Jump to content

Canopus and Sculptor


Featured Posts

No, to most of that (post #98), unless you are studying to gain employment in a maritime architectural establishment.

 

There's basics which the major ship builders built to and certainly had technical know-how as a grounding and which is known to work but also had costs to think of. Then there's theoretical technical which spawns the dream cruisers for multi millionaires, which must surely get compromised at some point by practical considerations in construction. Then there's seeing what has gone before and works, and is followed well, or poor, dependant on the abilities of cutting and welding plates together. No need to be a naval architect or hydrodynamicist to know how water will behave - though the knowledge is widely available - just watch some craft moving along, no rocket science there. One of the nicest handling little boats I steered was a 45' Springer. Cheap as chips and did the job.

Edited by Derek R.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing has just occurred to me, and my apologies if it's been mentioned already: did you not test-drive Canopus before buying her? If so, did you not notice that her steering was problematical? If not, why not?

 

The handling of the boat as is didn't interest me as I can resolve any technical issues that I discover and learn the rest.

 

The moment I saw her that was that. It's an emotional thing, boats aren't like cars for me.

 

I mean, just look again at the lines that Dave Harris somehow sculpts from the steel... maybe it's just me... To be fair nb Beech got me too, but you guys kindly talked me out of considering a wooden hull, gorgeous as I think she is.

 

I didn't take Canopus to parade pretentiously, for me she's a (gorgeous) Dave Harris hull and that's the start of a slow evolution, if anything to become closer to Sculptor than she already is. She's a family boat and I do hope that our little girl will one day teach her children about the joys of English canals and the diverse culture it embraces. It's seems to be the only original part left of the real England that I love and knew as a child.

 

Some people will get it, others won't, but our family most certainly will and that's what counts in the end - after all, she'll always be gorgeous, it's in her genetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The handling of the boat as is didn't interest me as I can resolve any technical issues that I discover and learn the rest.

 

The moment I saw her ...

 

I didn't take Canopus to parade pretentiously, for me she's a (gorgeous) Dave Harris hull...

 

...she already is.

 

... She's a family boat

Hmmm surely a big butch boat with a boy's name is a he? Menelaus' ship's pilot might take offence at being feminised. No wonder he is handling badly! Well I suppose it could be named after Canopus the star but there doesn't seem that much femininity associated with a massive ball of hydrogen fusing at a few million degrees either. Or is it a transgender boat?

 

Anyway for the record our boat - Telemachus - is a bloke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also what's all this business about seeking copyright before posting images? I've posted hundreds of web images on this site over the years and nobody's ever worried about copyright. Or has the new concern been raised exclusively to protect the delicate sensibilities of traditionalists and the owners of historic narrow boats? tongue.png

 

It's pathetic. An image that's already in the public domain was linked here. So what? Nobody was harmed, nobody lost any income, nobody's reputation was questioned.

 

The laws against copyright theft are generally to prevent someone either passing off another's work as their own, or to profit from someone else's work. To claim 'breach of copyright' for a public domain photo linked to on a forum is beyond petty childishness.

 

I disagree strongly, I'm afraid.

 

What happened here, (and I fully accept that the OP did it in all innocence), is that images were taken from somewhere else, where even the owner of the "somewhere else", does not own the copyright on the image, but has sought permission, and been told they can use it, provided ownership and copyright is made clear.

 

I have regularly also persuaded people to let me use their images in the public domain, but with similar provisos. I make it very clear when the image is not my own, and try to credit the original photographer and/or owner of the copyright as fully as I can.

 

I have then been similarly embarrassed when somebody just lists the image and reuses it, with all trace of the original photographer and/or copyright removed.

 

This apparently does not matter to you guys, but it is for precisely this kind of reason that many people who have such photographs are now not allowing them to be made public. I suggest that if everybody respected the wishes of those who took or had rights to the photos, many more highly interesting photos might then get seen by far more people.

