|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 27, 2018 9:56:31 GMT
There, I’ve included all the copyright info. Trouble is, I can’t make it any bigger! Rather spoils the effect!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 27, 2018 10:11:54 GMT
If I look passed the fact that this an obvious trolling attempt by Nick. His logic seems to have gone astray again. So Nick the decline in maintenance that is happening network wide at the moment, is okay because it's happened before is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 10:16:40 GMT
Hello Nick... photo obtained from google.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 11:04:49 GMT
Just checking, wouldn't want you to suffer the wrath of the copyright owner, the friend of Sculptor wasn't happy about images being used without permission, would have been awful for you to get your knuckles wrapped too. You are so good to me! xxx Anyway, to give your point due consideration, it is probably courteous to include the source in the link. I’ll have a go at editing it... Someone needs to keep an eye out for you. Occasionally I make the effort to give a heads up to the original owner of an image I have lifted from elsewhere, I think people do make too much over the rights of stuff posted online, and in the case of the Christmas day Canopus Scultporgate I did think that could have been ignored or a thank you given for sharing an image to a wider audience, but hey ho, rules is rules and all that.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 27, 2018 11:20:46 GMT
You are so good to me! xxx Anyway, to give your point due consideration, it is probably courteous to include the source in the link. I’ll have a go at editing it... Someone needs to keep an eye out for you. Occasionally I make the effort to give a heads up to the original owner of an image I have lifted from elsewhere, I think people do make too much over the rights of stuff posted online, and in the case of the Christmas day Canopus Scultporgate I did think that could have been ignored or a thank you given for sharing an image to a wider audience, but hey ho, rules is rules and all that. As i understand it, from a legal point of view there is nothing wrong with providing an un acknowledged link to someone’s picture on the internet. If I post my own photo and you quote it in your reply, you have done just that. It is only a matter of courtesy, not a matter of law. Copying the picture, or pretending it is your own picture, is a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 27, 2018 11:26:40 GMT
If I look passed the fact that this an obvious trolling attempt by Nick. His logic seems to have gone astray again. So Nick the decline in maintenance that is happening network wide at the moment, is okay because it's happened before is it? I think there is a dip in maintenance standards at the moment. Well a deterioration anyway. This could be due to less maintenance, or could be due to the same maintenance but with heavier use and in particular use by people unsympathetic to the infrastructure. Last year we came down the Cheshire locks and encountered a hire boat that drove into the locks. Then both bottom paddles were opened fully (and they are fast drainers) and only then did they think about closing the top gates. The crash and shock wave when the gate slammed shut was about 8.5 on the Richter scale. With that sort of abuse commonplace, and general crashery endorsed by Tim and Pru, it can’t be too surprising that stuff gets broken. But anyway, whilst there is a dip in maintenance standards, the network is in far better condition than it was in the 60s. But of course as a new boater you won’t remember what it used to be like and I can see why, with your perspective of just a few years, things seem bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 11:29:39 GMT
Someone needs to keep an eye out for you. Occasionally I make the effort to give a heads up to the original owner of an image I have lifted from elsewhere, I think people do make too much over the rights of stuff posted online, and in the case of the Christmas day Canopus Scultporgate I did think that could have been ignored or a thank you given for sharing an image to a wider audience, but hey ho, rules is rules and all that. As i understand it, from a legal point of view there is nothing wrong with providing an un acknowledged link to someone’s picture on the internet. If I post my own photo and you quote it in your reply, you have done just that. It is only a matter of courtesy, not a matter of law. Copying the picture, or pretending it is your own picture, is a different matter. Indeed, and in the grand scheme of things pretty low on the list of things to worry about - especially where there is no commercial gain to be had and you are sharing it with people who have the same interests.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Feb 27, 2018 11:45:03 GMT
Pictures actually belong ..or so I have been informed in a course I attended...to the person who took the image...so if u ask someone to take a pic of you with your camera ..pic belongs to them TBH I'm not sure I believe that cos it makes proving a pic belongs to someone quite difficult unless they print over the image. I often use sons pictures 'borrowed' from his web site in my blogs but always acknowledge source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 11:48:47 GMT
I once got a bit of a bollocking on CWDF because I regularly posted pictures up on there by using the very facility provided by the forum software. It was ISTR when Ange was going through one of her 'strops' with me moments.
