Problems with Photo Sharing
The mirror to the posting below about being a thoughtful photo user is the problem of image hosting for sex bloggers. This AM I received a note from Photobucket saying that my account had been cancelled for "violating the terms of service." No cure period, no recourse, no reply when I asked how I could fix the problem. Of course, their terms of service are so broad and general that almost any photograph of a suggestive nature, and certainly anything with nudity violates the terms.
Now, why not just hot-link to images as the other post suggests with click-through to make sure anyone who likes the photo can access it? Well, because links change. And because some photos I find are in a gray area: clearly they belong to someone, but they are from another blog who hasn't acknowledged their usage, or someplace far from where I could find the owner to ask their permission.
So the practical question is: how can I host orphan photos that won't get my account canceled?
Now, why not just hot-link to images as the other post suggests with click-through to make sure anyone who likes the photo can access it? Well, because links change. And because some photos I find are in a gray area: clearly they belong to someone, but they are from another blog who hasn't acknowledged their usage, or someplace far from where I could find the owner to ask their permission.
So the practical question is: how can I host orphan photos that won't get my account canceled?
posted by Tom Paine at 5:23 pm
15 Comments:
Why not save them to your hard disc, upload them directly to your blogger page and then delete from your hard disc?
You should not be hotlinking because it is stealing somebody elses bandwidth - which can be costing them real money.
Blogger apparently doesn't allow sexual imagery. I had some things deleted.
What about hosting sites like flickr, putfile, and imageshack?
Hot linking uses up another's bandwidth, and those bloggers who do post their own images (on sites they pay for), pay for their bandwidth. You can host photos in Flikr, and there are many members who post adult images. On the actual Flikr pages many of these are coded as friends only (for use within flikr), and I'm not sure whether they can be uploaded onto a site (because of the friends only label, and I've never tried it) but you can see how that goes but even they have bandwidth limits.
Ultimately, a person has to pay for the services they wish to use; there's no such thing as a totally free lunch (photobucket does have strict limits on adult imagery, also for paid membership too).
There are adult hosts out there as well.
I think if people invest time in blogging, then they also need to consider user paying options. Free sites always have limitations, especially where adult content is concerned.
I've never had problems with Blogger, when uploading adult imagery, perhaps it depends on the type of adult imagery, but even now, when I look back on some older posts, with explicit images matching stories, the images are still there, unless they've begun to regulate image use. Then again Blogger would have to be one of the most erratic blogging platforms out there in terms of server quality.
FYI: Flickr doesn't allow explicit images, it will set them to "private" and then delete you if you set them back to "public."
While I agree that anyone using their site for commerce should use commercial services, I disagree that I should have to pay to host images to illustrate a blog.
I have found another hosting option that protects my identity, and I'm transferring images so as not to hotlink. I ask for permission where I can, and link back where none is available or forthcoming. At least that way, the owner gets some credit for their work. But it could be argued that this falls under the "fair usage" doctrine, since I am not making any money from what I write on Blogger.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm not making any money either, but why should another person - hosting a website - have to pay for the bandwidth or have limitations imposed on their bandwidth, for illustrating a site they're paying for, just because you don't want to pay to host images?
Many bloggers assume that credits are sufficient, but they're not if bandwidth is used. A link 'credit' on a blog doesn't pay for bandwidth/blog hosting.
I'd be pissed if I paid monthly for a site, which I'm currently paying after swapping to Typepad, for people to hotlink to my images just because they couldn't be arsed to pay for their own hosting. I'm not a millionaire, not an established photographer, or earning money full time from writing, and to think that there are others who can afford a measley ten bucks a month to host their images, but choose of the remote chance of their identity being revealed by a hosting site (which may host thousands of sites/images, so as not to really give a damn as to who's who), is really pushing it.
I'd be annoyed if my page stalled, or I had to pay more for bandwidth because people assumed they had the 'right' to hotlink.
