can license your images. Everyone has, in effect, had their rights removed to help big corporations make more money. We have to lose, so they can gain.
I have a very large collection of photographs which have been loaned and given to me. I will always make photos available to other authors who ask, free of charge of course; but I have shared photos with collectors and have seen the photos published as part of their collection with no acknowledgement given to the original provider ie. the individual who kindly gave them to me. This is wrong and exploitative.
That’s the new world we will live in. Exploitation of the property of others, without prior permission or payment. We can thank this government for these changes…
But the regulations to enable these changes have yet to be released. We have a chance to affect the outcome. Signatures do count and will help those arguing against the proposed changes.
SimonBrownIf, like me, you find these changes unwelcome then there is a petition running:-
Please add your signature, and share the link
SimonBrownA guide to the implications and potential impact of the Act:-
Creators like myself recognise there is an issue with historical images, their preservation and display. Creators would welcome non-commercial use of images like these, but orphan works are not really the main event. Extended Collective Licensing will have a far greater impact and everyone who takes a picture is at risk of mass exploitation. Everyone – amateurs and pros alike – may well find their images being used for any purpose, wether they like it or not. More here about how to mitigate the risk:-
SimonBrown…I would personally doubt that, because in some of the images it looks as if the wheels are no longer there and have long ago done a Steradent impression!
I have a pile of unpublished images of the undercarriage/wheels (and before anyone asks to see them…unpublished is worth more to the press than published…) but I don’t have access to them right now…I will check and see what might remain.
From memory, the tyres certainly have the appearance of remaining inflated. I have seen an inflated aircraft tyre deformed into a square shape by water pressure alone. Its worth remembering that the pressure at a depth of 16m is 2.6 bar, so unless the seawater has flooded the void, something is helping the tyre keep its shape.
SimonBrownWhat does bode well is that the bulk of the structure is standing proud of the seabed and supporting relatively heavy u/c components without supporting sand.
It might be my memory playing tricks, but when I dived the wreck I do not remember seeing a gap under the wings. Sand/gravel is acting as a support.
That said, it was very murky and visibility was not good…Dornier engine
SimonBrownI used to use a Nikon Coolscan V. Recommended.
SimonBrownI can’t see how ‘Dam Busters’ can be copyrighted…
I honestly think they must be using those lawyer and solicitor firms that you see advertising on day time commercial TV!
I’m not a lawyer, but would agree the correct term is Trademark – a word or phrase can be trademarked, whereas copyright applies to creative expressions of ideas.
And you are right…just because MoD asserts ownership does not mean the Patent Court would agree. But who wants to end up in court? Half the lawyers will be wrong and the fees crippling.
SimonBrownIts more than slightly ironic that HMG/MoD will trademark their property, but when it comes to allowing wider use of other creator’s property then they are all too enthusiastic:-
Photography industry opposes changes to copyright
All of the changes have been authored and architected by the Intellectual Property Office – a government department that is both inept and set to transmit when it comes to listening to very valid concerns and objections.
SimonBrownSitting on my desk is a piston from a Rolls Royce CV12 – the engine that powers the Challenger MBT. During my apprenticeship I rebuilt the engine that this piston came from. All 12 pistons were under limits so were scrapped, with 11 of those 12 given to the machine shop to be turned into ashtrays. As I am a) a non-smoker and b) saw the aesthetics of the piston as an object of beauty in its own right, I chose to not see the skirt machined off. Even now, I suspect unserviceable pistons are reworked into ashtrays, thus continuing a supply.
The CV12 piston is now a pen holder and a memory jogger.
SimonBrownThere are plenty of Dornier 17s on the bottom of the Channel!
Its a big place…and regularly trawled with the nets and fishing gear dragging over the seabed. This kind of trawling does enough damage to leave shadow marks on the sonar scan, leaving the seabed with the appearance of a ploughed field…
SimonBrownHave museums considered placing all of their images on the internet and making them public domain?
My experience of museums and (in particular) the likes of the British Library is that yes they have a public remit to preserve and display, but are as interested in earnings and potential income as the next company. Old images have value, but not if they are given away…
The British Library are scanning out-of-copyright newspapers – public domain stuff – and are reasserting copyright over the scan. Why? So they can make money…I should add that making money is not an issue, but why should a public body claim ownership over something that is not theirs is what I find objectionable.
So yes, a great idea…but the earning potential of old collections is something museums will want to protect.
Sign In
