Hotlinking images

[01101001]

I find myself reporting things like this a lot. Too much. It's trouble for me, and, more importantly, trouble for mods -- who have enough trouble.

So, I thought I'd try this preemptive reminder.

From Rules For Posting To This Board

8. Hotlinking

Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone else's website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on an astronomy site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the [IMG] tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly. If you really want an image in your post, put it in a public site someplace and link to it from there. One exception would be from sites like NASA or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue. If you own the image, then you can upload it to the board yourself.

For example -- purely for example and not to pick on the member -- there is today this hotlinked image of a cup of Starbuck's coffee in an article in topic Basic sugar found outside galactic center. The example may go away, if it's in violation, because I reported it.

I don't even know if this is an example of an invalid hotlinking. If the poster owns the image, or got permission to use the image, and the hosting site is OK with its bandwidth being used for this purpose, then the image is fine I guess. In that case though, the poster should leave some statement that such use of the image is OK. It's not clear here.

When I see such possible violations of the rules, I report them -- because such images can harm the forum and administrators. And then a mod has to investigate. And a mod almost always has to turn the inline image into a plain text link.

It's what is going to happen to your article, so you might as well do it at initial posting time.

Just to make it easier for you to remember to think: I promise whenever I see a questionable image, I'll report it. I always hover the cursor over every inline, non-attachment, image and examine the URL. If it's not from a public-type site, I do hit the alert button.

1) Make sure the site doesn't mind your using their bandwidth.
2) Make sure you have permission to use the image.

Otherwise: Don't do it.

(Yes, I'm sure I've done it, too. So don't bother. I was wrong.)

Thanks.

[captain swoop]

A Timely reminder, these things tend to creep in over time

[mugaliens]

I'm guilty of violating rule 8.

However, I disagree with 01101001's reporting of possible violations, particularly if they may very well not be a violation at all. For example:

Originally Posted by 01101001

I don't even know if this is an example of an invalid hotlinking. ... When I see such possible violations of the rules, I report them -- because such images can harm the forum and administrators.

A car can hurt other drivers or pedestrians. That doesn't mean that it will. Before I'll report something, there must be credible evidence of harm being committed.

And then a mod has to investigate.

Why don't you investigate, first?

And a mod almost always has to turn the inline image into a plain text link.

If your accuracy rate is that high, then perhaps you're good at picking out the violators. I would hope that you rule out all legitimate use, first, before reporting it to a mod.

I see several rule violations each evening. I think my reporting frequency, however, is somewhere between 5 and 15 times per year. There just aren't that many issues that I can't handle with a gentle reminder PM or a couple of comments in the thread.

If the poster owns the image, or got permission to use the image, and the hosting site is OK with its bandwidth being used for this purpose, then the image is fine I guess.

Agreed.

In that case though, the poster should leave some statement that such use of the image is OK. It's not clear here.

You lost me here... If the poster is following forum rules, why should he leave anything? Just to satisfy your curiosity that it's "ok?" To avoid your reporting him??? Why would you put the burden of proof on them? I would argue the burden of proof be on the individual doing the reporting! Not the poster who is in compliance with the rules.

It's clear from the rules that hotlinking itself isn't the issue (as per the NASA or other public source comment), but the liklihood of causing additional bandwidth stress to someone else's resources, particularly if those resources are thin.

Just to make it easier for you to remember to think: I promise whenever I see a questionable image, I'll report it. I always hover the cursor over every inline, non-attachment, image and examine the URL. If it's not from a public-type site, I do hit the alert button.

I'm glad you're doing at least some cursory checking. I would hope, however, that your checking would be more thorough. There are tens of thousands of public sites which don't mind hotlinking in the least. Do you keep a whitelist of those? Do you reference it before reporting? Do you expect a mod to do that work, instead?

They're good, no doubt about it - but let's give them a break! If it's a flagrant violation of the rule, by all means, report it. But if it's merely suspect, I would encourage you to spend your time doing something more useful, such as contributing to the content of the board.

The rest of your guidance for users is good.

[Nick Theodorakis]

There is also a danger that if you hotlink from somebody else without permission, he might notice and either deny the link, remove (or rename) the image, or even substitute a rude image if he is feeling particularly irked.