 

IMO there is a huge difference between providing a direct link to somebody else's web page, and simply lifting a photo from it, and reusing it, without seeking any permission to do so. The latter is breach of copyright, irrespective of whether it is being for commercial gain, or just to show an image you find interesting

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm surely a big butch boat with a boy's name is a he? Menelaus' ship's pilot might take offence at being feminised. No wonder he is handling badly! Well I suppose it could be named after Canopus the star but there doesn't seem that much femininity associated with a massive ball of hydrogen fusing at a few million degrees either. Or is it a transgender boat?

 

Anyway for the record our boat - Telemachus - is a bloke!

 

Ahh, I've been corrupted by the Italian language which, like French and all other Latin languages, is obsessed with gender. So, "mia bellissima barca" simply can't be masculine.

 

Besides, it sounds a bit dodgy calling a boy "bitch" - and she certainly deserved it at that moment!!!

Edited by dpaws
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I disagree strongly, I'm afraid.

 

What happened here, (and I fully accept that the OP did it in all innocence), is that images were taken from somewhere else, where even the owner of the "somewhere else", does not own the copyright on the image, but has sought permission, and been told they can use it, provided ownership and copyright is made clear.

 

I have regularly also persuaded people to let me use their images in the public domain, but with similar provisos. I make it very clear when the image is not my own, and try to credit the original photographer and/or owner of the copyright as fully as I can.

 

I have then been similarly embarrassed when somebody just lists the image and reuses it, with all trace of the original photographer and/or copyright removed.

 

This apparently does not matter to you guys, but it is for precisely this kind of reason that many people who have such photographs are now not allowing them to be made public. I suggest that if everybody respected the wishes of those who took or had rights to the photos, many more highly interesting photos might then get seen by far more people.

 

IMO there is a huge difference between providing a direct link to somebody else's web page, and simply lifting a photo from it, and reusing it, without seeking any permission to do so. The latter is breach of copyright, irrespective of whether it is being for commercial gain, or just to show an image you find interesting

I never suggested that it wasn't a breach of copyright. My point is that to worry about such a breach for an image linked to in a forum is pathetic beyond words.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I disagree strongly, I'm afraid.

 

What happened here, (and I fully accept that the OP did it in all innocence), is that images were taken from somewhere else, where even the owner of the "somewhere else", does not own the copyright on the image, but has sought permission, and been told they can use it, provided ownership and copyright is made clear.

 

I have regularly also persuaded people to let me use their images in the public domain, but with similar provisos. I make it very clear when the image is not my own, and try to credit the original photographer and/or owner of the copyright as fully as I can.

 

I have then been similarly embarrassed when somebody just lists the image and reuses it, with all trace of the original photographer and/or copyright removed.

 

This apparently does not matter to you guys, but it is for precisely this kind of reason that many people who have such photographs are now not allowing them to be made public. I suggest that if everybody respected the wishes of those who took or had rights to the photos, many more highly interesting photos might then get seen by far more people.

 

IMO there is a huge difference between providing a direct link to somebody else's web page, and simply lifting a photo from it, and reusing it, without seeking any permission to do so. The latter is breach of copyright, irrespective of whether it is being for commercial gain, or just to show an image you find interesting

 

Errr.... just thinking aloud, how does Pinterest work?

 

Am I in breach of copyright if I don't ask permission from a photo owner before adding it to a Pinterest board?

 

It seems reasonable that I could copy an image from Pinterest and paste it into a post, or am I wrong again?

 

I'm crap at this PC stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never suggested that it wasn't a breach of copyright. My point is that to worry about such a breach for an image linked to in a forum is pathetic beyond words.

 

You don't think it important that there are many people who will not make interesting images available because they see the abuse of copyright of images owned by others.

 

There are people who post on here who undoubtedly have large libraries of images I would really love to see, but they are unlikely to ever show them. In some cases I know they have got "burnt" in the past, and that is the reason they will release no further pictures.

 

Errr.... just thinking aloud, how does Pinterest work?

 

Am I in breach of copyright if I don't ask permission from a photo owner before adding it to a Pinterest board?

 

It seems reasonable that I could copy an image from Pinterest and paste it into a post, or am I wrong again?

 

I'm crap at this PC stuff!

 

I know nowt about Pinterest, I'm afraid.

