Jump to content
wordguy

More Bus Moves

Recommended Posts

On 10/11/2017 at 2:40 PM, andrethebusman said:

Per official September 2017 assignment list:

1821 gone. Reason??

4300, 7900 back on list. Have either been actually seen recently?

804 only 800 left.

804 might have gone. Has not been used in service since 10/5 when it was on the 12 until around 10:15am according to Maths22 bus tracker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think sometime before 2017 ends or sometime in 2018 some of the NF buses from #1000-#1429 would make a comeback to Kedzie garage? I remember riding #1214 NF bus on the #21 Cermak bus route coming from North Riverside Mall back in Nov 2015. Good ol times. CTA bring them back to Kedzie. Those buses rock to me they do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ChiTown said:

Do you think sometime before 2017 ends or sometime in 2018 some of the NF buses from #1000-#1429 would make a comeback to Kedzie garage? I remember riding #1214 NF bus on the #21 Cermak bus route coming from North Riverside Mall back in Nov 2015. Good ol times. CTA bring them back to Kedzie. Those buses rock to me they do

Anything's possible, but given that CTA has shown it wants to keep the lower blocks together, unlikely. Besides, other than 1630 up being lighter weight, I don't see what the difference is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ChiTown said:

Do you think sometime before 2017 ends or sometime in 2018 some of the NF buses from #1000-#1429 would make a comeback to Kedzie garage? I remember riding #1214 NF bus on the #21 Cermak bus route coming from North Riverside Mall back in Nov 2015. Good ol times. CTA bring them back to Kedzie. Those buses rock to me they do

#1226 does rock just like a boat. Give it a ride in the back and you'll see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jesi2282 said:

6858 currently on the #1... 

Somebody is getting fired! xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 2:04 AM, TaylorTank1229 said:

Just a quick question, has anyone here ever seen, rode, or operated a 1983 Flyer D901A? I remember being on it once back in like 2002, I remember it was running on the #93 when I did. 

wb3.jpg

I rode them frequently on #77 back in the '80's. I remember the pine and lime scheme. It would've been nice to have seen one kept for IRM, or put into the CTA Heritage Fleet. But the only one kept(#1606) was a disabled bus, as the CTA mechanics at the time were under orders to cut all the fluid lines and run the bus until it seized up. The only way that bus would've run again is to get a donor Detroit 6V92TA. The bus was last with CHBM, but I think since it had to be towed from site to site, it was probably sold to a scrapper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, garmon757 said:

Please tell me this isn't copyright infringement..... I need a source. Otherwise, I have to take it down.

No. I just put this up so people would know which bus I’m referring to. I find the picture from the website below.

http://www.hopetunnel.org/bus/cta.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

No. I just put this up so people would know which bus I’m referring to. I find the picture from the website below.

http://www.hopetunnel.org/bus/cta.html

Repost the pics like this, @TaylorTank1229, this way there's no infringement. This is a paste of the link in the URL of the pic, @garmon757. Would you still require him to maybe state in the post Copyright: hopetunnel.org?

wb3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sw4400 said:

Would you still require him to maybe state in the post Copyright: hopetunnel.org?

As long as I see a credible website and/or the person's name who owns the particular photo, I have no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, garmon757 said:

As long as I see a credible website and/or the person's name who owns the particular photo, I have no problem.

No, actually you do.

The urls indicate that he copied this picture onto your server. That's a copyright violation.

Now, if he used the "Insert Other Media" and then "Insert Image from URL" all that would be on your server would be a link, and that's legal.

The quick rule is: If someone copied something on your server and didn't have permission to do so, it can't stay. SW's theory that if you give credit that serves as permission is wrong.

save.thumb.png.d4b2091d33efd0e0c8368e5bd2384d71.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Busjack is correct. Linking is fine. Re-uploading here is not unless the photo is licensed to allow that.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Busjack said:

No, actually you do.

The urls indicate that he copied this picture onto your server. That's a copyright violation.

Now, if he used the "Insert Other Media" and then "Insert Image from URL" all that would be on your server would be a link, and that's legal.