If people are worried about their identity and all that: don't blog, but hotlinking to pages, expecting someone else to foot the bill, is unfair.
Text links don't pay bills.
Incidentally, I've never hotlinked to images, and 90% of the time I've credited images, I've either uploaded on photobucket, which I've never had a problem with or have uploaded them from my hardrive, where i've asked for permission, or permission's been granted.
There have been cases where bloggers, who pay for their hosting, have reached max bandwidth, and have had to either remove pages in order to remain within their limits. Have you stopped to think that they also have a right to illustrate their blogs, that they may put aside money to host their blogs, whatever they can afford?
It's quite selfish if you ask me, to simply hotlink to something.
I agree, hotlinking to images is never a good idea. I'm not sure what the issue really is, finding a host for images hasn't been a problem for me and I use images all the time in my blog for over a year now without any issues from Blogger, Flickr or any of the others. I also have had great success with Internet Archive and OurMedia for larger files such as audio and video. All of my material is clearly labeled private, mature or whatnot. So perhaps that's why.
But stealing bandwidth is just wrong, unless you have permission. My two cents anyway.
Hotlinking to other people’s images rather than host your own? Well, how many questions does that raise?
We pay for our bandwidth, we take and manipulate the vast majority of our images. We’ve not published images in the past because we’ve had no response from the copyright owner to emails we’ve sent. We all have a duty of care to ensure that copyright isn’t violated and we don’t steal, yes STEAL, other people’s bandwidth.
As we say in Yorkshire, “You don’t get owt for nowt”. If it’s free there will be limitations and assuming that because you don’t make money out of any activity allows you to take what you want is just plain daft.
Somewhere, someone is paying for what you do, with their time and/or money.
As Ana and Art say there are ways and means to host content you own, cut your cloth to suit your means.
Decorate your blog with ideas, illuminate it with inspiration, they cost nothing.
As an impoverished person, who cannot afford to pay for her bandwidth, I also do not condone "hotlinking".
But there's really no need. There are sites who are not bothered by adult images. While ImageShack and PhotoBucket are puritanical crowd-pleasers, you could always check out
Ripway.
It's helpful, unobtrusive and non-judgmental. There is a storage limit, but I find it quite adequate.
I think words like "stealing" are over the top. In my case, I was not aware prior to this discussion that hotlinking did anything more than take readers back to the source of the image, a good thing if the image hoster is providing a commercial service, or is an artist who can use to have the publicity.
And those who are quick to shoot off their mouths should check their facts. Flickr will mark your file "private" if they object to the content of your posts. It was that action that sent me originally from them to Photobucket.
I have subsequently found a hosting service that does not have a Puritanical sword up their asses, or feel it's their right to censor my illustrations.
I have been a photographer in the past, and a writer in the present, and appreciate efforts by those who aren't making money off their blogs to link back to me, especially now with my writing. That for me was always the kicker: who profits?
Hey I'm new to this whole thing. Just wanted to say that i read your comments and stuff and the advise is great. Havent posted any pictures yet but me and Skittles will start soon. We're having lots of fun with this. Hope you guys will stop by!
For everyones illumination I suggest the following:
http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking
Just for starters and a primer on what is and what isn't hotlinking. Just for a top line, LINKING to an image on another site is NOT hotlinking. And I think we all do that, to an article we like, or information, just like I did above. That is different than hotlinking, which is stealing the IMG source file from another site and IMBEDDING it in yours, which steals bandwidth.
I know we have many newbies here and I thought it would be helpful to clarify the issue somewhat.
Trying to be helpful. As always, if you have any specific questions, I am always available via email.
Set up a free site at geocities.com. You can upload your photos to your geocities site, then link to your own site for photos, text, whatever.
if i use a photo i upload it to the bloghost and credit or link the photographer depending on if they are online or not.
if i get it from a random image search off the net with no claimants? i really don't care and i just stick it up there... but that's just me
i think if you're respectful you can clear anything up.
Post a Comment
<< Home