MagPul FMG 9


PDA






ctdonath
February 15, 2008, 05:02 PM
Ya seen this?

http://www.defensereview.com/stories/shotshow2008/SHOTShow2008_MagPulGlockSubgun_Closed_3_2-04-08.jpg
http://www.defensereview.com/stories/shotshow2008/SHOTShow2008_MagPulGlockSubgun_Semi-Open_2_2-04-08.jpg
http://www.defensereview.com/stories/shotshow2008/SHOTShow2008_MagPulGlockSubgun_Open_1_2-01-2-08.jpg (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1098)

When/where can I get one?

If you enjoyed reading about "MagPul FMG 9" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
February 15, 2008, 06:00 PM
Dunno, do you live in a state that allows NFA weapons? It's an SBR.....

squirrel sniper
February 15, 2008, 06:05 PM
So essentially its a G17 with a buch of crap, I mean Polymer around it. And due to the tacticool nature of the FMG-9, im sure it will cost $1000+.

PTK
February 15, 2008, 06:07 PM
It's the old folding subgun concept! I miss seeing those.

NeoSpud
February 15, 2008, 06:11 PM
it looks... familiar (http://world.guns.ru/smg/pp90m.jpg)

and it makes me really, REALLY happy inside :)

jwxspoon
February 15, 2008, 06:27 PM
I'll stick to my Kel-Tec Sub2K

Anteater1717
February 15, 2008, 07:24 PM
Eugene Stoner pretty much made that exact same thing!!! Though that is still really cool.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg70-e.htm

1KPerDay
February 15, 2008, 07:35 PM
Way cool.

Evil Monkey
February 15, 2008, 07:43 PM
I can never understand such retarded designs, really. Can that thing get any more idiotic?

argument: It's concealable.

counter: so are pistols and machine pistols. And with these you just have to unholster and start shooting, without extending the stock, in an emergency situation. No folding crap necessary.

Firearms are really a mature technology. All we are seeing now is a bunch of mall ninja, "let's add more parts"-type firearms.

Maybe I'm just blind? Can anybody here give some real good reasons why this is a fine weapon for who ever may need it?

strangelittleman
February 15, 2008, 07:47 PM
It's nothing I'll ever own, but it seems to me that it would be a great tool for an AirMarshal or like professional. It definitely has a place in security operations.

ckay
February 15, 2008, 08:29 PM
"It's nothing I'll ever own, but it seems to me that it would be a great tool for an AirMarshal or like professional. It definitely has a place in security operations."

I can withdraw a concealed quicker than I can unfold that contraption so no, there is no place for that in security operations IMO.

Soybomb
February 15, 2008, 09:06 PM
argument: It's concealable.

counter: so are pistols and machine pistols. And with these you just have to unholster and start shooting, without extending the stock, in an emergency situation. No folding crap necessary.

I'll take a stock nearly everytime if you give me the option. I just shoot much better with one. I really have no practical use for a super compact handgun with a stock but it would make a cool toy and I'd buy one if I could own sbr's here and it were made. I imagine there are plenty of hikers, backpackers, travelers and the like who would like to throw such a gun in their bag.

ctdonath
February 15, 2008, 10:43 PM
Yes it's an SBR, and yes I can own one in GA (have a shortie AR15).

What's particularly nifty is that when folded it doesn't "look like a gun", but pops open into modern sensibilites. Useful for, say, a "trunk gun" that won't garner attention when attention is not wanted. Too many folding guns don't sufficiently cover or conceal key parts.

GunTech
February 15, 2008, 11:20 PM
As an SMG it may make sense for security professionals who need more firepower than a pistol, but don't want to pack something that is readily identifiable as an SMG. Secret Service and other bodyguard types come to mind.

casio02478
February 15, 2008, 11:54 PM
It can find a niche in the security market place, especially if you use a Glock 18 instead of the glock 17 and find some way to add an reflex/red dot sight to the overall package. Although maybe it need to be upgraded to a more powerful round?

O.F.Fascist
February 15, 2008, 11:56 PM
I can never understand such retarded designs, really. Can that thing get any more idiotic?

Its a Glock Carbine. People have been asking for those for a while now. :)

Roadwild17
February 15, 2008, 11:59 PM
It looks like a gun from the second robo-cop, anyone know what im talking about?

otomik
February 16, 2008, 12:42 AM
I think it's a decent idea for aircrew, tankcrew and support. a kind of pdw that doesn't get in the way and is more practically effective than a pistol.

but wouldn't you rather have a .223 in that situation? something like the Magpul PDR? yes, this design might have had a place in a world that didn't use .223, pre-1960s, in a similar role to the m1 carbine.