 

It seems fairly obvious to me if a photo is displayed by someone else clearly showing a copyright, that if you then do anything yourself, either directly or using any third party software, that causes it to be reused without the ownership and copyright identified, then almost certainly you should not be doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't think it important that there are many people who will not make interesting images available because they see the abuse of copyright of images owned by others.

 

There are people who post on here who undoubtedly have large libraries of images I would really love to see, but they are unlikely to ever show them. In some cases I know they have got "burnt" in the past, and that is the reason they will release no further pictures.

So they selfishly keep them to themselves. That's their right. They can look at them in private as many times as they wish.

 

Errr.... just thinking aloud, how does Pinterest work?

 

Am I in breach of copyright if I don't ask permission from a photo owner before adding it to a Pinterest board?

 

It seems reasonable that I could copy an image from Pinterest and paste it into a post, or am I wrong again?

 

I'm crap at this PC stuff!

Loads about Pinterest copyright here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/250700/what_you_should_know_about_pinterest_and_copyright.html

 

I store photos on Flickr. Some I don't wish to have shared, so they're marked as private. Others I would have thought have little interest to others but if they wish to enjoy them then I'm only too pleased for them; several of my 'holiday snaps' have been shared by others and I hope they get as much enjoyment from them as I do.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The handling of the boat as is didn't interest me as I can resolve any technical issues that I discover and learn the rest.

 

The moment I saw her that was that. It's an emotional thing, boats aren't like cars for me.

 

I mean, just look again at the lines that Dave Harris somehow sculpts from the steel... maybe it's just me... To be fair nb Beech got me too, but you guys kindly talked me out of considering a wooden hull, gorgeous as I think she is.

 

I didn't take Canopus to parade pretentiously, for me she's a (gorgeous) Dave Harris hull and that's the start of a slow evolution, if anything to become closer to Sculptor than she already is. She's a family boat and I do hope that our little girl will one day teach her children about the joys of English canals and the diverse culture it embraces. It's seems to be the only original part left of the real England that I love and knew as a child.

 

Some people will get it, others won't, but our family most certainly will and that's what counts in the end - after all, she'll always be gorgeous, it's in her genetics.

I have never doubted you know your technical stuff but I can't help thinking you are falling into the trap of believing the problem and the solution lies within your sphere of specialist knowledge.

 

Unfortunately the one technical adjustment you will struggle to make is to the (lack of) distance between the bottom of your boat and the bottom and sides of the canal. I will hazard a guess that's the key issue rather than the hydrodynamic qualities of the hull or the stern gear.

 

In the wider scheme of things deep draughted boats aren't that hard to steer but it does take some physical effort and they won't always go where you want them paticularly toward the edges of the canal. And you will sometimes need to resort to the shaft when things go wrong.

 

Ultimately I doubt handling qualities are a significant factor in the choice of most folk who buy such boats and even you have ultimately succumbed to looks by your own admission.

 

I agree with those who suggest you are slowly coming round to the reality of the situation.

 

JP

 

ETA - The original Canopus would have been directly named after the star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never doubted you know your technical stuff but I can't help thinking you are falling into the trap of believing the problem and the solution lies within your sphere of specialist knowledge.

 

 

JP - you may have missed my post #29

 

"I asked for a second opinion about the design from my father who holds a PhD from the Cranfield Institute of Hydrodynamics, is a world renown figure in fluid dynamics (Fellow of the Institute of both Mechanical and Civil Engineers) and thus can be considered as a competent authority for the purposes of this conversation."

 

I don't mean to be arrogant, but yes, I do consider to have the necessary specialist knowledge at my disposal; probably more so than anyone else I've conversed with to date. I have regularly conversed with Dr Barrass about barge handling in confined channels, his experience and qualifications are listed here: http://www.ship-squat.com/About_Bryan_Barrass.htm. Let's not forget my dear friend and co-poster Jan (Dalslandia) who designs propellors so fluid flow is his area of expertise - and I'm sure many others here are equally modest about their own academic achievements in related fields.

 

All I do is ask why... and you can blame my mother for that smile.png

 

Ahh the star, yes, "la stella Canopus" - feminine again!

Edited by dpaws
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they selfishly keep them to themselves. That's their right. They can look at them in private as many times as they wish.

