Durbanville Club Road Etiquette

[Belloki]

Hmm those pictures are on Facebook so it is out there already

You are wrong once again, those pictures are within a group on Facebook where these people gave their consent and is protected by copyrights. On Facebook these people are also not being battered.

 

You have actually stolen these pictures and then battered these people without their consent and or knowledge.

 

As i said your ego seems to be bigger than your IQ.

[Clubhubber]

This matter has been taken up for legal representation and actions as only selected pictures were chosen by the individual to defame members or "club".

You are wrong once again, those pictures are within a group on Facebook where these people gave their consent and is protected by copyrights. On Facebook these people are also not being battered.

 

You have actually stolen these pictures and then battered these people without their consent and or knowledge.

 

As i said your ego seems to be bigger than your IQ.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

This matter has been taken up for legal representation and actions as only selected pictures were chosen by the individual to defame members or "club".

One question: WHY!? This hardly requires a legal battle. A simple "right, we did wrong, we'll take it up with our members" would be far better received and would be far more constructive for you, your club members and the cycling population in general. Own up to your problems, adapt adopt and improve. 

 

The pics are in the public domain. Whether it be limited to a certain group of people or not, it's still up on the web. The pics are clear in their representation of a snapshot in time. The copyright issue is a secondary one, and seems to me to be an attempt to make it an "offence" in social media law so as to get the person on a technicality. By my understanding, this usage amounts to "fair use" of a picture that is in the social domain. 

 

Why the vehement defence? Are you trying to say that they didn't do anything wrong, when the pics clearly show otherwise? Why this automatic deference to litigation when it's far from necessary?

 

What is fair use?

The fair use doctrine recognizes that rigid application of copyright laws in certain cases would be unfair or may inappropriately stifle creativity or stop people from creating original works, which would harm the public. So, the doctrine allows people to use someone else’s copyrighted work without permission in certain circumstances. Common examples include: criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

[BMCfan]

'n Paar bekende gesigte maar wou ook sê ek sien nie vir "wannebe" nie- jis jys gelukkig   

Hey forcolourchappie. Hou op inmeng ...

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

You are wrong once again, those pictures are within a group on Facebook where these people gave their consent and is protected by copyrights. On Facebook these people are also not being battered.

 

You have actually stolen these pictures and then battered these people without their consent and or knowledge.

 

As i said your ego seems to be bigger than your IQ.

If you're trying to bring a legal defence, try not to bring ad hominems into your "defence" of your position. 

[Reg Lizard]

Hey forcolourchappie. Hou op inmeng ...

hey jou nar, lewe jy nog

[Wannabe]

'n Paar bekende gesigte maar wou ook sê ek sien nie vir "wannebe" nie- jis jys gelukkig   

 

Maar ek is dalk die ou wat hierdie inkrimerende fotos neem.........

[Reg Lizard]

Maar ek is dalk die ou wat hierdie inkrimerende fotos neem.........

whahaha whahaha...gelukkig is daar niks bewyse nie of is daai 'n bekentenis

[Underachiever]

Now I know why I always train on my own.....

[Quagga]

Actually no, that road is dead quiet and the distance to the corner is much further than what it might look on the pic. - In my view that pic is harmless unless you are digging for reasons to bash that group.

 

I think Quagga's heart is in the right place re road safety but he seems to have a long history of antagonising people who really should be on his side.

Please explain more 

 

Edit: Because that road is sto quiet when people and bikers use it they normally SPEED

Edited January 30, 2020 by Quagga

[Jbr]

sho it escalated quickly !

[MTBeer]

Actually no, that road is dead quiet and the distance to the corner is much further than what it might look on the pic. - In my view that pic is harmless unless you are digging for reasons to bash that group.

 

I think Quagga's heart is in the right place re road safety but he seems to have a long history of antagonising people who really should be on his side.

fair enough. looks pretty close on the photo.

[MTBeer]

 

One question: WHY!? This hardly requires a legal battle. A simple "right, we did wrong, we'll take it up with our members" would be far better received and would be far more constructive for you, your club members and the cycling population in general. Own up to your problems, adapt adopt and improve. 

 

The pics are in the public domain. Whether it be limited to a certain group of people or not, it's still up on the web. The pics are clear in their representation of a snapshot in time. The copyright issue is a secondary one, and seems to me to be an attempt to make it an "offence" in social media law so as to get the person on a technicality. By my understanding, this usage amounts to "fair use" of a picture that is in the social domain. 

 

Why the vehement defence? Are you trying to say that they didn't do anything wrong, when the pics clearly show otherwise? Why this automatic deference to litigation when it's far from necessary?

 

What is fair use?

The fair use doctrine recognizes that rigid application of copyright laws in certain cases would be unfair or may inappropriately stifle creativity or stop people from creating original works, which would harm the public. So, the doctrine allows people to use someone else’s copyrighted work without permission in certain circumstances. Common examples include: criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.

 

true. never understood why, when there is clear evidence of people being a bit naughty, a simple sorry is not forthcoming. But the standard response seems to be to attack the accuser. This is not limited to cycling forums.

[Twaatie]

fair enough. looks pretty close on the photo.

Its the top of Malanshoogte, has a flat top of about 200m. Its normally quite but you do get the odd construction truck speeding Edited January 30, 2020 by Twaatie

[Clubhubber]

You shall at all times ensure that any content posted by you on Bike Hub or any Website forum shall not:

• be unlawful, defamatory, offensive (such as profanities), sexually explicit or pornographic, abusive, threatening or harassing, intimidating, or racial, religious or personal attacks of any kind;
• violate the property rights of others, including copyrighted text, images or programs, trade secrets or other confidential proprietary information, and trademarks or service marks;
• contain or carry any code or electronic information of a malicious or destructive nature or that may damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information of Bike Hub Users;
• advertise or promote chain letters, charity requests, petitions for signatures, employment opportunities, investment or savings opportunities, requests relating to Ponzi or pyramid schemes or any other content or information that creates and distributes unsolicited commercial communications;
• impede the operation of Bike Hub website or service infrastructure or that negatively affects the availability of the Website or the service to others;
• be false, inaccurate or misleading; or
• violate the terms of this Agreement or any applicable law, statute, ordinance or regulation (including, but not limited to, those governing consumer protection, data protection, unfair competition, anti-discrimination or false advertising).

 

One question: WHY!? This hardly requires a legal battle. A simple "right, we did wrong, we'll take it up with our members" would be far better received and would be far more constructive for you, your club members and the cycling population in general. Own up to your problems, adapt adopt and improve. 

 

The pics are in the public domain. Whether it be limited to a certain group of people or not, it's still up on the web. The pics are clear in their representation of a snapshot in time. The copyright issue is a secondary one, and seems to me to be an attempt to make it an "offence" in social media law so as to get the person on a technicality. By my understanding, this usage amounts to "fair use" of a picture that is in the social domain. 

 

Why the vehement defence? Are you trying to say that they didn't do anything wrong, when the pics clearly show otherwise? Why this automatic deference to litigation when it's far from necessary?

 

What is fair use?

The fair use doctrine recognizes that rigid application of copyright laws in certain cases would be unfair or may inappropriately stifle creativity or stop people from creating original works, which would harm the public. So, the doctrine allows people to use someone else’s copyrighted work without permission in certain circumstances. Common examples include: criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.

 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

true. never understood why, when there is clear evidence of people being a bit naughty, a simple sorry is not forthcoming. But the standard response seems to be to attack the accuser. This is not limited to cycling forums.

yeah, precisely.