Deep Sea reel ID?

[BCharles]

A couple of dudes fishing the Gulf Stream. Can anyone ID the reels?

[reeltackle]

Fin-Nor 9/0 and 6/0 single speed reels on Tycoon Tackle rods.

[Paul M]

Ed, what took you so long?

[wrong99]

Is that our old friend Fidel?

[Dr. Rob]

Yup. And Ernesto.
Some of y'all are prolly wristwatch nerds too. Bonus points for IDing the watch.


(Later edit for clarification: Guevaras real name was Ernesto. Che was a nickname)

.

[wrong99]

It's a wristwatch.

[BCharles]

A couple more

[Richard Lodge]

I thought Fidel and Hemingway both used a Thompson submachinegun to dispatch their billfish.

[reeltackle]

That's not Ernest Hemingway with Castro it is Che Guevara.

[BCharles]

My understanding is that Hemingway used it to deal with sharks.

[reeltackle]

My understanding is it is not right to use photos off other people's sites without referencing where you got them.
As in - Hemingway picture courtesy of Ed Pritchard

[BCharles]

It's a great picture you didn't take of a universally famous author on a fishing trip you weren't a part of.

With all due courtesy, etc, etc.

[reeltackle]

So what you are saying is that when people expend time, effort and money to do the research and go to the expense to purchase items like that picture they shouldn't mind when people just "borrow" it without permission and neglect to even reference where they got it. Sort of like taking credit for research done by other people without having the decency to mention where you got the information or giving the author credit for their research and then passing it off as your own. I think there is a word for that ... plagiarism.

https://www.plagiarism.org/

I do have to hand it to you though, I believe that you believe your little rationalization. etc. etc.

[Midway Tommy D]

Had that happen to me a couple of times, Ed, with research, though, not anything I actually purchased. To be nice, it's quite annoying and irritating.

[Paul M]

Not long ago I spotted an online auction listing for a beater reel that featured one of the pics I took of my own unusual pristine reel combo that I had posted on my own website with a copyright notice. I felt my intellectual property was being used for someone else's personal financial benefit. I notified the seller : "You are violating my copyright. Remove the image immediately." There was the typical back-handed remark but it did get removed before I filed the formal complaint to get the seller removed from the auction platform. I have seen my material lifted without attribution several times over the years but this one rubbed me the wrong way.

[Deepfins791]

Here is a great primer on copy right law as it pertains to old black and white photos:

https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2012/0 ... ily-photo/

John

[Jason]

Too bad that boat didn't capsize. It might have saved the lives of 30,000 cubans they executed without trial.

[Steve]

Copyright law regarding reproduction of images is more nuanced than that primer might suggest. For example, see https://www.jcms-journal.com/articles/1 ... s.1021217/ and https://www.nga.gov/notices/open-access-policy.html.

But the issue Ed raised is not about copyright law; it's about common courtesy. Any question about whether or not the photo is in the public domain is Ed's problem, as he reproduces it on his website, which itself is copyrighted. BCharles' reposting of the photo may or may not be covered by those incomprehensible "fair use" rules. But even under "fair use" rules, reproducing a chunk of someone's copyrighted work demands attribution of the source of the chunk as a matter of common courtesy.

This courtesy applies to both images and written materials. Of course, attribution of written materials has its own considerations. It's one thing to simply reproduce what someone else has written; copyright law may apply. But it is a matter of courtesy - and of credibility - to attribute the source of information you're writing about. That is why the scientific literature is packed with footnotes.

Nevertheless, there comes a time when one's written information falls into the "common knowledge" class. Few cite Copernicus or Galileo these days when discussing our revolving around the sun. Even reel collectors share what could be considered common knowledge. For example, I like to think that "Who's Yer Reelmaker?", an article I wrote in 1989, was the first to describe the American Reel Company and the production of Ohaver and O'Bannon's reel by the Terry Clock Company. I believe that most serious collectors are probably aware of that info three decades later, i.e., have common knowledge of it. Nevertheless, I hope that later writers who publish info on the company would cite that article as a source, especially because it's also posted on my website. Is that citation legally required? Not unless the article's words are copied. But it is a matter of courtesy.

[kyreels]

Agreed, closing this thread.