I once noticed a bunch of hits on my site coming from MySpace, and found someone was hotlinking an image from my site, so I removed it (it wasn't an image I needed for my website, just parked there when I posted it to another forum).

Nick

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

You lost me here... If the poster is following forum rules, why should he leave anything? Just to satisfy your curiosity that it's "ok?" To avoid your reporting him??? Why would you put the burden of proof on them? I would argue the burden of proof be on the individual doing the reporting! Not the poster who is in compliance with the rules.

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.

Asking for an added note explaining the status of such images where it isn't very clear from the hosting url is not putting the burden of proof where it wasn't before, since it was there to begin with.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

However, I disagree with 01101001's reporting of possible violations, particularly if they may very well not be a violation at all.

[...]

Why don't you investigate, first?

Not my job. I report them as questionable if they are questionable. Sometimes, if I have time and inclination, I do build a case and provide it.

If I don't have time, it seems my duty, nonetheless, to raise a flag to get a moderator to eyeball it. What could be wrong with that? Why would you hesitate to do the same?

These sorts of things, besides just being disallowed by the official rules, more seriously can expose the owners to expense and bother. They and their helper elves deserve to know if there's just a possibility. Turning a blind eye is only helping the careless poster.

(And, I see a moderator reply that puts the burden on the proper party, so there's that, too.)

[01101001]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

It's clear from the rules that hotlinking itself isn't the issue (as per the NASA or other public source comment), but the liklihood of causing additional bandwidth stress to someone else's resources, particularly if those resources are thin.

No. Using the resources of others for the benefit of the forum is mostly a moral issue, which is not to say it's a non-issue. It's good to be on the right side of that.

But I'd expect the owners' greatest concern is copyright hassles -- and not just losing an infringement suit, but just being sued, or even just threatened, or even just demanded to clean something up. It cannot be a board policy to just leave those sorts of images alone and assume the best. They, and we, need to be proactive to stop infringement where it is seen or even just suspected.

If you disagree, you might ask an admin what all the reasons for the rule are.

[NEOWatcher]

And for those of us who are stuck on a network that is basically garbage and overloaded. I plead that even the legal ones are small.

[PraedSt]

Originally Posted by 01101001

1) Make sure the site doesn't mind your using their bandwidth.
2) Make sure you have permission to use the image.

I think this is a good reminder. For (1) I use imageshack, which I hope is ok.

I have a question about (2). As hotlinking on BAUT is not commercial use, is it ok to use images as long as the owner/source is acknowledged? 'Courtesy Reuters' for example.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by PraedSt

I think this is a good reminder. For (1) I use imageshack, which I hope is ok.

I have a question about (2). As hotlinking on BAUT is not commercial use, is it ok to use images as long as the owner/source is acknowledged? 'Courtesy Reuters' for example.

I doubt it. If you asked and they said OK, yes. If you don't ask and assume it's OK, expect a problem. Acknowledging doesn't replace asking permission.

I use a lot of images, generally preferring thumbnails for the bandwidth reason cited above, slightly large if it's spectacular. The sites I use, like nasa.gov, ESA, .edu sites, have standard policies that OK the use of images. Some have policies (more the .edu) allowing use with acknowledgement. There's almost always a footer link to some copyright policy page. If it's a new site and I don't think I know their policy I look for it.

I doubt you'd find a Reuters policy allowing any copying of their images.

Reuters.com :: Copyright

All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Pretty typical for commercial intellectual property owners. Hotlinking an image onto BAUT wouldn't be personal use; it's public. I think also it would be commercial. BAUT owners sell advertising space. A picture that draws eyeballs, also draws dollars (at least fractional cents). Quoting a small excerpt of text here would be fair use (in my opinion); maybe using a small part of a picture would. A whole image wouldn't be fair use (IMO).

[HenrikOlsen]

Copyright law doesn't care about whether it's commercial or not.
Damages awarded in case it goes to trial does to some extent, though the recording industry has come a long way towards establishing precedence for punitive damages even for non-commercial infringements.

If you put a note next to the image that it's copyright Reuters and you believe it's used in accordance to fair use, you've come a long way towards establishing good faith use, especially if the note includes a link to the hosting site.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

If your accuracy rate is that high, then perhaps you're good at picking out the violators. I would hope that you rule out all legitimate use, first, before reporting it to a mod.

