My beef with November Bicycles

[stormur]

I'll avoid throwing fuel on a fire with a long post, but there is only one party that connected their (screen)name or these forums to the November post, or used the words "shoddy" or "dumb" and it wasn't November.

As for armchair lawyering, under US law (where November is located) this is dead center classic fair use. If you post something on the internet, others might comment on it. Shocking.

Use same way one of my images , and you will see "dead center" . The only "dead" will be your wallet. From center to borders

Every image has author, and right owner (sometimes same) . Every use MUST be authorised. If permission has not been given , situation is clear and simple : image has been stolen ( to be precise : usage rights ). If it's done, it's done. Removing from site, apologies - now ALL ARE IRRELEVANT. Damage has been done. Period. In this situation even worse, cause it's person's face, and comments about author, not pleasant ones ( in author eyes, and that's enough ) . Plus it's obvious commercial use.

There's no "grey" here. Only black&white. It's not "their game or not" THEY DID IT.

If someone is not smart enough to use someones intelectual rights without clearly stated permission - must understand that every unauthorised usage of someones image has it's legal consequences. By legal read financial. Legal system in U.S. understood years ago and applies succesfully basic human behavior correction system : Pain. Best for companies is financial. Works as penalty and as prevention.

And "supporting" November Bikes by post like above has nothing to real situation. Did they stole rights ? Yes. No doubts here. Now for November Bikes it's just case of limiting damages ( deal ) or going for war ( lawsuit ).

And "people" can say whatever they want. If they say sometng in most cases it only means that they said something. Nothing more. But WHY they said what they said can have second bottom. Like above.

There's on the U:S. market good book about image rights "best business practices for photographers" … read how image usage rights are precisely defined, and licenses "misinterpretations" executed. Educative.


To finish : Are November Bikes nice guys ? Probably yes. But they did wrong. And that's all the case.

[SirHustlerEsq]

I'm curious to know what emotional injuries and financial damages were sustained by using the picture? There is no copyright marking on the image, I suspect there is no copyright discussion on the forum where this was posted, it's highly likely that the forum where this image resides now owns rights to the image (varies from one forum to another), I also suspect you are not engaged in any type of commerce nor have a financial interest in your photography. "Right clicking" for "copy image URL" in this case is not flagrant fraud nor theft. So, what injuries were sustained and how will you determine financial restitution as an anonymous party who voluntarily chose to identify yourself on a forum?

So please, give us a break on the copyright infringement.

So since November Bicycles is unwilling to discuss their behavior on their own site, I thought I would share my experience here, where it's likely more people will visit than on their blog. I feel that their actions demonstrate incredible arrogance and disrespect to the majority of their customer base since the only time I hear November's name in a discussion is as an alternative to Chinese carbon. Dismissing the choices of myself and others as ill-informed or self-justifying is not going to win them any business over their primary competitor.

I thought about replying to this, then realized I was wasting key-strokes comparing unbranded, Chinese Poison Train hubs to T-11s, for a guy who "feels good about his purchase" with a material failure on a composite rim.

Lighten up.

[SirHustlerEsq]

I'll avoid throwing fuel on a fire with a long post, but there is only one party that connected their (screen)name or these forums to the November post, or used the words "shoddy" or "dumb" and it wasn't November.

As for armchair lawyering, under US law (where November is located) this is dead center classic fair use. If you post something on the internet, others might comment on it. Shocking.

Use same way one of my images , and you will see "dead center" . The only "dead" will be your wallet. From center to borders

Every image has author, and right owner (sometimes same) . Every use MUST be authorised. If permission has not been given , situation is clear and simple : image has been stolen ( to be precise : usage rights ). If it's done, it's done. Removing from site, apologies - now ALL ARE IRRELEVANT. Damage has been done. Period. In this situation even worse, cause it's person's face, and comments about author, not pleasant ones ( in author eyes, and that's enough ) . Plus it's obvious commercial use.

