1942 Canadian Model ELC

[panhead_jim]

Only 44 of these knuckleheads were built for the Canadian Armed Forces in 1942. They featured a variety of parts not used on other military HDs as specified by the Canadian military.



The Canadian Model ELC Knucklehead

[Chris Haynes]

Why do you snag other peoples pictures then put your watermark on them? Don't you like to share?

[panhead_jim]

The problem I run into is that it is very easy for someone to copy and paste any article that I've written, repost it on their site and claim it as there own. Since I cannot watermark text, I mark the images as being hosted by Riding Vintage. At least that way if the article is copied, there is some indication of where it came from. Sure they could just copy the text and search for the same images without watermarks, but I figure the number of people who would go to that much trouble is pretty low.

[Chris Haynes]

So it is OK for you to use others information and photos. But you don't want anyone else to copy stuff you have copied from others?

[panhead_jim]

So it is OK for you to use others information and photos. But you don't want anyone else to copy stuff you have copied from others?

Chris,

I know what your trying to get at. You feel that any photo you've posted online belongs to you since you own a hard copy of it. I'm not trying to say I own any of the pictures or the facts (can you even own facts). I'm just aggregating the best photos and information to write articles that I think people will enjoy reading. This is just a blog I do in my spare time and not something for a scientific journal, so I don't think every article needs a bibliography to go along with it. Plus I don't see how that is even possible with this type of media.

Putting together the articles takes a good deal of time, so I mark the images to help protect that time investment. To make it clear that I do not own these images, I now mark all my images as "photo hosted by Riding Vintage".

Frankly, I don't have the time to comb through every online forum to make sure that you didn't post one of the photos that I'm using for a particular article. For instance, the two HD numbered photos that are in the above article I found on Tumblr and the information used for the article was almost all found just by looking at the photos carefully. The year and number of motorcycles produced is widely known.

I don't think I can rightly give you photo credit since you didn't take the photos and you are not the only person who owns copies of them. Obviously there are a lot of people who own the same photos, have digitized them and put them online. I've personally scanned hard copies of photos that I've know you have uploaded as well, so who owns those?

I value your input, along with that of others, who help correct factual errors in the articles I post. I'm just trying to put together quality articles and not hurt anyone's feelings.

[Chris Haynes]

I am not asking for credit. The photos aren't mine. H-D should get photo credit. I just think it is wrong for you to put your brand on photos that you do not own the right to. I openly share my photos and I don't care who uses them. But claiming someone elses photo as yours is just plain wrong.

[cdndewey]

I am not asking for credit. The photos aren't mine. H-D should get photo credit. I just think it is wrong for you to put your brand on photos that you do not own the right to. I openly share my photos and I don't care who uses them. But claiming someone elses photo as yours is just plain wrong.

Have to say I agree with that.

[Sargehere]

Chris well knows that he doesn't own the photos he obtained from Harley archives years ago, or any of the others he posted to his valuable website that he didn't take himself. He knows they don't "belong" to him, and hasn't sought credit. If anyone, most belong to the MoFo MoCo, but I haven't heard from them trying to lord over their photographic property. All publicity is good publicity.

I've always agreed with you on that, Chris.Under copyright law, you didn't take the shot, or bought it or employed the photographer who did take it, you don't "own it," and have no right to watermark ("copyright") it.

So that, in effect, no one else can use it to illustrate a technical point of explanation. It galls me to see these Johnny-Come-Latelys' watermarks on photos, some more than a century old, that they post to the "neat old photos" threads, as if they owned them. They don't!

[Steve Slocombe]

This whole question of Intellectual Property Rights on old material is a potential minefield. The Harley archive pictures were taken by Pohlmann photographic studios under contract, and who knows what the details of that contract were in terms of IPR. The original glass plate negatives were dispersed and many copies made from them. Any copyright does not seem to have been renewed, so arguably they are now in the public domain. Harley copyright expired on much old stuff, which is why those reprint Owners Handbooks were copyrighted in the 1970s by Antique Cycle Supply. We considered IPR at the start of the Virtual Library project and decided not to poke a stick at Harley's legal department. As long as we are digitising 50+ year old original material owned by members, for non-profit purposes, it looks like we should be OK.

[Chris Haynes]

By the way. H-D's production figures show 45 ELC models were made.

[panhead_jim]

By the way. H-D's production figures show 45 ELC models were made.

I did read that H-D may have kept one model for themselves, but wasn't 100% sure that was true. So I specifically wrote in the article that "44 were sent to Canada" since that number seems to be well validated and doesn't rule out the existence of an additional motorcycle kept by H-D.

[pete reeves]

ELCEngland.jpgELCsidecar.jpg

Chris.

44 or 45 is it important?
As you have mentioned before Harley- Davidson’s production figures as written in the Legend begins are known to be inaccurate.
Bruce Palmer has written in his Military H-D book that records indicate 2 batches, 20 and 24 of 42ELC models were manufactured totalling 44, he explains the number difference with the legend begins by theorising that the 45th bike was the prototype that never left the factory.
Personally I’m happy that both you and Jim have taken the time to collect pictures and information on our hobby and have been gracious enough to make it available to others by hosting it on your Websites or Blogs. Where the pictures were copied from or that Jim has attached a water mark or that you have listed yourself as the owner of copied pictures on your web site, makes no difference to me. I am just grateful they are there for all to view. The pictures were on the internet anyway hosting them on your sites is saving us time
Perhaps as a matter of etiquette you could record where you copied the pictures from?

Jim.
Here are 2 more pictures you can add to your blog if you want to? I don’t know who owns the copyright but I have owned what looks like an original photo of the ELC in England for some time. the second is a picture I took myself, feel free to add your water mark to it if you want too use it.

Pete Reeves 860

[Robert Luland]

Something that caught my eye was the 36/37 banjo fittings on the oil thank. Did the American military version also have this or flares? Bob L

[pete reeves]

Robert.
The connections on the oil tank are not the same as 36/37 oil pipes. They are special flexible pipes.The WLA and I suspect the ELA had rigid pipes. The reason for the banjo connection and flexible oil lines on the ELC is because Canada specified them on both the WLC and ELC. Harley used embossed top 1937 oil tanks with a slight modification to the vent pipe connection so that flexible pipes could be fitted. (They probably used oil tanks from their spares department.)
Pete reeves 860

[panhead_jim]

Pete,

In your first picture, I noticed it has a "package truck" instead of a sidecar. Was this made at the factory or a "field modification"?