Hotlinking images

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

If you're going to claim a hotlinked image falls outside the rules, the burden of proof is on you, my friend.

Nonsense. The person hotlinking the image is making a claim by its very existence that they do have the right to do it.

[Fazor]

Besides, other than the burdon on the mods (which is why they "hired" some new ones), just reporting a possible rules violation via the red triangle isn't a big deal.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Thanks for making my point for me:

"The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim." - 10011001's Wikipedia link

If you're going to claim a hotlinked image falls outside the rules, the burden of proof is on you, my friend.

Read it again. Look for the word exception this time.

Here. I'll spoonfeed you. Wikipedia: Burden of proof:

The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.

The link is just data, until someone, like me, sees it but then prima facie, by its appearance, it is invalid. There's no evidence provided that it is valid, not even its own name. It appears invalid and is therefore treated as invalid.

When a mod looks, the mod will remove the hotlink. See example former-hotlinked image. If the hotlink is to be restored, the burden, the obligation to provide evidence, is on the poster.

If the poster accepts the burden, and provides persuasive evidence from the beginning, the hotlink will stay a hotlink. Isn't that what you are after? Just accept it.

If you're hoping that invalid-looking hotlinks will be assumed valid until proven invalid, you must be thinking of some other forum. It's not BAUT.

You already got an opinion about the burden of proof from a mod. If you disagree, ask others, or escalate it.

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the person linking to the image that it's used in accordance with the license of the hosting site as well as in accordance with copyright law.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Nonsense. The person hotlinking the image is making a claim by its very existence that they do have the right to do it.

Since you're intent on quoting me out of context, I'll simply have to restore that context, this time in bold:

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Thanks for making my point for me:

"The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim." - 10011001's Wikipedia link

If you're going to claim a hotlinked image falls outside the rules, the burden of proof is on you, my friend.

01101001, you're confused. The term "burden of proof" applies to the situation where one person is trying to prove something. A poster isn't trying to prove anything. As I have already mentioned, he has a responsibility to ensure "that it's used in accordance with the license of the hosting site as well as in accordance with copyright law."

Using the term "burden of proof" in this context is incorrect.

Now along comes a second person - mod or another poster, doesn't matter. They examine the link, conclude that it's not a valid use, and take action.

They , as the party making the new claim, have the burden of proof to substantiate their claim that the hotlink is invalid.

Do not confuse the responsibility of the poster to properly use links with burden of proof of a second party to provide clear evidence otherwise.

[Fazor]

This burden of proof argument is moot in situations like this anyway; either a picture is in violation or it isn't. Not that they need the extra worry, but it's up to the mods to decide. If I post a picture, I have no desire to prove I was allowed to to the rest of the board. But if it's questioned, I'd be happy to work with the mod.

If you see something you're unsure of, send an alert then forget about it.

(As an aside, I am glad for this thread as a reminder, as I'm sure I've been guilty of it a handfull of times.)

[01101001]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

01101001, you're confused.

I'm not dismissing you from class until you explain what the prima facie exception is.

[HenrikOlsen]

And once again a discussion which started out with actual meaning has degenerated into a urinating¹ contest about whose ability to argue about the obscure meanings of a phrase is best.

I'll just bring out my fire-hose and state that if your image isn't very obviously public domain and hosted where hotlinking is allowed, and you don't explain why it's ok to link to it from there, then the image will get replaced by a link the moment we're made aware of it, and that we want to be made aware of it, which is one of the uses of the little triangle thingie.

1) replace with most likely to be starred common use impolite word to get the meaning.

[Nicolas]

and to stress it once again: think twice, no trice before hotlinking an image of significant datasize, as you force anyone reading the thread to download it without any choice. If a file is really large, just link to it instead of hotlinking it. Maybe hotlink a clickable thumbnail version or something if you want everyone to get a preview. Of course, if the file size is small, it's less of a problem. Think of emoticons as an extreme example.

[Robinson]

You can turn off images here.

Control Panel>Options>Thread Display Options>Visible Post Elements>

You have the option to show or hide various elements of messages, which may be of use to users on slow internet connections, or who want to remove extraneous clutter from posts.
Show Signatures
Show Avatars
Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code)

[Fazor]

The issue is more about unlawful posting of other's copywrited work, and also increasing traffic to the image-host's server; though large pictures within the body of a thread are indeed annoying.

[Argos]

Speaking of images, superb avatar, Robinson.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Fazor

The issue is more about unlawful posting of other's copywrited work, and also increasing traffic to the image-host's server; though large pictures within the body of a thread are indeed annoying.

That is three different issues.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Argos

Speaking of images, superb avatar, Robinson.

One could say the same for yours.

[Nicolas]

Originally Posted by Robinson

That is three different issues.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Toga parties?

[Fazor]

[Links a high-res image of Belushi from animal house from some fan-site]

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

Toga parties?

Food fights? Shout?

Oh, wait, that's just a movie. Nevermind.

Edit: Gee, Faz - you ToSeeked me.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Names of our planets? Numerals? Focaccia? Holiday? The tub?

[Nicolas]

One monthy python reference and you can't hold 'em anymore. Love this board.

[mahesh]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Names of our planets? Numerals? Focaccia? Holiday? The tub?

...and furthermore....how could one forget the pizzazz of their pizzas?

i could hot-link, but i ate the picture too....burp!

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Names of our planets? Numerals? Focaccia? Holiday? The tub?

Art? Culture? Law? Latin? Institutionalized religion? Engineering? Medicine? Leap years? Formalized taxes? Risorgimento?

[Sam5]

I think the term "hotlinking" in the title of this thread and in Rule 8 is incorrectly used.