Bezoar
February 16, 2008, 01:21 AM
stoner did it first, and best. Go watch Robocop again, the one where the 13 year old kid take over the cities drug trade. the kid has the original folding burpgun and its far far smaller then this FMG.

DrewH
February 16, 2008, 02:59 AM
I think it's a decent idea for aircrew, tankcrew and support. a kind of pdw that doesn't get in the way and is more practically effective than a pistol.

I just don't get why it is more practically effective than a pistol. A stock makes that much of a difference? You can unholster your Glock pistol and shoot, this thing you would have have it stored somewhere and unfold it and then shoot. Its not that inconspicous to just carry around either, compared to a holstered pistol. It fires a pistol round in the end.

Combatops1911
February 16, 2008, 11:20 AM
Yes one might be able to pull a concealed handgun out quicker (although I doubt people have seen how fast this thing unfolds, search youtube for it) but the point is you have a stock and vertical for-grip for better control and increased accuracy. Anyone who does not realize the potential for this set up is a moron. It is a pistol round which is great for the purposes of reducing over penetration in small confined areas which it would most likely be used and it’s internals is a GLOCK, aka tank, aka reliable, aka not a kel-tec!!! Yeah, it is not intended for full-blown combat but what moron would think it was? Instead of crapping on everything that does not have wooden stocks, pearl grips and that was made in the 1800's - give it a chance or don't buy it. The product does not yet have a release date but when it’s out I'll have one - for several reasons, one of which is: Because I can.

HorseSoldier
February 16, 2008, 11:37 AM
I just don't get why it is more practically effective than a pistol. A stock makes that much of a difference? You can unholster your Glock pistol and shoot, this thing you would have have it stored somewhere and unfold it and then shoot. Its not that inconspicous to just carry around either, compared to a holstered pistol. It fires a pistol round in the end.

The stock makes a huge difference for accuracy, even shooting pistol caliber ammunition. It would be slower to bring into action than a pistol, if carried folded up all the time, but I think the posters who envision it as a bail out weapon for aircraft or vehicles are onto something. You exit now dead vehicle/plane, and unfold your SMG and go. At this point you're much better armed than you'd be with a pistol.

000Buck
February 16, 2008, 11:41 AM
The real question is why are some people getting so bent out of shape about this? It's an interesting gun even if YOU have no use for one. It's an interesting gun even if someone else has done it before. Get over yourself.

strangelittleman
February 16, 2008, 12:02 PM
HorseSoldier is spot on! This was also my thinking when I stated that the weapon would be great for security professionals.
It's there & out of the way, largely unnoticed, when not needed, and folded out relatively quickly for when a diplomatic PSD in caught in a bad situation in an ordinarily permissive enviroment( an enivironment where one generally can travel w/ standard protective measures, such as most European, North American countries), where one may not be able to openly carry the larger shoulder fired weapons such as the MP5, 10.5"AR, M4 etc, like one does in a non-permissive environment ( such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, Yemen, etc)...
As for why I'll never own one, well, I can't think of a use for it in my nice, quiet, peaceful civilian life, other than killing paper, old water heaters, old cars and the like...well okay, I think I've talked my self into it!
000Buck, take your own advice...calm down pal! we're all friends here, you're right it is very interesting!

aguyindallas
February 16, 2008, 12:07 PM
Finally - the Glock Carbine is here!!!!

Eyesac
February 16, 2008, 12:14 PM
That thing is awesome.

Evil Monkey
February 16, 2008, 03:18 PM
Yeah, it is not intended for full-blown combat but what moron would think it was? Instead of crapping on everything that does not have wooden stocks, pearl grips and that was made in the 1800's - give it a chance or don't buy it.

WOW! Talk about a knee jerk reaction!

Nobody said it was for full blown combat. You brought that up. I don't think anyone attacked this weapon for its looks either. You brought that up.

Anyone who does not realize the potential for this set up is a moron.

It doesn't matter. The folding out is an extra step that is not useful in a emergency situation. At least with guns like an MP5K with the stock folded, you can still shoot the weapon until you're in a brief moment of safety to deploy the stock.

but I think the posters who envision it as a bail out weapon for aircraft or vehicles are onto something. You exit now dead vehicle/plane, and unfold your SMG and go. At this point you're much better armed than you'd be with a pistol.

