Cavendish has left..
Comments
-
Turfle wrote:Maybe OPQS are changing to an orange kit as an act of friendship to their neighbours.
Funny you saying that because that went through my mind when she mentioned it. My first though was obviously Rabobank. But then i thought hang on, maybe one of the teams is changing colour through new sponsoship, like Cannondale is potentially losing the green from losing Liquigas.
It was me that said Rabobank because the girl said, as i mentioned, 'i dont know the team name but know they have orange and white everywhere' so i just assumed Rabobank. But then it hit me it might be a team who is changing colours, afterall, it is end of season and new kit will be announced soon? so who knows.
she was just adamant on it not being what 'everyone believes' which i took to be OPQS.0 -
Saracen Tenet 3 - 2015 - Dead - Replaced with a Hack Frame
Voodoo Bizango - 2014 - Dead - Hit by a car
Vitus Sentier VRS - 20170 -
0
-
Insideinfo wrote:Turfle wrote:Maybe OPQS are changing to an orange kit as an act of friendship to their neighbours.
Funny you saying that because that went through my mind when she mentioned it. My first though was obviously Rabobank. But then i thought hang on, maybe one of the teams is changing colour through new sponsoship, like Cannondale is potentially losing the green from losing Liquigas.
It was me that said Rabobank because the girl said, as i mentioned, 'i dont know the team name but know they have orange and white everywhere' so i just assumed Rabobank. But then it hit me it might be a team who is changing colours, afterall, it is end of season and new kit will be announced soon? so who knows.
she was just adamant on it not being what 'everyone believes' which i took to be OPQS.
This is genius. It might just be possible amongst the confusion that is wasn't after all orange and white kit but red and yellow which when combined does of course make orange, easy mistake to make. In which case he will of course be announcing a 7 year contract with Cofidis. Obvious really.0 -
Pross wrote:TailWindHome wrote:So who does this contact work for, Rabobank or The Times?
The Times, but not just any old Times employee but a junior reporter so she will obviously have access to all the sources. Add in that The Times is a Murdoch paper and I'm convinced that this source is reliable.
Like I said before, this has been reported by the ST - some 6 weeks ago. It was just one line in a long piece about sky/wiggins I think. Still doesn't mean it's going to happen.0 -
BMC, Cadel is blown so its Gilbert and Cav all the way ;-)
then again ... http://www.rabosport.com/news/item/243720 -
you post an awful lot of photos FF. Are they yours? If not do you ever seek permission from the copyright holder?frenchfighter wrote:
0 -
RickyMac wrote:
you post an awful lot of photos FF. Are they yours? If not do you ever seek permission from the copyright holder?frenchfighter wrote:
Do you need permission to post a picture on a forum!? That would be saddening.0 -
skylla wrote:Pross wrote:TailWindHome wrote:So who does this contact work for, Rabobank or The Times?
The Times, but not just any old Times employee but a junior reporter so she will obviously have access to all the sources. Add in that The Times is a Murdoch paper and I'm convinced that this source is reliable.
Like I said before, this has been reported by the ST - some 6 weeks ago. It was just one line in a long piece about sky/wiggins I think. Still doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Freire has just made a space available with his retirement and Cav's former lead-out man Renshaw is already at Rabobank.0 -
Heavymental wrote:RickyMac wrote:
you post an awful lot of photos FF. Are they yours? If not do you ever seek permission from the copyright holder?frenchfighter wrote:
Do you need permission to post a picture on a forum!? That would be saddening.
Precisely. And if RMac could look clearly he could see the photo's authors name right there. Posting them also increases the awareness of the photographer who has already made them to the public in another place on the internet.Contador is the Greatest0 -
It's a point though Frenchie... you edit the photos right? - Thus giving a misleading picture of the original photographers work, especially when they have watermarked their name on it as above. I don't have a problem but one day somebody might!0
-
Just cos copyright is written on a photo doesn't mean that copyright isn't being infringed. That's a simple fact.
If a photographer/owner or a stock provider look, then they'd look for proof of permission to publish, and if its not there then well... you know...
If they've published them elsewhere themselves then this does not make it free of copyright in the slightest.
