I would like to draw your attention, as I do occasionally, to this website's Terms and Conditions that can be found under the Hub sub menu. In particular the posting of material that might be considered by some members and readers of the site to be offensive to groups and individuals in the community or sexist or demeaning to women. I did removed a few things today as a result of some concerns raised but I am not directing this at anyone specifically. I've noticed recently a few things have crept in so it's time for a reminder.
There are many women who are members of this community, in fact 5 joined just today. I am often told by women they like Adelaide Cyclists because it is welcoming and not overly male dominated like other forums. So if you think that something might be considered offensive then it most probably is so please don't post it. I will get contacted with concerns and I welcome them and I reserve the right to remove material.
If you think something is out of line then please let me know about it. Many members, but not as a default, have a flag as offensive tag on posts. Please use it, you are all moderators. If you cannot see it leave a comment here or drop me a note and I will switch it on. Why it's not a default I don't know.
The second point I would like to make with my schoolteacher ranty-pants on is please be aware of copyright infringements. You cannot post pictures from other places on the web. You can sometimes use a picture if it is in the context of review or criticism but you need to credit the source and the photographer. I don't expect this to happen really but please be aware that the use of images and lifting of text or posting entire articles is a copyright breach and please credit where credit is due.
If you are looking for an illustrative photo to go with your post, blog or event then search Flickr.com using Creative Commons
Blog posts and Discussions
One final thing is I would like make everyone aware of the difference between a discussion post and a blog post. I know it can be a bit unclear, but a discussion is for questions or alerting the community about an issue or a stolen bike, blogs are for telling a story or sharing an idea - like a lecture. Read more here. I am considering filtering posts on the front page so only blog posts are featured. Some members put a lot of effort into writing a blog and I want it to be valued and not buried.
No, of course they're great as home page discussions! They are a great way of showing the community that you are out there and riding and welcoming. The Gawler Wheelers are testament to that. A ride report hidden in your group just serves your group, Maybe when things go a bit off topic it might be time to close it off.
BTW anyone can close their postings but choosing the options button of the post and Close Discussion.
If this point is up for a vote i would hope that they are up as discussions, the ride reports are interesting and I'd hate to have to trawl the site to find them
No vote. It's a decree.
Re the copyright on images Angus does this apply to posts where an image is inserted by using the option of making a link to the URL on the website where it occurs ? So the image actually appears here but the browser is grabbing it from some remote website.
OK, a copyright image means displaying it by actually uploading it or using its URL from another site - it's the displaying of the image that's a problem.
If you didn't actually take the photo, or buy the rights to display it, you cannot share it on any website. There are however exceptions.
1. An image of a product or service that you are using to illustrate in a review or criticism. You can grab an photo of a product, like the Tranz home trainer that Frank has displayed, and use it to illustrate your review or promotion of it.
2. Fair dealing. You can take a photo taken by a Uni, club, organisation or council to illustrate a post where you are commenting directly related to the photo's content. You should provide a credit.
Record, CD, book covers to reference the book (because the actual artwork is copyright).
3. Images that you find on the web via a Google search you cannot use. Images found by using a Creative Commons search (on Flickr.com or Pool.org.au etc) and marked that they have been given the licence of 'some rights reserved' and specifically one of the CC licences you can use the image if you adhere to the what the licencee asks - usually atribution, non commercial use, no or maybe modification and you need to show the source. So look at this cracker of a shot of Lance Armstrong. The photographer (me!) has uploaded this image with a CC attribution licence only. This means it can be used on blogs, website, media and The New Yorker online! (true, my apologies to all the photographers out there who make a living selling photos).
So grabbing a photo from the Guardian or the SMH etc is a no no (unless you are kind of reviewing or promoting the story but even then it's a fine line). Grabbing a photo that is uploaded to Adelaide Cyclists and sharing is also a no no because it is owned by the uploader.
It's a messy complicated world when it comes to images and the web. You might like to find out more by listening to this program that was on The Media Report on Copyright and You.
Thanks Gus. It is confusing. I'll have a look at that Media Report article.
Two thumbs up for featuring Blogs. The writers put lots of work into them, they deserve more of a read. Most places online I think that the only difference between this and graffiti is punctuation. They deserve a bit of a read and more of a think.