Tuesday, February 10, 2009

A few apologies (now with comments)

Despite having been told by various people that one of the main ways I include images to decorate the posts on the blog is not kosher, I've stubbornly maintained that that was a matter of debate and continued to use the "hotlinking" method (whereby I pull an image into this blog with a link from its original source). I've since been convinced that this is indeed not defensible and so hereby apologize to those who I dismissed, those whose images I've linked that way, and you readers as well.

I'm currently in the process of systematically removing every image linked this way from the previous posts. In some instances, in which the image was simply a decoration, I'm deleting them altogether. In others, where the image is important to understand the text, I've replaced the hot link image with a simple link out to its original source. In other places, you'll still see images that I'm hosting here on the blog and have express permission to use.

There are more than 900 posts on the blog at this point. I've deleted the hotlinked images on more than 500 of them now, but this process is taking some time. Please bear with me as I work through them all.

Moving forward, I will not continue this practice (of course) and again apologize for the stubbornness and arrogance that had led me to ignore those who told me it's not proper.

UPDATE: I tend to think it's best not to turn comments on for mea culpa threads, as I don't wish to seem as if I'm encouraging people to speak up for me. Rather an apology should be offered and not discussed, only accepted or rejected. Dragging it out is self-serving to me.

However, Julie Sadler asked something in another thread that strikes me as a worthy discussion here, so I'm turning comments on:
The question that I have is WHY did Ed remove the pics from the blog? And then not allow comments on that post>>?
Cuz I am extremely curious about this and have checked back to this post every 2 hours to see why he did this.
WHY do I care?
Because I do this all the time. And sometimes, when I am illustrating a point, I even do a (heavens!!!) screen shot. My intentions are not in any way linked to copyright theft, and I am sure Ed's aren't either. My blog is entirely ad free and altho I post my own stuff, I mostly use it as a tool to promote the art of collage. So, if I go and post a pic of someones' work, AND list the gallery at which it will be showing (along with a link to the gallery), AND the times of the show, AND the artists website link I am doing Wrong cuz I posted the pic?? Somehow just text seems pretty uninviting for a visual art show. By not putting in sample pix, how would a user even know what the show was about?? Any of these questions won't matter if Ed has a legal reason to believe that posting linked pix is bad. I am dying to hear!

Why this change Ed? Is there something I need to understand better here about my own blogging? Am I at "risk"?
(I apologize if the answer is obvious and I am not just getting it. Sometimes I think living upstate has dulled my senses)
There are two issues here I believe. Using images to decorate your blog posts and how you do that. Sometimes I'll take an image, alter it somehow (for comic effect or to illustrate a point) and the post it to the blog by uploading into my system. Other times, out of a sincere belief that it actually was more honest about where you got the image (because anyone could follow it back and out of admitted laziness/sloppiness), I used an href link to pull the image into the post, such that (and this is the issue that escaped me and eventually convinced me to stop doing it) it consumes the bandwidth on that original website. There's no excuse for my refusal to see why that's poor form. I'm just stubborn that way.

Labels:

11 Comments:

Blogger nina said...

Well people have different opinions of this. On my blog I use only images from people I know and know that they don't mind, or images w/o copyrights attached (the library of congress & flicker both can be a good source for such images) or I contact the author of an image first to ask for permission.
We do the same for the Nymphoto blog and it works well-- in fact it is nice to make contact with people whose work you like and ask them for permission to images. Most are very gracious and sometimes new relationships develop from these inquiries.
Once in a while I cannot use an image I want, but it feels good to be "clean".

2/10/2009 04:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Ed, not much going on in the gallery these days?

2/10/2009 04:15:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Ed, not much going on in the gallery these days?

about the same as usual...why?

2/10/2009 04:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't get it. Consumes the bandwidth on the original site? I liked seeing images on your blog. Sometimes I'd follow the link and learn more. I love that about blogs in general.

2/10/2009 06:01:00 PM  
Blogger Ethan said...

I think folks are still not understanding the bandwidth issue.

What matter is where the image lives on the internet. If the image is hosted on someone else's web server, then everytime that image is viewed the KB that are transmitted are being paid by whoever is paying for the web server.

Depending on the bandwidth or web hosting deal that person has, viewing the image may cost them money (for example, perhaps they pay a flat rate for the first 500 GB of bandwidth each month and then pay $0.01 for each additional MB).

So using an image that is hosted by someone else (rather than downloading the image and then putting it on your own web server) can actually be taking money out of their pocket.

2/10/2009 06:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Lisa G. said...

What Ethan said. When your webpage includes an image that's hosted on a different server, it uses bandwidth from that server whenever someone loads your page ... even if they don't click through. This can indeed cost $ for whoever's hosting the image.

But I don't think this means that blog posts should never include other people's images, especially if they're relevant to what you're talking about. The most polite thing to do is to download the image to your desktop and the upload it to your own server when you make your post, and use full attribution. It's even better to include a clickthrough link to the gallery or artist website. This way they get clickthrough traffic from interested parties, but don't have to pay for people who are just looking at your post.

I'm all for asking permission to repost an image when it's practical. But I don't think most artists or galleries would object if your post included one of their JPEGs, properly labeled, and a clickthrough link, especially if it's an interesting post.

2/10/2009 08:38:00 PM  
Blogger Julie Sadler said...

Thank you so much Ed for answering this for me and clearing the fog. I did not even consider the idea of the bandwidth use on other servers. (and that's really bad for me in particular, since I am an assistant systems admin at work!!) I do understand this concept and I can't believe I didn't foresee this.

I have been hesitant to download images and then re-upload to my blog. Altho we know it is then my bandwidth problem, I felt somehow that the action of "taking" or downloading the image to my computer was kind of feeling like a theft!! I figured, okay well at least if someone follows the picture, it will take them to the persons' site, and therefore offer them more publicity.

I often do contact the artist when I am doing a feature on someone. I think it's an ego boost for anyone to know that someone out there in the aether thinks enough of your artwork to blog about it. I purposefully do not make negative posts...I don't ever want to consider myself a judge on what people think is good art or bad art or even art at all! If someone has a statement on their site that says to ask them for permission, I do ask them. If there's a show, I try to post the gallery link as well...I do try to respect the rights of others.

I think this new insight will make me consider my posts differently. I think I will employ the practice of connecting with the artist each time as I post...to avoid future hassles.

Thanks again Ed...I appreciate it greatly.

2/11/2009 08:46:00 AM  
Blogger Mark Creegan said...

The sans-images Winkleman blog is very fitting for these lean economic times :)

P.S. My verification word is "hagning" which I would like to submit as the word used for the process of deleating images from posts. Now since I am taking too long to write this my verification word may change, so maybe "hagning" should be the term for having to re-type another verification word!

2/11/2009 09:30:00 AM  
Blogger Molly Stevens said...

But.... the circulation of images can be one of the benefits of the internet.

How often does image sharing result in expense for the host?

2/11/2009 01:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Casp said...

Julie and Molly: Winkleman is a very popular blog. This is the kind of situation that sucks the bandwith of another host. Most blogs don't attract the kind of attention that can cause a problem.

Cedric Casp

2/11/2009 03:26:00 PM  
Blogger C. L. DeMedeiros said...

whatever you do or say
is an amazing bless to visit your blog
I found out about you through Lisa "Intrepid" Hunter,
if bloguing was a religion,
your blog will be my church
tough love you said,
we all need a little spank once in a while.

keep taking good care of your "house blog"

Carlos

2/12/2009 09:22:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home