To think otherwise would be very schoolboy and wrong.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Precisely. And if RMac could look clearly he could see the photo's authors name right there. Posting them also increases the awareness of the photographer who has already made them to the public in another place on the internet.
None of that is justification for copyright infringement (which is what you commit with every edited photograph you post that isn't your own).
Given the forum owners would be liable for such publication, I'm surprised you've been allowed to do it for so long.0 -
nweststeyn wrote:It's a point though Frenchie... you edit the photos right? - Thus giving a misleading picture of the original photographers work, especially when they have watermarked their name on it as above. I don't have a problem but one day somebody might!
You shouldn't take things so seriously. At the end of the day, I post photos to further people's enjoyment of the sport. I am not saying they are mine or trying to sell them. What kind of benefit do I get from this that the photographers would be unhappy with...the answer is none. If you did a poll on this forum, I think you would find an overwhelming majority would prefer me to post.
As an fyi, I have done nothing for that photo above. The guy did his own edit.
-
still not reading anything you write muffinman.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Le Commentateur wrote:Freire has just made a space available with his retirement and Cav's former lead-out man Renshaw is already at Rabobank.
Freire was riding for Katusha in 2012, he left Rabobank at the end of last season.
Good try though.
0 -
andyp wrote:Le Commentateur wrote:Freire has just made a space available with his retirement and Cav's former lead-out man Renshaw is already at Rabobank.
Freire was riding for Katusha in 2012, he left Rabobank at the end of last season.
Good try though.
Barredo's passport troubles could create a space though. Anyway theres 28 riders on the roster, whats the limit?0 -
frenchfighter wrote:nweststeyn wrote:It's a point though Frenchie... you edit the photos right? - Thus giving a misleading picture of the original photographers work, especially when they have watermarked their name on it as above. I don't have a problem but one day somebody might!
You shouldn't take things so seriously. At the end of the day, I post photos to further people's enjoyment of the sport. I am not saying they are mine or trying to sell them. What kind of benefit do I get from this that the photographers would be unhappy with...the answer is none. If you did a poll on this forum, I think you would find an overwhelming majort
As an fyi, I have done nothing for that photo above. The guy did his own edit.
-
still not reading anything you write muffinman.
Again, name's not muffinman frenchflopper.
The point is - its not about 'benefit' its about copyright infringement, from your comments you don't understand that, but nevermind.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:nweststeyn wrote:It's a point though Frenchie... you edit the photos right? - Thus giving a misleading picture of the original photographers work, especially when they have watermarked their name on it as above. I don't have a problem but one day somebody might!
You shouldn't take things so seriously. At the end of the day, I post photos to further people's enjoyment of the sport. I am not saying they are mine or trying to sell them. What kind of benefit do I get from this that the photographers would be unhappy with...the answer is none. If you did a poll on this forum, I think you would find an overwhelming majority would prefer me to post.
As an fyi, I have done nothing for that photo above. The guy did his own edit.
-
still not reading anything you write muffinman.
I'm a pro photographer and my photos are taken on a daily basis without permission. It devalues them as customers do not want to pay for images that have been disseminated across the Internet. People who do this make it harder for people like me to make a living. To say that a majority of people will be happy for you to take photos and post them as a satisfactory reason is truly laughable. My images take time and money to create and yet you see fit to take others images whenever you like without asking permission. What gives you that right to do as you please? Can I take from you your work and hand it around freely as long as I don't make money from it? Would that be okay with you? The offer of free advertising is also a complete fallacy and is often given as a reason to freely take what is not yours. The choice is the copyright owners as to whether they want free advertising, not yours to make on their behalf.
Beware of taking photos from Getty as I have seen you do as Getty will sue and have done many times. If you upload photos to this site that you have taken from elsewhere then you have made this site liable to be sued for copyright theft and if it is a site with a lot of hits happening then Getty have been known to send very hefty invoices and will win as there is no defence in this case. Free advertising and people want me to do it and no defences at all and would be laughed out of court.