There's no "grey" here. Only black&white. It's not "their game or not" THEY DID IT.

If someone is not smart enough to use someones intelectual rights without clearly stated permission - must understand that every unauthorised usage of someones image has it's legal consequences. By legal read financial. Legal system in U.S. understood years ago and applies succesfully basic human behavior correction system : Pain. Best for companies is financial. Works as penalty and as prevention.

And "supporting" November Bikes by post like above has nothing to real situation. Did they stole rights ? Yes. No doubts here. Now for November Bikes it's just case of limiting damages ( deal ) or going for war ( lawsuit ).

And "people" can say whatever they want. If they say sometng in most cases it only means that they said something. Nothing more. But WHY they said what they said can have second bottom. Like above.

There's on the U:S. market good book about image rights "best business practices for photographers" … read how image usage rights are precisely defined, and licenses "misinterpretations" executed. Educative.


To finish : Are November Bikes nice guys ? Probably yes. But they did wrong. And that's all the case.

I'm willing to bet my McMansion that you're not an attorney.

[rijndael]

There is no copyright marking on the image

Is that necessary for photographs? I thought they were essentially copyrighted the minute the picture was taken.

[SirHustlerEsq]

I just love that we are arguing over fair-use and copyright infringement regarding a photo which clearly displays patent infringement. I'm struggling to find the moral high-ground of the photographer.

[rijndael]

I'm not arguing anything about fair use or copyright infringement, I am not a lawyer, I'm trying to further understand how copyrights apply to photographs.

[SirHustlerEsq]

There is no copyright marking on the image

Is that necessary for photographs? I thought they were essentially copyrighted the minute the picture was taken.

They are, however fair use doctrine comes into question:

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

I have a little experience in copyright and trademark infringement by proxy/osmosis. Even if one of the four scenarios above approached "infringement", there is no injury to base restitution.

I'm not arguing anything about fair use or copyright infringement, I am not a lawyer, I'm trying to further understand how copyrights apply to photographs.

Start by reading the law. All this discussion of "sue this business and that business" is dubious and unfair. All the thread starter had to do was request that the blogger take the photo down, email could have taken care of all of this. Now we have a two page thread where misinformation and accusations abound.

[rijndael]

Start by reading the law.

I have read parts of it, but your comment regarding a copyright on the picture made me wonder if I'd missed something.

[diopena1]

Smh...

I guess that America as a whole will end up getting sued due to "Intellectual Property".... How many of us have downloaded a picture off the internet and used it as a desktop background?
How many teens download celebrity pics, and have them all over their own personal computers, tablets, smartphones, etc?

Unless there is a copyright, or something specifically stating that the picture is not intended for public use.... there is very little ground to hold. Sh*t!!... for that matter, why is the internet what it is?! <- We as a society have created the internet to be nothing but a gateway into a collective of data/information to be used and shared alike. So, as stated previously, unless there is a "watermark" or something on the image that identifies the source, if it's online... it can be used. Call it fair use.

I have read the blog in its entirety, and the points given in the blog are valid.... you have to keep an open mind to this. We are also talking about a company that has been transparent in how they operate, and there is plenty of proof, as their testing is done on their coin.... without any restitution from the others they have tested comparatively.

So, understanding there is a "beef"... I think the plate served is rather vegetarian, since there is no bashing, bantering, or cutting going on.... An image was found online, and it was used as a reference to a point given, without putting down the source..... Take my post with a grain of salt if you may, We are all entitled to our point of view.

[KWalker]

I like my November Rail 52s quite a lot.

[TedStriker]

I'll avoid throwing fuel on a fire with a long post, but there is only one party that connected their (screen)name or these forums to the November post, or used the words "shoddy" or "dumb" and it wasn't November.

As for armchair lawyering, under US law (where November is located) this is dead center classic fair use. If you post something on the internet, others might comment on it. Shocking.

