dark light

ALBERT ROSS

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 2,462 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Guess where I took this? #1331701
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    Give us clue Tim, like county? :confused:

    in reply to: The way we were – c1970's colour #1331705
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    Lovely mix of action shots I recognise at Yeovilton and Biggin Hill with the last shot of the current RNHF Sea Fury taken when it was in the RAF Colerne collection, would guess 1968. 😎

    in reply to: The Day-Glo thread…. #1331783
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    Yet another “zombie” thread, groan!

    What’s that supposed to mean? You disappoint me Peter as usually your posts are interesting and intellectual and your contributions very welcome! 🙁

    in reply to: The Day-Glo thread…. #1331857
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    The ‘Dayglo Thread’ has been dormant for five months, whilst the air show season has been on, so time to revive it with one of my favourites, but can anyone guess where this was taken?

    in reply to: Constellation N749NL engine runs #1331862
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    Let’s hope the Connie can come to the UK for an air show in 2007. She was due to appear at Biggin Hill and possibly Duxford, but was grounded at the last minute with these engine problems! Good news Michael – many thanks! 😎

    in reply to: Boscombe Down 9th June 1990 #1331865
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    If one is going to publish pictures electronically on the Internet, then unless the photo clearly has “copyright of Mr Xxxxxx” layered across it, one has to assume that it will be copied.

    It is extremely simple to layer a signature or copyright and just as easy to copy and re-produce elsewhere.

    Anyone daft enough to think that they can TOTALLY enforce copyright on an image reproduced on the Internet is deluded.

    For goodness sake stop moaning about copyright if your image is not layered with such or does not contain your exif tag (if it is taken using a modern digital camera it will have this embedded within the jpeg file).

    Rant over!

    Well said Buster! At last someone that has applied common sense and logic…now go and tell the MoD that! :rolleyes:

    in reply to: The Return of The Vulcan 2007 – Discuss? #1333230
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    It’s all very well asking everyone where you want the Vulcan to appear, but what will it cost the organisers? Will the ‘newly found funds’ cover the air show organiser’s insurance and all other costs, or is this all still wishful thinking? :rolleyes:

    in reply to: The way we were – c1970's colour #1333888
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    Those RNHF shots would have been around 1973. Location possibly West Malling? It’s not until you look at these that you realise how many warbirds have been lost, if not sold abroad, then sadly destroyed in accidents.

    in reply to: Mosquito RR299 #1334002
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    That little debate sparked a question in my mind. What was the serial of the one that went to Kermit Weeks? Anyone know?

    RS712/G-ASKB/N34MK believed currently unairworthy.

    in reply to: Piper Tri Pacer G-AWLH #394323
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    G-AWLH was registered to a A. Indyk of Norwich in 1969.

    in reply to: Boscombe Down 9th June 1990 #1334177
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    Andy,

    I quite agree with you! The whole process is flawed and in many cases practically unenforcable. If you hold an original negative, then no one else can claim copyright. However in the digital world, these is even more flawed.
    For example, go to a ‘photocall’ on an RAF Station and stand beside dozens of other photographers taking identical shots. How on earth can one person claim copyright on the one he/she took if they are all identical unless they add some invisible ‘watermark’ on the image? Furthermore, MoD are now trying to make EVERY photograph taken on their property ‘Crown Copyright’. The whole issue is a farce!

    in reply to: Boscombe Down 9th June 1990 #1334250
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    Wouldnt it be a good idea for you to check, I’d hate for your collection be to Crown Copyright (I can see no reference to a time limit on the Government website which explains the rules for publishing CC material.)

    You DO realise that they have only just drawn these rules up and cannot suddenly make every photo taken by a serviceman since 1st April 1918 CC!!! 😮

    in reply to: Boscombe Down 9th June 1990 #1334261
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    For instance, off duty but wearing issue flying kit then CC. The rules are simple.

    Don’t think the rules are simple! If he was off duty and wearing ‘civvies’, then the CC rule doesn’t apply? I have published hundreds of my own photos from when I was in the RAF, but they don’t automatically become CC. How would anyone know if I was on or off duty or what I was wearing?? :confused:

    in reply to: Boscombe Down 9th June 1990 #1334269
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    If he was a serving member of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and on duty or wearing uniform at the time then they ARE Crown Copyright no matter for what reason they were taken.

    For instance, off duty but wearing issue flying kit then CC. The rules are simple.

    Yes, that’s correct if it was taken within the last 30 years – but this was taken in 1963!

    in reply to: Brazilian Naval Aviation Museum #1334644
    ALBERT ROSS
    Participant

    Very interesting! Firstly I never knew Brazil had any Avengers and certainly haven’t seen any photos of them until now. Don’t worry about the quality, Roger, as these are much appreciated and not only by me I’m sure 😉

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 2,462 total)