Stop hoping. I just report what I see. Yes, sometimes that will lead to a moderator investigation of a perfectly legitimate hotlink.

For instance that example cup of copy image, cited above, has turned into a text link. Mod's edit says to contact if the usage was in fact legitimate. Seems like that's how it usually turns out when I report 'em. The valid hotlinking is usually clearly valid (to me). The questionable ones get moderator action applied.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

I see several rule violations each evening. I think my reporting frequency, however, is somewhere between 5 and 15 times per year. There just aren't that many issues that I can't handle with a gentle reminder PM or a couple of comments in the thread.

In most cases of apparent violations that's too much effort for me. I've done that, and do, but more often I'll ask a mod to look, and then the mod can apply the gentle PM or public message, with much more effective authority than I can provide. And for violations with possible consquences for BAUT, such as Rule 8, I think quick corrective action is much better for the forum than gentle cajoling could be.

[geonuc]

I'd also point out that anything owned by the US government (NASA, for example) is not copyrighted.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

Copyright law doesn't care about whether it's commercial or not.

US copyright law does. It plays into fair use.

[Nicolas]

There's another problem with hotlinking images: you force anyone reading the thread to download it, which costs bandwidth or monthly download volume for everyone watching the thread.

But after all, we all know rule 8 is made just so you can't hotlink to this little piece of evidence about the BA's social qualities.

[Argos]

Originally Posted by geonuc

I'd also point out that anything owned by the US government (NASA, for example) is not copyrighted.

By profession, I administer a handful of sites and I sometimes use images from the government agencies here. In the Brazilian case, official content is Creative Commons 2.5.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

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.

That responsibility rests on the poster's shoulders. The term "burden of proof" is one involved in assessing blame. The poster wouldn't blame themself, and if they did, they would need no proof except to say, "my bad."

Asking for an added note explaining the status of such images where it isn't very clear from the hosting url is not putting the burden of proof where it wasn't before, since it was there to begin with.

Are you saying it's the responsibility of a poster to annotate the sources of his/her imbedded images, the nature of that source (public, private), reasonable expectations of third-party use, and permission, when necessary?

Or would it be better to merely educate all users and let them use their best judgement, in accordance with the rules, while correcting them as required if/when necessary?

Originally Posted by Nicolas

There's another problem with hotlinking images: you force anyone reading the thread to download it, which costs bandwidth or monthly download volume for everyone watching the thread.

But after all, we all know rule 8 is made just so you can't hotlink to this little piece of evidence about the BA's social qualities.

Sadly, that was the result of a poor telephone connection. When rule 8 was being made, we said "we need you to ban hotlinks, because..." but he heard, "we need you to don hot pink gloves."

We've tried convincing him to go with lime green, but I think he's grown fond of the "enthralling" color.

[Nicolas]

Now that you mention it, those pink gloves do explain the statement in the "friends" part below that picture... Fashion kills.

Seriously though, on a low bandwidth connection, you don't want too many pictures forced through your download. The same goes for limited downloads (as is my high speed connection: no more than 4GB per month)

[Veeger]

The example in the OP turns out to be a URL link from what I saw. Perhaps a mod altered it. So just to clarify, we are talking direct [img] type links, not links to an offsite web page which holds the image. Correct? Because as far as I know there is no violation in the latter and no violation in quoting text from a link as long the person quoting does not claim it is original. Also, as far as know, [img] linking to my own photobucket pics is not a problem either.

[PraedSt]

Originally Posted by 01101001

I doubt it....

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

Copyright law doesn't...

You both make sense. Thanks. I'll be more careful.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Seriously though, on a low bandwidth connection, you don't want too many pictures forced through your download. The same goes for limited downloads (as is my high speed connection: no more than 4GB per month)

Excellent point, Nicolas, and something most of us forget.

[tdvance]

Another danger of hotlinking--some webmasters object enough to others hotlinking their images to change the image to a porno image in retribution. Even without the revenge factor, there are plenty of innocent reasons to have a different image on the same path--at best, you have the wrong image now. At worst, it's embarrassingly wrong.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Veeger

The example in the OP turns out to be a URL link from what I saw. Perhaps a mod altered it. So just to clarify, we are talking direct [img] type links, not links to an offsite web page which holds the image. Correct? [...] Also, as far as know, [img] linking to my own photobucket pics is not a problem either.