You mean a PDW? That's been covered with ever existing SMG's and compact assault rifles, as well as dedicated weapons like the p90 and mp7. The Magpul FMG offers nothing that existing weapons can't offer besides compactness for discretion.

The real question is why are some people getting so bent out of shape about this? It's an interesting gun even if YOU have no use for one. It's an interesting gun even if someone else has done it before. Get over yourself.

Forums would be boring is everybody was like minded. Besides, among other reasons, I got into guns because I appreciated the evolution of the firearm and its practicality in its given era. So when something new comes out, I tend to try and analyze it and try to make sense of it.

ctdonath
February 16, 2008, 05:03 PM
The folding out is an extra step that is not useful in a emergency situation.
Having it stored in a compact doesn't-look-like-a-gun form, deployable in a second with a push of a button, may be more important than faster deployment.

If you need instant deployment, get something else.
If you need concealment and/or compactness, get this.

PTK
February 16, 2008, 05:20 PM
That gun, with a $200 stamp to get it as shown, would be about ideal for a car gun for me. Just a thought.

Squidward
February 17, 2008, 12:22 AM
Nice! :)

MachIVshooter
February 17, 2008, 02:18 AM
I can yank my PLR-16 from it's bag about as quickly as one could unfold that thing, and have a whole lot more firepower on tap.

The PLR in a bag is also more discreet. That conglomeration may not scream "gun" to the average person, but it doesn't look like something a person would normally carry, either, which will attract attention. Ain't a laptop, for sure!

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/100_0449.jpg

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/100_0450.jpg

Soybomb
February 17, 2008, 02:29 AM
I can yank my PLR-16 from it's bag about as quickly as one could unfold that thing, and have a whole lot more firepower on tap.

More powerful perhaps but you still have a giant pistol, the stock is the magic part for some of us :D

Dan Forrester
February 17, 2008, 02:10 PM
It will probably be classified as an AOW and transfer for $5. I think it would make a nice gun for traveling myself.

All in all however I am more interested in Magpuls PDR.

Dan

mgregg85
February 17, 2008, 04:35 PM
I like it, wish my sub2000 had a carry handle like that.

Soybomb
February 17, 2008, 04:48 PM
It will probably be classified as an AOW and transfer for $5.
I don't think there's any way to make that anything other than a SBR. I also dont think they have any plans to produce it anyway.

Dan Forrester
February 17, 2008, 05:03 PM
You could very well be correct. Iím pretty sure however that Magpul said it was registered as an AOW. It looks as if it fits the description quite well also.

Any other weapons (AOW's) are a number of things; smooth bore
pistols, any pistol with more than one grip, (but see below) gadget
type guns (cane gun, pen gun) and shoulder fired weapons with both
rifled and smooth bore barrels between 12" and 18", that must be
manually reloaded

Link: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

Dan

researchdoc
February 17, 2008, 05:15 PM
Closed, it looks like one of those in the trunk air compressors.
I'd probably have a flat and grab that and blow my rims off.........

ctdonath
February 17, 2008, 07:04 PM
Because it has a shoulder stock, and looks like a gun when in usable configuration, it's an SBR.

Soybomb
February 18, 2008, 02:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYqHe7-zKAc&feature=related

gladi8tr
February 18, 2008, 07:33 AM
i need that:evil:

chrlefxtrt
February 18, 2008, 03:38 PM
The PLR in a bag is also more discreet. That conglomeration may not scream "gun" to the average person, but it doesn't look like something a person would normally carry, either, which will attract attention. Ain't a laptop, for sure! That's what Apple needs to come out with, the I-Glock :D

Cowtown Cop
February 18, 2008, 05:42 PM
Its neat and I want one.....no make that two. It may not be the most practical thing ever invented but it sure is cool.

Joe Demko
February 18, 2008, 05:49 PM
It's something that would excell as an action movie gun. With its snickety-snackety unfolding noises and a flashlight and/or laser, it'd be just the thing for Hollywood's next "blow **** up" Vin Diesel crapfest.
For my part, I've no particular desire to own one.

TexasRifleman
February 18, 2008, 06:25 PM
I don't see how in the world you're gonna get that thing by as an AOW. The moment you put a buttstock on it, it's a rifle.


26 USC 5845(e) Any other weapon

The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

Personally I don't like it but it's another brilliant engineering design from Magpul, those guys come up with "cool stuff" better than just about anyone in the business today.

Wes Janson
February 19, 2008, 12:08 AM
Everybody who keeps talking about how a PLR-16 or P90 would work better just doesn't get the difference in size when folded. It's *SMALL*. It's like comparing the difference between a P32 and a Glock 26-they're both pretty small, but there's a world of difference in application between the two.