If you respect the photographers that take the images you like so much then your respect should extend to asking their permission and not making it harder for them to make a living. You might think that what you do has no impact but you are wrong, ask any pro photog how difficult the industry is becoming because of things like this. You owe it to the photogs whose images you take to educate yourself on the situation and not just decide you know best without finding out.0 -
Thanks for the comments. If people are taking your photos, you can try and disable this functionality. (Flickr is the easiest example of this - most are open to copy, but some you cannot and it says' user has disabled downloading...' but you can do it on most websites I believe - ask the web developer). Got it, re Getty, am aware of it, and don't get photos from their site (I don't even think you can).
All the stuff I post comes from all over, personal users submitting photos for others enjoyment, blogs, cycling sites, tumblr, etc. I never take things direct from a photographer's website. If there is a photo with the photographer's name on it (like the Sky car above), it is taken from somewhere else (I cannot remember where I found the one above).
I can only say that I have zero personal gain from it and can only see that it would help a photographer to get exposure (assuming it is a photo from a professional photographer with a credit). All the photos here are of a low res and if people want . On occasion users would like hi-res of some photos and if I know I can direct them to the site where they can purchase them (so most photos posted with small res on sites like this are of little value as if someone likes something they are unlikely to buy a small photo, more like a large print to go on the wall). I am also in contact with a couple of photographers and have recommended and extolled the skills of some as well as providing sites etc.
A lot of photographers make some money by providing summary shots of the races to various websites - if you haven't already, maybe you could find some that don't have any already, and offer your services in that manner, in order to find an additional source of revenue.
As a pro photographer, can you link to your site so we can take a look?Contador is the Greatest0 -
As I said above Frenchie, I don't have a problem with it. I was merely pointing out that some might! As RickyMac has said above, many Pro Photographers have an issue with this. I'm not one, but was merely stating that you are definitely taking a risk - not necessarily when you link to photos, but definitely when you edit them (which I know you do sometimes).0
-
Thanks FF but really it comes down to seeking permission first, being able to take them is not the issue, you can easily circumvent any site that hosts them, regardless of the security features. When I post my images I mark them as copyrighted and state that if someone wishes to use them to please ask first, whether downloads are permitted or not is immaterial. Often when someone asks I am happy for them to do so if it is for non commercial usage, I am not happy when permission is not sought, it is solely my permission to give.
If an image is taken and uploaded to another site the link can be broken to where it is hosted originally, then someone can come along to where it has been uploaded without permission, find no info about copyright or who owns it and take it again. Once this happens control over it is lost and it can quickly proliferate in multiple places. Many clients want unique photos for branding and advertising (this is where I sell I am also a photog) and will not buy images that have spread across the internet as their brand will be associated with all the places the images are used, on different forums and the like. That image, once taken then becomes unsaleable and the time I took to create it is wasted, and it can take me a full day to create just one. The free advertising does not help me in that case. Sometimes free advertising can be useful but it is up to me to decide when. If someone asks to use something for free and I am happy with it then I can ask them to credit me and to include a few links. If they don't ask I don't get that opportunity. It is the responsibility of you to seek permission, not my responsibility to stop you taking them.
The terms of service on places like Tumblr, Flickr etc. state that you should not take without permission, just because so many people completely ignore those terms does not make it right. But it is easy to understand why some people might hence Rickymac brining this up. Us photogs are fighting this as much as we can but we're losing, but I'm not ready to give up yet and I try to point out why it is wrong to do it, it costs me money in my pocket, you might not think so but it's a fact. Images can take a lot of time and money to create and yet many people think they are free to take without permission. Just seek permission first it's as simple as that.0 -
Escher303 wrote:Thanks FF but really it comes down to seeking permission first, being able to take them is not the issue, you can easily circumvent any site that hosts them, regardless of the security features. When I post my images I mark them as copyrighted and state that if someone wishes to use them to please ask first, whether downloads are permitted or not is immaterial. Often when someone asks I am happy for them to do so if it is for non commercial usage, I am not happy when permission is not sought, it is solely my permission to give.
