|
|
Post by hawkseye on Jan 4, 2021 2:25:31 GMT
I've just noticed that various new USAF Aircraft Record Card PDFs have been uploaded to the Members Area. This is fantastic (and hopefully many more will be uploaded in due course), but unfortunately no notification of this fact appears anywhere, making the whole exercise more than a little pointless for most people....
Even on the MA-General Archive index page, the info under the Military Links section says 'updated 07Dec14'. These PDFs were uploaded on 20 Nov 2020, but who would ever have known? Even if no announcement is made, at the very least the 'updated' dates need to be actually, well, updated. The only reason I found these was from a totally random search after finally being able to access the Members Area....
|
|
|
|
Post by mmandpgm on Jan 4, 2021 15:22:51 GMT
Thanks for pointing these out but were you able to open AC45?
Matt Miller
|
|
|
|
Post by sparksey on Jan 4, 2021 17:33:52 GMT
Hawkseye, Thank you for your message. This was a large and time consuming exercise, and it was always intended to formally announce it on the Message Board, but I regret that the announcement was overlooked.
I will arrange for a formal notice to be added to the Message Board tomorrow
I will also arrange for the revision dates to be updated
Matt
I cannot locate a file AC45, but I can see that there is an issue with files 1 and 2 of AC25 which we will review. Are these the files you refer to ?
|
|
|
|
Post by mmandpgm on Jan 4, 2021 17:48:15 GMT
yes, sorry I meant AC25- a typo on my part.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkseye on Jan 5, 2021 10:43:25 GMT
I'm sure it was a lengthy exercise, which was why I had the concern that it may have effectively been for naught, if no-one had ever known that it had been done... I certainly have no issue whatsoever with the actual exercise - if you get the time in the future, any more uploads would be most welcome :-) I couldn't open AC-25 directly from the Members Area page, either. The links given are wrong. They should be www.air-britain.com/members/mo-pdfs/AC-25_part1.pdf & www.air-britain.com/members/mo-pdfs/AC-25_part2.pdf (ie with a dash between the AC & 25). The actual links given have no dash (eg 'https://www.air-britain.com/members/mo-pdfs/AC25_part1.pdf'). This is a potential problem with all the uploads. Some of the ones already uploaded have dashes in the file name, some don't. Some are in upper case, some are in lower case. Apart from AC-25, all work at the moment, but with something like this you really need to have a consistent policy as to how you are going to name the the files. Without one, you are likely to start running into a lot of confusion in the future if more files are uploaded. Some links will probably work, others won't (as can be seen), and the files will be all over the place. Personally, I'd go for upper case, with a dash, and an underscore for separate parts (with the word 'part' in full, not 'pt', since that's the way they've been started). |
|
|
|
Post by sparksey on Jan 5, 2021 12:40:12 GMT
New Files added to Members General Area of the web site
New files have been added to the General Archive, Military Links section.
This adds further data to the US AF Record Cards files which now cover 43-**** to 51-****.
These are large files some of which are split within each record in view of the size.
There is a comprehensive user guide on line, which was already located in the section.
Please note that there are two amendments in course of correction
(1) The uploading date of this data on the Military Links should read “28 October 2020
(2) File AC25 parts 1 and 2 has an issue with opening.
We will confirm when these issues have been resolved
Ian
Air-Britain internet coordinator
|
|
|
|
Post by sparksey on Jan 5, 2021 16:28:58 GMT
I am delighted to confirm that the requisite amendments have been completed and all of the files in that section are now readable
Ian
Air-Britain internet coordinator
|
|
|
|
Post by biafranbaby on Feb 26, 2021 17:08:58 GMT
Not quite sure if this is the right message board but further to my note on ABIX regarding photograph credits and sources. My old friend Colin Smith reminds me of the negative swapping meetings. You're right and that creates a difficulty if you are trying to identify the source. I have tended to believe that the holder of the negative should be credited. Moreover, perhaps common sense should be applied. What I find rather distasteful is a coded credit which avoids having to type in a full name. However, I know what I like and I give discourteous books a wide berth. But that's me!
Talking of the days when all sorts of things were exchanged in Heathrow's 'Green Dragon', I wonder what happened to Ken Wilkinson's collection. His area was similar to that covered by Brian Stainer but often travelled far and wide. regards, Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by mickywest on Feb 26, 2021 19:04:11 GMT
Mike...Photo copyright is a minefield ...I think in law the copyright rests with the photographer who took the photograph(or his employer if done as an employee) ...so if he then sells the original (negative or transparency) or a print/duplicate the copyright doesn't go with it unless by agreement? Which makes crediting an 'unstamped' photo 50 years later mighty difficult!
One photographer who contributed to Brian Stainers APN operation was Roger Caratini and prints of his output have recently been on sale in big batches on Ebay
|
|
|
|
Post by biafranbaby on Feb 26, 2021 20:18:37 GMT
Micky. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I also subscribe to a on-line auction site in Spain and one particular dealer has traded hundreds of rare photographs from several collections over the past few years. Many have come from editorial collections including Philip Moyes. And, of course, buying in Spain means paying in euros which works out cheaper than paying ebay in sterling. And what is more, the competition is not so bad.
But copyright? Yes very tricky and even worse considering it is so easy to scan digitally. How many times do you see 'ABPIC' as the credit. There have been a few occasions where I have contacted the photographer but never received a response. And I tend to be honest as far as I can. Thankfully, when a collection is bequeathed to Air-Britain, then the collection remains a collection and held as 'The xxxx xxxx Collection'. The Army Flying Museum, for example, has gone to great lengths to preserve officers' photographs as the personal collection of that officer. Needless to say, each photograph is allotted an accession number and indexed etc. Presumably Air-Britain does the same. In that way, whilst copyright might be an issue, due credit can be given. A win-win. Mike 4182
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 9:28:32 GMT
In reality, where is there any risk? I exchanged negatives in the 1960's with people with whom I have since lost contact and may no longer be with us. I also have shots barely discernible from that of the guy standing next to me. If the shot is no longer news is anybody going to care ? If asked I send better scans to authors for publication but did not throw my toys out of me pram when the Big Yellow Chipmunk book was published in Canada using my images without asking first.
|
|