Crunker1337
February 19, 2008, 12:33 AM
It could be useful for a few rather narrow niches.
for instance, discreet security, pilot's weapon, or just something to toss in your bug-out bag.
Folded, it's smaller and sleeker than most of its direct competitors, plus it gives you the stock and the common GLOCK magazines. It offers a few distinct advantages, but I don't see the average Joe having much of a use for it besides a fun gun.

Daemon688
February 19, 2008, 11:33 AM
I'd take one, looks like a better car gun than the Kel-Tec Sub2000. But no glock magazines for me please......

Combatops1911
February 21, 2008, 06:48 PM
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1098

DefRev
March 1, 2008, 04:41 AM
ctdonath,

The pictures you've posted to start this thread were taken by, and belong to, DefenseReview.com. They are our property and are copyrighted. However, for some reason, you still posted them here without crediting DefenseReview, making it seem as if you shot them yourself. In doing so, you blatantly disregarded the following statement, which was written in plain English at the top of the DefRev article where you found them:

All photographic images contained in this article were taken by DefenseReview.com, and they are the exclusive property of DefenseReview.com. DefenseReview.com owns the copyright on these photos. All photos were shot with a 7.2-megapixel Sony Cyber-shot digital camera (Model #: DSC-P150).

This is the article:

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1098 -- MagPul FMG9: Prototype 9mm Folding Submachine Gun

To add insult to injury, you're hot-linking the photos (instead of downloading them from DefRev and then uploading them to THR), and thus using our bandwidth, instead of THR's bandwidth. That's just plain inconsiderate and lazy on your part.

Understand that DefenseReview spends a considerable amount of time, money, and labor traveling to industry trade shows around the country so we can shoot photos like the ones to which you've hot-linked. So, the least you can do, if you're going to post them here, is A) credit us properly for them, and B) don't hot-link them.

At this point, I would just like to make it clear that, usually, in most cases, DefenseReview doesn't mind people posting our photos in other internet venues, provided they credit us properly and don't hot-link them. If you had simply done that, you would have had our blessing.

ctdonath, as a senior member of THR, you should know better. You've exhibited some really bad internet etiquette, here. Please do it the right way, next time.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

David Crane
Owner/Editor-in-Chief
DefenseReview.com
http://www.defensereview.com

yhtomit
March 1, 2008, 05:28 AM
David:

You make a perfectly good point re: the pictures. It seems like you have a pretty generous policy for their reuse (if you don't mind credited, non-hot-linked re-use).

However, to pick one small nit, unless I'm wrong, the "News" icon on your site is the same one created several years ago by Kathleen Fenton for Slashdot.org, as shown on this page: http://slashdot.org/topics.shtml -- I recognize it, because it was created while I was contributing frequently to the site.

I don't think those logos are freely reusable -- though I cannot prove that they're all unimpeachable, copyright wise, and am not trying to right now. I don't think that any of them have yet been challenged, however -- at least none of the ones that currently appear in that list :) If I'm wrong about this, I apologize in advance.

Best,

timothy

Soybomb
March 1, 2008, 12:58 PM
To add insult to injury, you're hot-linking the photos (instead of downloading them from DefRev and then uploading them to THR), and thus using our bandwidth, instead of THR's bandwidth. That's just plain inconsiderate and lazy on your part.
If you don't like people embedding your images you need to disable that on your end. The web is built on links and many of us have differing opinions what is courteous behavior. I have no trouble with people deep linking to my sites or embedding my images, I feel like thats the foundation the web was built upon. By default I assume that anyone who allows me to do so, feels the same way. You might wish to investigate the rewrite engine and .htaccess files if you use an apache server to stop people from embedding hotlinked images.

ctdonath
March 2, 2008, 02:43 AM
The pictures you've posted to start this thread were taken by, and belong to, DefenseReview.com. They are our property and are copyrighted. However, for some reason, you still posted them here without crediting DefenseReview
They are, in my perception, credited - for if one clicks on the image, it takes the user to your article. I thought you might appreciate the exposure.

However, as you apparently do not appreciate the exposure, I shall promptly edit the post to remove the pictures - and the links.

All photographic images contained in this article were taken by DefenseReview.com, and they are the exclusive property of DefenseReview.com. DefenseReview.com owns the copyright on these photos.
Surely you are aware that copyright law includes concessions to "fair use". That was my intention: sharing "news" material with a relatively small group, with links to the source material.