If an image is taken and uploaded to another site the link can be broken to where it is hosted originally, then someone can come along to where it has been uploaded without permission, find no info about copyright or who owns it and take it again. Once this happens control over it is lost and it can quickly proliferate in multiple places. Many clients want unique photos for branding and advertising (this is where I sell I am also a photog) and will not buy images that have spread across the internet as their brand will be associated with all the places the images are used, on different forums and the like. That image, once taken then becomes unsaleable and the time I took to create it is wasted, and it can take me a full day to create just one. The free advertising does not help me in that case. Sometimes free advertising can be useful but it is up to me to decide when. If someone asks to use something for free and I am happy with it then I can ask them to credit me and to include a few links. If they don't ask I don't get that opportunity. It is the responsibility of you to seek permission, not my responsibility to stop you taking them.
The terms of service on places like Tumblr, Flickr etc. state that you should not take without permission, just because so many people completely ignore those terms does not make it right. But it is easy to understand why some people might hence Rickymac brining this up. Us photogs are fighting this as much as we can but we're losing, but I'm not ready to give up yet and I try to point out why it is wrong to do it, it costs me money in my pocket, you might not think so but it's a fact. Images can take a lot of time and money to create and yet many people think they are free to take without permission. Just seek permission first it's as simple as that.
What Escher303 says^^0 -
Glad to hear your points escher.
Nice name too - love that artist. The Escher Museum in The Hague is worth a visit.Contador is the Greatest0 -
*** UPDATE ***
Spoke to the best mates, girlfiends, contact in pro racing (for those of you that moaned i put 'friend' :-)) last night, asked for any more goss and she said her friend mentioned she was at a charity do and some of the riders were there gossiping about next year, and one of the topics was Cav joining. She didnt hear much else but did hear that.
Still, could all be bull, but will keep you posted.0 -
Insideinfo wrote:*** UPDATE ***
Spoke to the best mates, girlfiends, contact in pro racing (for those of you that moaned i put 'friend' :-)) last night, asked for any more goss and she said her friend mentioned she was at a charity do and some of the riders were there gossiping about next year, and one of the topics was Cav joining. She didnt hear much else but did hear that.
Still, could all be bull, but will keep you posted.
0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Thanks for the comments. If people are taking your photos, you can try and disable this functionality. (Flickr is the easiest example of this - most are open to copy, but some you cannot and it says' user has disabled downloading...' but you can do it on most websites I believe - ask the web developer). Got it, re Getty, am aware of it, and don't get photos from their site (I don't even think you can).
All the stuff I post comes from all over, personal users submitting photos for others enjoyment, blogs, cycling sites, tumblr, etc. I never take things direct from a photographer's website. If there is a photo with the photographer's name on it (like the Sky car above), it is taken from somewhere else (I cannot remember where I found the one above).
I can only say that I have zero personal gain from it and can only see that it would help a photographer to get exposure (assuming it is a photo from a professional photographer with a credit). All the photos here are of a low res and if people want . On occasion users would like hi-res of some photos and if I know I can direct them to the site where they can purchase them (so most photos posted with small res on sites like this are of little value as if someone likes something they are unlikely to buy a small photo, more like a large print to go on the wall). I am also in contact with a couple of photographers and have recommended and extolled the skills of some as well as providing sites etc.
A lot of photographers make some money by providing summary shots of the races to various websites - if you haven't already, maybe you could find some that don't have any already, and offer your services in that manner, in order to find an additional source of revenue.
As a pro photographer, can you link to your site so we can take a look?
So, what you are saying is, you are doing these photographers a favour rather than infringing their copyright?0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Got it, re Getty, am aware of it, and don't get photos from their site (I don't even think you can).
FF - do a search for "Getty" in this forum - they are tagged on the file name of a significant number of photos you upload - even recently.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
Got it. I was referring to their direct site. When I know it is a shot by Getty I mentioned at the top as you are aware. The other ones with Getty in the link - not sure which sites, blogs, tumblrs they are individually from and normally don't read the link code.Contador is the Greatest0
-
frenchfighter wrote:Got it. I was referring to their direct site. When I know it is a shot by Getty I mentioned at the top as you are aware. The other ones with Getty in the link - not sure which sites, blogs, tumblrs they are individually from and normally don't read the link code.
FF, a mate of mine worked for Getty for a while. As the other poster said, they're flipping litigious.0 -
As far as I was aware, Getty letters (sent by third parties), regarding use of their photos, has been (understandably) directed towards unpaid for commerical use.
There are also known to be most litigious as they are the largest corp by miles.Contador is the Greatest0