The quick rule is: If someone copied something on your server and didn't have permission to do so, it can't stay. SW's theory that if you give credit that serves as permission is wrong.

save.thumb.png.d4b2091d33efd0e0c8368e5bd2384d71.png

That's what I meant in regard of credible website, a link (sorry for the confusion) but yes, you are absolutely right. Thanks for your help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kevin said:

Busjack is correct. Linking is fine. Re-uploading here is not unless the photo is licensed to allow that.  

 

6 hours ago, garmon757 said:

That's what I meant in regard of credible website, a link (sorry for the confusion) but yes, you are absolutely right. Thanks for your help. 

So if I copy a URL from the internet search bar for a pic(I'll take one from the chicagobus.org gallery for example...) This is still wrong, even though I took the link source and just pasted it to the thread? I didn't save it to the computer and upload it here.

12797569765_95c09ac74f_o.jpg?2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sw4400 said:

 

So if I copy a URL from the internet search bar for a pic(I'll take one from the chicagobus.org gallery for example...) This is still wrong, even though I took the link source and just pasted it to the thread? I didn't save it to the computer and upload it here.

12797569765_95c09ac74f_o.jpg?2014

Basically, the point was (after @garmon757 clarified his diction), is that if you pasted the link, basically as I said and Kevin confirmed, it is o.k. I illustrated the method of doing so, and Kevin said it was o.k. The distinction made by Kevin is that it is not permissible to upload an image from another website to this one using "attach," unless you have permission or it is licensed for such use.

As a matter of courtesy, once should credit the originating website, but that's courtesy rather than a copyright violation. Note that I always use the term "Embedded from ----.com."

@Kevin or @garmon757 will have to figure out whether what @TaylorTank1229 did was permissible and can stay on the server. If there wasn't an attachment, it's o.k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going put in my 2 cents here. Over at vpforums, they have replicated games without permission, but what keeps them from getting shutdown is the simple fact that no one is profiting from the sale of a replicated game. Everything is free. I personally think sites like this and that one are good because there is no money exchanging hands, we are helping each other like it was meant to be and becoming friends along the way. There is a good feeling in your soul knowing that you helped someone and you shared with them your work. This is how great friendships are built on trust and generiousity. Love can be a wonderful thing.

Now in saying that, a person can request the picture be removed, but if your not out on the corner selling 5 by 9's, it not really grounds for a lawsuit. You know this can get ridiculous, what keeps me from saying hey you can't use my information on rosters and stuff because it is my work. Now if they sold a book and you could prove they used my info, I have a case.

These fan websites only gather interest in the subject matter, why sue if your a game manufacturer when the replication is actually selling you games because I've played stuff and said man this is cool and wanted to buy the real thing. Same here. I've made friends and done stuff at CTA I would never have done without these sites. Heck who knows, I know if won the lotto, I'd want to invest money into these rail museums because they are doing great things, (god's work) bringing back the past and if I've done my part, even if it's one thing then I've accomplished my mission and my heart's mission. You don't need money to share your love, it's free and it comes from within. Information is as good as money in my book.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BusHunter said:

I'm going put in my 2 cents here. Over at vpforums, they have replicated games without permission, but what keeps them from getting shutdown is the simple fact that no one is profiting from the sale of a replicated game. Everything is free. I personally think sites like this and that one are good because there is no money exchanging hands, we are helping each other like it was meant to be and becoming friends along the way.

The distinction here is that there is nothing wrong with sharing each others' work, as long as you create it, or get permission from the creator. As with anything taken from this site, it's based on the license posted here, and doing stuff like @sw4400 was doing of using pictures on one part of this site on another part of this site doesn't affect anything, because this site still owns the rights to it.

However, even if there isn't anything here worth suing over, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is still the law. No sense for the moderators to be knowingly violating it or allowing others to do so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually now if someone requests that the picture being taken down like the author you have to abide by it. Someone shouldnt put there pictures on the net at all if they didnt intend to share them. Even with protections in place like sites that dont let you download the picture there are ways to get around that. Only way to really protect it is make it friends only like on Facebook. 

They have cease and desist orders I've heard about on the other site but basically if you cease no problem. 

As far as me it's useless to fight about my info, my decision was made to share it when I posted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BusHunter said:

As far as me it's useless to fight about my info, my decision was made to share it when I posted it.

That's your decision, which should end this off topic discussion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

×