This is the article:

http://www.defensereview.com/modules...ticle&sid=1098 -- MagPul FMG9: Prototype 9mm Folding Submachine Gun

I know. I linked the pictures to it three times.

To add insult to injury, you're hot-linking the photos (instead of downloading them from DefRev and then uploading them to THR), and thus using our bandwidth, instead of THR's bandwidth. That's just plain inconsiderate and lazy on your part.
Um ... that would be copyright infringement. I didn't think I was supposed to COPY photos and distribute them, so I asked your servers to serve your photos ... and your servers, as programmed to your requirements, cooperated. Actually I was only interested in what appeared to be small "thumbnail" versions, but they turned out to be rather larger than I expected. But no, I had no interest in actually violating any laws by COPYING your photos and independently distributing them, so I set the posting to ask your servers for them, which they provided without complaint.

"Hot-linking" is a common practice on the Internet. Yes, it is controversial. Your servers are capable of refusing such requests, but they do not, so the presumption is it is allowed.

May I observe that Google has apparently gone much farther with your images (http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Adefensereview.com&btnG=Search+Images)? Click on that link, and you'll find hundreds of Defense Review photos copied from your servers. Click on the photos, and - like my post - they will take the user to your pages.

So, the least you can do, if you're going to post them here, is A) credit us properly for them,
I thought linking the photos to the related page amounted to credit.

and B) don't hot-link them.
Well, then there is nothing to credit, is there?

At this point, I would just like to make it clear that, usually, in most cases, DefenseReview doesn't mind people posting our photos in other internet venues, provided they credit us properly and don't hot-link them. If you had simply done that, you would have had our blessing.


Just to be totally clear:
1. I meant no harm.
2. I meant to draw attention TO your related article.
3. I asked your servers to provide the photos, and they complied. (Many servers are programmed to refuse such requests.)
4. I made the photos, as used, clickable links which took users directly to the related page. This is a common form of "credit".

ctdonath, as a senior member of THR, you should know better. You've exhibited some really bad internet etiquette, here. Please do it the right way, next time.
What constitutes "bad etiquette" in this case is open to discussion.

As what your "blessing" applies to is unclear, and what you would prefer I do remains unclear, I shall delete the lead content in this thread, and in the future avoid Defense Review (I don't mean that to sound snotty or anything, really; I just want to resolve the issue amicably & rapidly, and do the simplest thing I can to avoid future problems: i.e., don't go there).

ctdonath
March 2, 2008, 02:54 AM
Awright, seems I can't delete/edit the offending post. I've put in a request to the moderators to pull it.

Art Eatman
March 2, 2008, 09:56 AM
If I delete only the pictures, the opening post makes no sense. If I delete the opening post, the entire thread goes away.

DefRev has made his point about attribution. (So drop any further OT comments about that.)

I see no reason to discontinue discussion about the firearm.

Art

opticalc
March 2, 2008, 01:34 PM
OK can we get back to the FMG-9?

How about more discussion about the AOR vs SBR issue? I concur with the notion that its an SBR. But a few posters have claimed that magpul registered it as an AOW so how could they have gotten there?

Quiet
March 2, 2008, 03:32 PM
OK can we get back to the FMG-9?

How about more discussion about the AOR vs SBR issue? I concur with the notion that its an SBR. But a few posters have claimed that magpul registered it as an AOW so how could they have gotten there?
I agree it would be classified as a SBR instead of an AOW.
It can't fire when folded, should be a SBR.

Magpul said at the SHOT show...
(1) that they had no intention of producing the FMG9.
(2) that they made it to show what they are capable of.
(3) that what they brought was a non-functional prototype.

So, what they showed was really their take on the ARES FMG of the 1980s.

DefRev
March 14, 2008, 12:42 AM
Dear ctdonath,

1) How could your initial/original post draw attention to our article when you didn't credit us or provide a link to the article? To date, as this is written, you still haven't credited us and/or provided a link to the DefenseReview article in that post. Heck, if you had just done that in immediate response to my post, I would have thanked you, and that would have been that. Water under the bridge.

2) I don't think your response to this was the right one, considering that I still believe you handled your initial post incorrectly. That said (or written), I'm sorry that you don't want to visit us because of this situation, but I think the reason you don't want to visit us is that you're perhaps a bit ticked at me for publicly confronting you on it.