 

Loads about Pinterest copyright here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/250700/what_you_should_know_about_pinterest_and_copyright.html

 

I store photos on Flickr. Some I don't wish to have shared, so they're marked as private. Others I would have thought have little interest to others but if they wish to enjoy them then I'm only too pleased for them; several of my 'holiday snaps' have been shared by others and I hope they get as much enjoyment from them as I do.

 

Many thanks for that - ufff - I guess I'm in trouble with them too sad.png

 

I wouldn't have a clue how to make it work on this forum, but is it possible to have a post displaying a thumbnail, for example, which when clicked on will take you to the original photo on the original site in the public domain?

 

Would that keep everyone happy?

 

If it is possible and all's well with all then could someone techie please show me how to do that? smile.png

Edited by dpaws
Link to comment
Share on other sites

99.9% of folk would be perfectly happy if you quote the original source - Flickr for instance does that automatically for you when you copy a link.

 

I guess for the other 0.1% who complain then you simply remove the image if requested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Errr.... just thinking aloud, how does Pinterest work?

 

Am I in breach of copyright if I don't ask permission from a photo owner before adding it to a Pinterest board?

 

It seems reasonable that I could copy an image from Pinterest and paste it into a post, or am I wrong again?

 

I'm crap at this PC stuff!

 

 

No, its not a 'computer' thing its a legal principle you seem unable to grasp. The concept of intellectual property.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dpaws, do you know the previous owner of Canopus because I am sure if you do a search of the forum you will find in 2015 posts of where he rammed another boat or boats so maybe he had a steering issue as well

Comment in that post that he was going to fast, its a common factor if you go to fast in a restricted channel you climb the bank.

As has been said this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Boaters-Boating-Christopher-Norton-Deuchar/0953151204

Should be compulsory reading for anyone who has a deep drafted boat no matter how good they think they are at boat handling.

Edited by Loddon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never suggested that it wasn't a breach of copyright. My point is that to worry about such a breach for an image linked to in a forum is pathetic beyond words.

 

 

 

 

No, its not a 'computer' thing its a legal principle you seem unable to grasp. The concept of intellectual property.

 

I do wonder if it's a misinterpretation of the principal of copyright law, after all, does everyone have the permission of the persons captured in these photos to be published, isn't that an infringement of personal privacy.

 

Is there a legal precedent where a photo owner has successfully sued for the use of their public domain photo in a public forum? I just can't imagine what damages could possibly be awarded... how on earth has the individual personally profited? I had initially mentioned that the offending foto had come from the Sculptor bog, so I haven't profited from the pretence that I'd personally captured the foto. So how did I personally profit when it's very use was to aid the understanding of the general public rather than myself - I already knew what I was trying to explain.

 

Although I'll try not to offend again I just don't get it, sorry....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if these people who hide their photos are the same ones we experienced yesterday. Popping out of the undergrowth photographing our boat from all angles - 4 different photographers none who bothered to make eye contact so I could smile at them. Must a christmas thing - trying out their new toys. All this and we were only travelling 8 locks boxing day cruise. ;)

Edited by mark99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comment in that post that he was going to fast, its a common factor if you go to fast in a restricted channel you climb the bank.

As has been said this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Boaters-Boating-Christopher-Norton-Deuchar/0953151204

Should be compulsory reading for anyone who has a deep drafted boat no matter how good they think they are at boat handling.

 

I agree, but sometimes you have to experience it to understand it. I could write pages about the technical aspects of my work, but until you witnessed the procedures for yourself it means nowt. I knew all about the forces but it's very different having felt them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try and set the record straight.

 

The images dpaws used (and for which he kindly apologised for using - thank you) were on Sculptor's blog - sadly out-of-date at the moment because of the hip operations I have had this year. They were not linked to as WotEver argues - in my view linking to them would not have caused any issues; they were copied without the small Copyright notice; they were not claimed as dpaws own as he referred to Sculptor's blog. However what is clear is that in putting them on the blog I had been obliged, correctly in law, to request permission of the copyright owners to use them therefore I had a responsibility to do my best to further protect them. That permission was given so I wasn't even fighting for my own copyright but that of two (maybe three as the third one may be deceased) others who had entrusted the images to me but had also given permission for me to use them in the way I had. Blogger has no finesse in the way it deals with copying so I am minded, sadly, to consider removing public access to the page the images are on.