In my Windows Word program, a "hotlink" is a url address, which I can click and that will take me to the internet and to a specific picture or web page.

The "theft of bandwidth" involves only posting a photo directly to a thread page, where we can see the photo while we see the thread page.

But "hotlinking", by use of a "hot" url address that we can click on and that takes us to someone else's website, does not involve "theft of bandwidth".

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Sam5

I think the term "hotlinking" in the title of this thread and in Rule 8 is incorrectly used.

In my Windows Word program, a "hotlink" is a url address, which I can click and that will take me to the internet and to a specific picture or web page.

Wikipedia: Inline linking (bold mine):

Inline linking (also known as hotlinking, leeching, piggy-backing, direct linking, offsite image grabs and bandwidth theft) is the use of a linked object, often an image, from one site into a web page belonging to a second site. The second site is said to have an inline link to the site where the object is located.

The term has different meanings to different people, but the Rules don't just use the word but give an example to make the meaning clear.

[...] don't use the [IMG] tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly [...]

[tdvance]

Hotlinking has become the "de facto standard" term for image tags to other pages. It would not be the first, nor the last time, that Microsoft misused a term! I know, from their point of view, they define the term and everyone else misuses it. Kind of like in marching band where "I'm in step, but everybody else isn't!".

[Sam5]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Wikipedia: Inline linking (bold mine):

If you call a photo posted on this thread a “hotlink”, then what do you call this:

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/Jean-Harlow-.jpg

[Sam5]

Originally Posted by tdvance

Hotlinking has become the "de facto standard" term for image tags to other pages. It would not be the first, nor the last time, that Microsoft misused a term! I know, from their point of view, they define the term and everyone else misuses it. Kind of like in marching band where "I'm in step, but everybody else isn't!".

Ok, I'll buy that.

But I think it would be clearer if Rule #8 specifically said, "Don't post photos directly on the threads, but you may post links to the photos that are located on other websites."

[timb]

Originally Posted by Sam5

I think the term "hotlinking" in the title of this thread and in Rule 8 is incorrectly used.

In my Windows Word program, a "hotlink" is a url address, which I can click and that will take me to the internet and to a specific picture or web page.

The "theft of bandwidth" involves only posting a photo directly to a thread page, where we can see the photo while we see the thread page.

But "hotlinking", by use of a "hot" url address that we can click on and that takes us to someone else's website, does not involve "theft of bandwidth".

Most BAUTers would not be viewing the site through Windows Word, so its peculiar interpretation of what is a hotlink is not the relevant one. In the web authoring world "hotlinking" refers to the use of HTML elements (such as IMG) that cause off-site elements to be automatically rendered. This is also called embedding. What you refer to as hotlinking might be called a clickable link, but I acknowledge that clickable links are often called hot links in the desktop publishing space.

The question of whether this constitutes copyright violation seems murky (a google found no cases decided in the US) but the consensus is that it is bad. One point that most analyses skate over is that the rendering is a function of the client. A browser may decline to render IMG tags, or it could choose to retrieve and render all hyperlinked images, making clickable links hot.

[Sam5]

Originally Posted by timb

Most BAUTers would not be viewing the site through Windows Word, so its peculiar interpretation of what is a hotlink is not the relevant one. In the web authoring world "hotlinking" refers to the use of HTML elements (such as IMG) that cause off-site elements to be automatically rendered. This is also called embedding. What you refer to as hotlinking might be called a clickable link, but I acknowledge that clickable links are often called hot links in the desktop publishing space.

The question of whether this constitutes copyright violation seems murky (a google found no cases decided in the US) but the consensus is that it is bad. One point that most analyses skate over is that the rendering is a function of the client. A browser may decline to render IMG tags, or it could choose to retrieve and render all hyperlinked images, making clickable links hot.

Ok.

So, is posting a "link" to a photo Ok on this board?

I don't post photos directly to this board because of the rule, even though many internet photo services allow it.

[sabianq]

Originally Posted by Sam5

If you call a photo posted on this thread a “hotlink”, then what do you call this:

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/Jean-Harlow-.jpg

hi sam,
what you posted is in fact a URL link, not a "hotlink" as described in this thread.

the difference between the two is quite separated.
A [url] is just a text link that conveys no information and would be considered web 1.0. When a person looks at a thread containing such a URL the only thing the person sees is the text, and only the act of clicking on it will let the person actually view the image.

an example of the URL link is the fact that i never clicked on the link so i have absolutely no idea what the image is of. there is no way i could describe the image unless i actively click on the link, then if i choose to click on the link i will be transported to another website on a different server, depending on my browser settings, i will either navagate away from this page to visit the page in question of my browser will open another tab and navigate to that page showing the image.

like this, can you possibility tell me exactly what the image is in the URL i posted below without clicking on it (assuming you have no idea what the image is?)?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/153212main_endeavourlandsatkscx410.gif

on the other hand, a hot link or rather image tag [img] is quite different, when i post an image tag with the [img] command, this website on this server calls up the image on the server that is hosting the image and request it to show automatically when ever this web page is viewed. you have no control over the image showing (depending on your browser settings of course), just the act of viewing this page brings up the image and you do not have to click on a link to view the image as the image is already loaded for "public" view.

typing out a link like this, should let it show up as an image:

[ IMG]http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/153212main_endeavourlandsatkscx410.gif[/IMG]

btw, same image as above:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...satkscx410.gif

does this help?

[timb]

Originally Posted by Sam5

Ok.

So, is posting a "link" to a photo Ok on this board?

I don't post photos directly to this board because of the rule, even though many internet photo services allow it.

I suggest you read the rule and follow it. Everyone else seems to understand it.