I will tell you that I debated doing it, but decided in the end that it was important to address it. Remember, all I was really asking for was to be credited properly and not to be hotlinked. I really don't think that's asking too much, but I'm going to rethink the hotlinking issue based on this discussion and heed Soybomb's advice re disabling that feature if we decide to take decisive action against it (hotlinking) in the future. I'm going to consult my Sys/Admin on this one. However, at the moment, again based on this discussion, I'm leaning towards allowing it (hotlinking), provided Defense Review is properly credited per my perameters.

If anyone here can advise me on how to better-handle this type of situation on the boards in the future if it happens again, I'll listen to your advice. Should I respond differently? Should I perhaps not respond at all, and just allow it? I'm listening. I realize I'm fallible like everyone else, make mistakes, and don't always handle situations properly or as well as I could.

ctdonath, we're sorry to lose you. I mean it. You will be missed. We appreciate all of our readers, even if we disagree with them. So, I hope you change your mind. You're always welcome at DefRev, and we hope to see you back.

Sincerely,

David
--
David Crane
Owner/Editor-in-Chief
DefenseReview.com
defrev at gmail dot com
http://www.defensereview.com

NG VI
March 14, 2008, 11:33 AM
One aspect of it that hasn't been addressed yet, in regards to it's usefullness as a weapon vs PLR-16, shorty ARs, things like that is that quality and even many generic pistol bullets of the 21st century perform very well compared to pistol bullets of even 15 years ago.

And also, what if they were using a glock 22 or even better a Glock 20? Who can argue that a buttstock and the added weight of the device would make shooting full-power 10MM more enjoyable than shooting it out of the unmodified pistol? Also, it would be far more powerful than the 9mm version, and still hold at least 15 rounds, maybe more if Glock starts making the 29-round mags for it. I would love to have a stocked, folding 10mm.

Soybomb
March 14, 2008, 02:24 PM
If anyone here can advise me on how to better-handle this type of situation on the boards in the future if it happens again, I'll listen to your advice. Should I respond differently? Should I perhaps not respond at all, and just allow it? I'm listening.
That would be my advice for the most part. Once your post your intellectual property to the internet you've lost a degree of control over it. Right or wrong thats the way it is. You'll still get some credit and bandwidth is relatively cheap. If you want to win 100% of the time you'll usually wind up looking like a bad guy and hurting yourself more in the long run I think. Chasing down people to tell them what you think of what they're doing is only going to drive you mad. If I were you I'd continue to allow people to link your images but I'd add a small watermark on them somewhere so they automatically are credited. People can still use them, you'll automatically be credited when they're used, and you won't have any confrontations with people over their use that might reflect poorly on you or the site.

ctdonath
March 14, 2008, 04:05 PM
How could your initial/original post draw attention to our article when you didn't credit us or provide a link to the article?
Move the cursor over the picture (hard to not do), cursor indicates it's clickable.
Click on the picture, you get the article.
The pictures are the link; the link is the credit.

This is a common protocol in web usage.

To date, as this is written, you still haven't credited us and/or provided a link to the DefenseReview article in that post.
My post #52 provides the credit and link in your own words.
Clicking on the photos takes you to the article.
I tried to edit/delete the post, but I can't.
What more do you want?

I don't think your response to this was the right one
I do. Sorry if opinions differ. What I did is common practice, accepted "nettiquite". If I could edit the lead post, I would - but I can't.

how to better-handle this type of situation
Marking the pictures is common. Putting "defensereview.com" in small text in the corner would ensure credit is clear no matter how the picture gets distributed, to the point that someone would have to edit it deliberately to remove the attribution.

Your servers represent you. If they allow hotlinking, then presumably you allow hotlinking. (I wouldn't consider copying & distributing them separately - that would violate IP rights!)

Should I respond differently?
You'll have to ask yourself if you really want to respond at all. This (and variants) may be happening a lot more than you think; is it really a problem? do you really want to address every instance?

Understand the technology, nettiquite, and sociology first before chewing someone out about what amounts to common accepted practice.

Realize that the public at large may not know what particular industry expectations are.

Consider that something might be doing more good than harm. I'm sure what I did sent a bunch of desirable traffic to your site (have YOU clicked on the photos yet?).

You're always welcome
Thank you.
Do pardon my hesitation, as it seems some key rules are unwritten, only expressed when violated.

Do, please, go to the start of this thread and click on the pictures.

NG VI
March 14, 2008, 04:33 PM
Somebody please talk about the virtues of a small 10mm shoulder fired easily hidden 15 round firearm in the event of rampaging drug addicts or virus-infected crowds (not zombies, really) who are mad. it would be great!

If you enjoyed reading about "MagPul FMG 9" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!