 

So what do I know about Data Protection? Well I looked after, along with a lot of other data, BA's 40,000,000 rolling (deleting old and adding new because of the Data Protection Act) offline passenger records for about 25 years (including what we did with the in the event of an aircraft accident - who remembers the BA38 'short landing' at Heathrow on 17-January-2008?). During the period of my custody of those records I don't remember any breach - so I think I know what I am talking about (although probably sadly out-of-date now...). It matters not, in my view, if it is an image (as in this case) or text that can provide information. The only external agency we would release information to were HM Police and then only on production of a written formal request.

 

I think it this is a good debate to be had because whilst in the UK you tend to get a good ticking off for doing something wrong but I expect our American friends may be inclined to see you in court.

 

As Alan says a lot of interesting images are not available to us because they have been used incorrectly in the past - I can think of a number of collections I would give my right arm to look at, and one not very far from me, but access has been denied for exactly the reasons Alan eludes to.

Edited by Leo No2
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if these people who hide their photos are the same ones we experienced yesterday. Popping out of the undergrowth photographing our boat from all angles - 4 different photographers none who bothered to make eye contact so I could smile at them. Must a christmas thing - trying out their new toys. All this and we were only travelling 8 locks. wink.png

 

I had the same thing - the rather dapper chap on the stern of Sculptor apologised for taking a photo of Canopus as we passed.

 

Now he didn't ask permission first and he hasn't asked permission to publish our faces - but I don't think that way - I simply swelled with pride as the shutter clicked... but then at the same time I pitted the UK's politically correct obsession that I'd assumed had cause him to apologise.

 

I do hope the cut doesn't become so PC bonkers as the rest of the UK.

 

Remember the joke about the Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman, still funny you know and thankfully I can still laugh at myself.

 

Gawd help the next generation - I believe they've been labelled "snowflakes"

 

Bah humbug ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly I don't really see a connection between data protection and copyright - they are totally different things with different aims, surely?

 

Anyway I "get" why you, as the custodian of someone else's property, were concerned. What I don't get is why the possessors of photos of historical interest feel the need to keep them secret. How mean and selfish! Perhaps they have no other means to feel important?

 

Also don't understand that if I reply to a post on here that contains a photo, I repost a copy of that photo. But for some reason that is not considered a copyright breach. It is all very odd and rather stupid IMO!

 

Edited to say, this post directed to Leo no2.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I do wonder if it's a misinterpretation of the principal of copyright law, after all, does everyone have the permission of the persons captured in these photos to be published, isn't that an infringement of personal privacy.

 

Is there a legal precedent where a photo owner has successfully sued for the use of their public domain photo in a public forum? I just can't imagine what damages could possibly be awarded... how on earth has the individual personally profited? I had initially mentioned that the offending foto had come from the Sculptor bog, so I haven't profited from the pretence that I'd personally captured the foto. So how did I personally profit when it's very use was to aid the understanding of the general public rather than myself - I already knew what I was trying to explain.

 

Kathryn, I appreciate your knowledge on your subject but I wonder if you deliberately circumnavigated my questions?

 

Please, convince me that someone was damaged...

 

(many thanks for accepting my apology, there were no malintentions xx)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly I don't really see a connection between data protection and copyright - they are totally different things with different aims, surely?

 

Anyway I "get" why you, as the custodian of someone else's property, were concerned. What I don't get is why the possessors of photos of historical interest feel the need to keep them secret. How mean and selfish! Perhaps they have no other means to feel important?

 

Also don't understand that if I reply to a post on here that contains a photo, I repost a copy of that photo. But for some reason that is not considered a copyright breach. It is all very odd and rather stupid IMO!

 

Edited to say, this post directed to Leo no2.

 

 

I agree its all rather stupid, but it;s the thin end of a very thick wedge. Owners of photos have the right to do with them as they wish and prevent their images being reproduced. You regard it as selfish and secretive and I agree, but I would argue in favour of them having that right. And I think you would too if you think about it properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.