About

Where the photos come from

BikeHub’s scraper knows how to pull from 10 kinds of source; 8 of those are actually behind a photo published here right now — nothing in the reviewed set comes from Museums & archives and Community builds, so nothing below presents those sources as being on the wall. Reddit, Tumblr, Mastodon and Pinterest surface public posts about bikes that someone else shared — BikeHub links back to whoever posted it, but a public post doesn’t establish that the poster owns the bike or took the photo themselves, so that’s described here as a source link, not a verified credit. Official manufacturer press photography comes straight from brands showcasing the bikes they build, and independent bike-check blogs publish detailed features on individual builds under their own byline. Flickr and Wikimedia Commons contribute photos that carry an explicit license set by the photographer or institution named in the source’s own record.

The scraper can also read open cultural archives (the Wellcome Collection and the Internet Archive), and those records would carry an explicit license too — but no archive photo has cleared review, so there are none in the published collection today. It’s listed here as a capability, not as something you’re currently looking at.

A note on Pinterest specifically: pins are frequently re-shared away from their original post, so the link attached to a pin does not always lead back to the original photographer — BikeHub never invents a photographer credit for a Pinterest photo. It keeps that slice of the collection deliberately small, and links through to whatever source Pinterest itself points to.

Licensing: two different arrangements

The sources above split into two groups, and BikeHub shows the difference rather than papering over it. The 21 photos currently published from Flickr and Wikimedia Commons carry an explicit, verifiable license (things like “CC BY 2.0” or “CC BY-SA 4.0”) set by the photographer or institution, and that exact license string is printed in the full-screen view alongside the credit — licenses vary photo to photo, so check the one printed with the photo you care about rather than assuming they all match. Turning on “Freely licensed only” in Settings narrows the whole collection to just these.

The other 231 — from Reddit, Tumblr, Mastodon, Pinterest, bike-check blogs, and brand press kits — carry no such license. They’re used here with attribution and a link back to the original post or product page, in the same spirit as an editorial photo credit — not under any claimed license to reuse them further, and not a claim that BikeHub has permission beyond that.

Credit, always

Nothing here is presented as ours. Every photo carries a credit line — a Reddit author and subreddit, a brand name, a publication title, a Flickr or Commons attribution, or a Mastodon/Tumblr/Pinterest handle — visible on hover and in the full-screen view, and every photo links back to its original post or product page. That credit line names whoever the source itself attributes the work to — the account that shared it, the brand, or the publication — which isn’t always independently verified as the original photographer. If you made one of these photographs, that link is where the recognition (and the traffic) is meant to go.

Requesting removal

If you’re the photographer or copyright holder of an image on this site and would rather it not be here, it comes down — no argument, no delay, license or no license. Reach out at ottozenas@protonmail.ch with a link to the photo (or the bike it’s of) and it will be removed promptly.