Use same way one of my images , and you will see "dead center" . The only "dead" will be your wallet. From center to borders

Every image has author, and right owner (sometimes same) . Every use MUST be authorised. If permission has not been given , situation is clear and simple : image has been stolen ( to be precise : usage rights ). If it's done, it's done. Removing from site, apologies - now ALL ARE IRRELEVANT. Damage has been done. Period. In this situation even worse, cause it's person's face, and comments about author, not pleasant ones ( in author eyes, and that's enough ) . Plus it's obvious commercial use.

There's no "grey" here. Only black&white. It's not "their game or not" THEY DID IT.

If someone is not smart enough to use someones intelectual rights without clearly stated permission - must understand that every unauthorised usage of someones image has it's legal consequences. By legal read financial. Legal system in U.S. understood years ago and applies succesfully basic human behavior correction system : Pain. Best for companies is financial. Works as penalty and as prevention.

And "supporting" November Bikes by post like above has nothing to real situation. Did they stole rights ? Yes. No doubts here. Now for November Bikes it's just case of limiting damages ( deal ) or going for war ( lawsuit ).

And "people" can say whatever they want. If they say sometng in most cases it only means that they said something. Nothing more. But WHY they said what they said can have second bottom. Like above.

There's on the U:S. market good book about image rights "best business practices for photographers" … read how image usage rights are precisely defined, and licenses "misinterpretations" executed. Educative.


To finish : Are November Bikes nice guys ? Probably yes. But they did wrong. And that's all the case.

As a Brit, I'm not sire if you're serious or not - people don't really think like this do they?!

Either way, really not impressed with these November people - nothing to do with borrowing an image (though not sure I'm buying this holier-than-thou schtick about not realising they knew where it came from or feigning niavety at the offence it would cause)...But all to do with the nonsense article (perhaps rightly) criticising Chinese goods, but completely ignoring why people buy them. People want nice bikes that look good, and ride ok*. Chinese parts are an 85-95% solution for 20-30% of the price. It means people can have nice functioning, better looking bikes, that make the owner have that sense of pleasure and gets them in the saddle. Overly earnest fun-sponges constantly running stats about stiffness and comparing them to a proper/expensive wheelset miss the point entirely.

[boysa]

Thanks, KWalker. I thought you had a set and was wondering how you were getting along with them. They are on my radar.

[aaric]

I like my November Rail 52s quite a lot.

I'll second this. And I had a warranty issue that they went above and beyond to handle.

[glepore]

I dig the November guys, their ethic, and what they write. I was a little put off by the recent "dengfu" blogs though. Yes, we all agree that copycat goods-"Chinerello's" and fake 303's, are less than laudatory and somewhat suspect. What they didn't take head on are the non-copycat open mold frames and rims. Yes, the marketing is sometimes laughable. Yes, not "all" of the products are good. But that doesn't mean they're not worth the price charged. On one hand, the accusation is made that they're inferior, on the other that they're being dumped at less than cost...pick one, maybe.

A while back, on another forum, Damon Rinard suggested that maybe Cervelo should cut a few of these frames and theirs in half to analyze the differences. They haven't, and I don't think its because the can't afford the monetary cost.

[cjn11972]

Ill advised move by November - who I find are usually open and generous with advice and critical self-assessment by the way..you only have to look at their published data.
I find it quite strange that one of the major issues on here seems to be the 'IP' in the photo that Nov used 'without permission' and with some very overreactive legal suggestions on here. It was a mistake that has been corrected.
It strikes me as deeply ironic then that the opening comment starts with 'I was just finishing a build using some knock-off Chinese carbon 303's' doesn't even seem worthy of a mention. So, doesn't folks concern for 'IP' stretch to Zipp and the R&D they put into their wheels and the promotion budgets they put into their brand? Or is this just one of those 'plucky little guy' facing off against the 'big evil corporate' incidents? If that's it then it doesn't really hold much water.
If you (and often me) are going to use 'IP' as an central pillar of an argument, please lets all be wary of the pitfalls of hypocrisy and 'tall poppy syndrome'.