As far as I am concerned it is polite to credit the taker (if of course you know who it actually is) but at the end of the day as long as you are not trying to claim it as your own work or make some sort of credit or financial gain from somebody else's image I don't see it as a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 27, 2018 12:02:25 GMT
Hello Nick... photo obtained from google. Hook line and sinker? Nice one!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 27, 2018 12:08:11 GMT
If I look passed the fact that this an obvious trolling attempt by Nick. His logic seems to have gone astray again. So Nick the decline in maintenance that is happening network wide at the moment, is okay But anyway, whilst there is a dip in maintenance standards, the network is in far better condition than it was in the 60s. But of course as a new boater you won’t remember what it used to be like and I can see why, with your perspective of just a few years, things seem bad. We should be using what happened in the 60's as a cautionary tale, yes the network generally isn't in as bad condition as it was then. But it could soon be back in as a bad a condition in parts if the maintenance isn't kept on top of. Which it isn't since Crt have taken over the reigns. There is an agreed decline in maintenance of 15% so how long before its back to the same state as the 60's. I already come across numerous lcks that are hanging, ground paddles not working, gate paddles not working and gates leakng badly etc. But the general public don't notice, because theyve been nicely painted by volunteers. Paint is cheap.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 27, 2018 13:05:59 GMT
Ah the good old days when canals were properly maintained, before those incompetent scurrilous sharks at BW and then CRT got their noses into the trough. I mean, look at this lovely picture of how Gas St Basin used to look in the 1960s. You can almost picture the roses round the door... Gas Street Basin - the view from Broad Street Tunnel (1968)
To anyone stupid enough to assess the condition of a canal solely by the presence of a patch of floating rubbish, I'm sure that today's view of Gas St basin from under Broad St bridge would be infinitely preferable to that shown in this 1968 photo. It is, of course, equally understandable that such a dedicated exponent of the superficial and phoney would feel compelled to buy a boat adorned with fake rivets.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 27, 2018 14:17:27 GMT
Ah the good old days when canals were properly maintained, before those incompetent scurrilous sharks at BW and then CRT got their noses into the trough. I mean, look at this lovely picture of how Gas St Basin used to look in the 1960s. You can almost picture the roses round the door... Gas Street Basin - the view from Broad Street Tunnel (1968)
To anyone stupid enough to assess the condition of a canal solely by the presence of a patch of floating rubbish, I'm sure that today's view of Gas St basin from under Broad St bridge would be infinitely preferable to that shown in this 1968 photo. It is, of course, equally understandable that such a dedicated exponent of the superficial and phoney would feel compelled to buy a boat adorned with fake rivets. Ah so no actual argument or point then! No wonder "jenlyn likes this!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 14:57:47 GMT
I thought it was good too Anyway in the original picture there appears to be some floating wood. I would have grabbed that with my long shaft or grapnel cut it up an put it in the fire !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 27, 2018 18:31:58 GMT
To anyone stupid enough to assess the condition of a canal solely by the presence of a patch of floating rubbish, I'm sure that today's view of Gas St basin from under Broad St bridge would be infinitely preferable to that shown in this 1968 photo. It is, of course, equally understandable that such a dedicated exponent of the superficial and phoney would feel compelled to buy a boat adorned with fake rivets. Ah so no actual argument or point then! No wonder "jenlyn likes this!" The point is that patches of floating rubbish have no bearing whatsoever on the condition, and therefore the maintenance standards, of any canal or other waterway. The fact that you, and no doubt every other like-minded poseur, believe that it does serves to emphasize that in C&RT you've got precisely the sort of navigation authority you all deserve.
|
|