Yes. It was changed by a mod, as indicated in the edit comment. Yes, it's the [IMG] tag that makes the image appear inline, that makes it a hotlink. A text link to an image, like this, should not be a bandwidth or copyright issue.

Originally Posted by 01101001

For example -- purely for example and not to pick on the member -- there is today this hotlinked image of a cup of Starbuck's coffee in an article in topic Basic sugar found outside galactic center. The example may go away, if it's in violation, because I reported it.

Originally Posted by 01101001

For instance that example cup of copy image, cited above, has turned into a text link. Mod's edit says to contact if the usage was in fact legitimate.

The Rule 8 text tries to describe it:

[...] if you see an image you like [...] put in a link to that site, but don't use the [IMG] tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly [...]

If you hotlink to your image that you own rights to, and it's on photobucket and you know hotlinks are OK with photobucket, then I don't see a problem.

If readers don't get some indication that's what you're doing, then, some may well report it and let a moderator investigate.

[Veeger]

Ok. I understood it. Just thought some clarification would be nice for the sake of forum newbies. Practically all forums have similar rules yet the practice persists.

Thanks.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

That responsibility rests on the poster's shoulders. The term "burden of proof" is one involved in assessing blame. The poster wouldn't blame themself, and if they did, they would need no proof except to say, "my bad."

Odd.

Wikipedia: Burden of proof

The Burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own possition (this may be either a negative or possitve claim). The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.

Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.

For instance, in the example of the Starbuck's coffee, again, the moderator action was first to examine a suspicious hotlink. At first appearance (exception time!) it looked like the poster might not have a right to use the image, and might not have permission from the host site. The moderator action was therefore to remove the hotlink. It was not proven invalid; it just looked that way. To restore the status quo, the poster then had the burden to demonstrate that it is a valid hotlink or probably so.

Comment in the article:

Hotlinked image removed. Please contact a moderator if you feel this was in error.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Are you saying it's the responsibility of a poster to annotate the sources of his/her imbedded images, the nature of that source (public, private), reasonable expectations of third-party use, and permission, when necessary?

What do you think might happen to a hotlink if a moderator examines it, it appears invalid, and the moderator doesn't have access to any sort of evidence that it is valid? The responsibility, the obligation, need not be an oppressive burden to the poster. It probably doesn't have to be airtight evidence of the link's validity, but it should probably be persuasive. It might be as simple as explicitly claiming that the hotlink is valid. Ask a mod what will suffice; it might vary from mod to mod.

The risk of not giving some evidence of the validity of a hotlink is clear -- and clearly little. Providing evidence might save others some effort, though, so it would be a nice thing to do.

[Tinaa]

We still have members using dialup and hotlinking really slows their load time. Clicking on the link is easy. I rarely see a need to hotlink anything. I remove most hotlinks because I don't want to take the time to see if it is valid and to help our dialup users.

[Jim]

It bears repeating:

We still have members using dialup and hotlinking really slows their load time. Clicking on the link is easy.

If you really, really want folks to see your image w/o clicking, we have a thumbnail feature.

Also, some sites block hotlinking or even text linking directly to images. It's best in that case to use a text link to the page with the image, and an explanation of which one it is.

Finally, some images are larger than what some Members can see w/o panning or scrolling. This can be very annoying. If the image is text linked, it comes up in another window; browsers usually resize the image to fit the window so the whole thing can be seen and appreciated.

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

But after all, we all know rule 8 is made just so you can't hotlink to this little piece of evidence about the BA's social qualities.

Aw, I was hoping to see some picture of the BA drunk and (without "overexposure"!!) relieving himself into a potted plant at some wild Astronomy convention.

Guess those pictures remain locked in the vault for blackmail at a later date...

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Odd.

Wikipedia: Burden of proof

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.

[Nicolas]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Aw, I was hoping to see some picture of the BA drunk and (without "overexposure"!!) relieving himself into a potted plant at some wild Astronomy convention.

Guess those pictures remain locked in the vault for blackmail at a later date...

Strangely enough, with that kind of behaviour you do make friends. I won't go into what kind of friends, but anyway.

I thought it was funny, having the statement "The Bad Astronomer has not made any friends yet" on your own board. Very welcoming.