What chifney? This thread is so odd!
[QUOTE=Equibrit;9032594]
This one; https://www.facebook.com/arrogate13/photos/pb.1174872175907829.-2207520000.1481544242./1246497872078592/?type=3&theater[/QUOTE]
I can’t enlarge the picture but I am pretty sure what you are seeing is a Ring Bit, with a half cheek or “half bill”.
http://www.ridingbitz.co.uk/Portals/0/Users/IMG_9365%20hrc.jpg
Verses this one that doesn’t have a “cheek”
https://www.jockeytack.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/p-26490-0000651.jpeg
Just to add to the randomness of the thread I was at the bank today and I walked in on a lively discussion about Arrogate led by the bank teller and a TB owner.
As Gumtree said, that is a ring but. Chifneys are used in hand. Still a very weird thread about nothing as far as I can tell!
And all the photos have been “removed” when I try to look at them. Now I’m curious!
[QUOTE=Laurierace;9033062]
As Gumtree said, that is a ring but. Chifneys are used in hand. Still a very weird thread about nothing as far as I can tell![/QUOTE]
“weird thread about nothing as far as I can tell”
LOL, I think that is what the “producers” said when Seinfeld was pitched to them.
And the response was, “Exactly, it’s a sit-com about nothing”
With over 1000 reads so far seems to have worked with this thread also. Though I think the title has a lot to do with it.
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;9033235]
And all the photos have been “removed” when I try to look at them. Now I’m curious![/QUOTE]
You didn’t miss anything. Some nice picture of a nice looking horse on the racetrack. Who happens to be a very good racehorse.
Not sure why the OP would think the pictures were “illegal”. Anybody can take pictures of a horse, just about anything and post on FB or any where else.
Maybe someone wanted to “drive traffic” to the page?
He’s a public figure, so unless someone took a photo and copyrighted it, and protected it in a way it couldn’t be copied illegally, then I think it’s fine to post a pic of the horse online. But what was all that about the California Chrome fans?
He’s a public figure, so unless someone took a photo and copyrighted it, and protected it in a way it couldn’t be copied illegally, then I think it’s fine to post a pic of the horse online. But what was all that about the California Chrome fans?
Whether the subject of a photo is a public figure or not has nothing to do with copyright law or who owns the photo. Copyright belongs to the photographer the moment they take the photo, regardless of whether they watermark it or somehow protect it from download (basically impossible) or not. No additional steps necessary.
The photo is still there (since November), is watermarked, and the photographer has been credited in the post, so I’m guessing he sent it in and gave permission for it to be posted.
OP seemed to be questioning the legitimacy of the photo rather than the legality, but the background did not appear to be altered in any way. All I can figure is she thought someone Photoshopped the track into the background because Arrogate appears to be running down a hill, but really the photographer just wasn’t holding the camera level.
Spoon ring bit.
Here is the picture rotated to account for the photag not holding the camera level.
http://s155.photobucket.com/user/simkie/media/COTH/Untitled-1%20copy_zpspybvjryp.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
This is a really weird thread. 
“Illegal picture”???
OK. Enough. please? I QUIT! OK?
I worded or stated this ALL wrong!
I just thought this common artsy-fartsty “tilting” of photos.
This type of photo would, um; make some people exclaim -’’ Well THIS is why racehorses breakdown! they are running downhill! i saw one woman - who shared the picture, “Arrogate is my Pick for the 2017 derby!”
So very sorry. I dont how this clarify this more.
OK. Enough. please? I QUIT! OK?
I worded or stated this ALL wrong!
I just thought this common artsy-fartsty “tilting” of photos.
This type of photo would, um; make some people exclaim -’’ Well THIS is why racehorses breakdown! they are running downhill! i saw one woman - who shared the picture, “Arrogate is my Pick for the 2017 derby!”
So very sorry. I dont how this clarify this more.
Brigid, as many posters learn on their first try, you need a thick skin to post on COTH. Don’t let the teasing bother you.
I PROMISE I am not teasing at all, but I am trying to figure out the point of asking if a pic is “illegal.” I think for the most part we’re all just confused by the question!
[QUOTE=LaurieB;9034653]
Brigid, as many posters learn on their first try, you need a thick skin to post on COTH. Don’t let the teasing bother you.[/QUOTE]
Thank you.
You are very kind LaurieB. But I still feel like a bumbling idiot.
[QUOTE=Brigid;9035769]
Thank you.
You are very kind LaurieB. But I still feel like a bumbling idiot.[/QUOTE]
Please don’t feel that way. It is a common feeling on COTH, or rather it is common for some COTHers to try to make other COTHers feel like one.
Now, as to the woman who has picked Arrogate for this year’s Derby (I’m assuming Kentucky Derby or “THE” Derby?), maybe you could point out to her – nicely – that he’s a 4yo. 
Whether the subject of a photo is a public figure or not has nothing to do with copyright law or who owns the photo. Copyright belongs to the photographer the moment they take the photo, regardless of whether they watermark it or somehow protect it from download (basically impossible) or not. No additional steps necessary.
If the photo is of a public figure, the photographer has the right to post it. So if this photo was shared by the original photographer, yes, s/he can post it online. Whether or not someone else has a right to share the photo is another matter. I have no idea whether the person who shared the photo was the original photographer or not.
Even if the photo is of Joe Q. Schmoe and he is totally unaware that the photo exists, the photographer has the right to post it as long as it was taken in/from a public place. There are some things it shouldn’t be used for because Joe could sue (extremely generally - advertising/commercial purposes without his consent or anything that puts Joe in a false light) but it does not matter if the subject of the photo is a public figure, a random individual, a household name or a complete unknown.
