Anyone have this happen before?

S

Squidbait

Recovering ALCO-holic
Jan 27, 2007
1,219
0
36
59
Paris, ON
I posted a note listing some pictures from the Walthers site. Yesterday they worked fine. Today they show a gif that says "Visit Walthers.com for product photos".

What's up with that? Is it Walthers being silly, or is it a Gauge thing?
 
Walthers does not allow outside links directly to their photos. This uses their bandwidth without any benefit to Walthers - i.e. no one visits the entire page to see all info, click "buy now" or whatever.

If you want to link to Walthers, you will have to simply give the address (i.e. provide a link) of the entire page that the item is on.

Many sites have this policy; some are better at policing it than others. Still others, like flickr and other photo-sharing sites expressly permit this use.

For the record, The Gauge does not permit photos uploaded here (in our Gallery) to be linked to outside sites, so please refrain from doing this. Thanks :)

Andrew
 
Well.

My first thoughts on this were "bite me". At least with respect to Walthers.

So who edited my links? You? The Gauge mods? Or do you have some script that automatically replaces the llnk?

My second thought on this is BAH! Foolishness. They're shooting themselves in the foot. With an attitude like that, I'm even less inclined to refer anyone to them.

My third thought is that I can kind of see their point, but it loops back to the second part of my second thought. If I can't use their pictures, I'm not likely to refer people to them...

... I think the notion of third-party referrals is greatly underrated by most e-businesses... or businesses that are online, but are grounded in their traditional business model. Viral advertising, word of mouth, and 3rd party links are going to prove to be more powerful than traditional mainstream advertising models.
 
Squid,

As far as I know, it's actually done at their end. We do not replace the pictures.

I think their point is kind of your #2 and #3 combined, but from the other side. If you link only the picture, how will the viewer know that the item is available at Walthers? On the other hand, if you provide the full URL, then people navigating there are subject to the full sales pitch or whatever Walthers wants to show them.

The other thing to remember is that when linking in that manner, the bandwidth used is a cost to Walthers, without benefit. It's like using someone else's web site to host your pictures. Without expressly being designed that way (as opposed to flickr or whatever) this is simply a cut off Walthers bottom line.

Andrew
 
MasonJar said:
Squid,

As far as I know, it's actually done at their end. We do not replace the pictures.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... interesting. So how do they manage to change the embedded link in the post? Or do they keep changing the name of their image file? Very strange.... and a waste of effort if you ask me, in spite of the dubious bandwidth costs.

MasonJar said:
I think their point is kind of your #2 and #3 combined, but from the other side. If you link only the picture, how will the viewer know that the item is available at Walthers? On the other hand, if you provide the full URL, then people navigating there are subject to the full sales pitch or whatever Walthers wants to show them.

The other thing to remember is that when linking in that manner, the bandwidth used is a cost to Walthers, without benefit. It's like using someone else's web site to host your pictures. Without expressly being designed that way (as opposed to flickr or whatever) this is simply a cut off Walthers bottom line.

Anderw
Click to expand...

Bah, antics with semantics derived by accountants. (say that 3 times fast!). I still think it's shortsighted.
 
So how do they manage to change the embedded link in the post? Or do they keep changing the name of their image file?
Click to expand...

Since you have changed your original post, I am not sure... But I think it is pretty much the equivalent to changing the photo the link points to. This means they get to transmit their "visit Walthers" notice down the link you provide.


Andrew
 
Actually - most sites have a bandwidth bot built in. If all of a sudden, pictures (which are held in a separate folder) get a lot of use... The bot sends that "link to " picture instead of the actual picture.... It's a java program.

Now, about using their bandwidth, The Gauge/Zealot forbids outside linking from pictures in our gallery as well as linking directly to other web site's pictures...

Why???? because.... Think of it as some stranger coming over while you sleep and driving your car, SUV or whatever vehicle you have, around all night - then parking it again as found.. without the gas....

When you come out in the morning (get your bandwidth bill at the end of the month) you'll see the point....

Someone is using your fuel and using your resources and you get nothing in return... not vary fair on any level....

Now, "asking someone" to go to a site and see the sales pitch and/or catalog, justifies the whole idea of linking to a page, not a picture...

That is, after all, why the site is online in the first place, to make a profit. If they start giving away everything free... then when they have to raise prices to pay for the web sites charges... guess who complains? The customers......

Some of these sites cost hundreds of dollars a month to maintain and service the bandwidth. The running rate, here on the East Coast averages 300.00 a month and to pay a webmaster is averaging $50.00 an hour....
 
N Gauger said:
Now, about using their bandwidth, The Gauge/Zealot forbids outside linking from pictures in our gallery as well as linking directly to other web site's pictures...
Click to expand...

I do not want to hijack the thread but one question... are photo hosting websites considered linking to another website's photos? I have my own website and have been using it as a photo host so when I post a thread with pics I use it. That is okay, right?

Dave
 
puddlejumper said:
I do not want to hijack the thread but one question... are photo hosting websites considered linking to another website's photos? I have my own website and have been using it as a photo host so when I post a thread with pics I use it. That is okay, right?

Dave
Click to expand...

Absolutely - Photobucket and the other image hosting sites encourage linking to their sites :) That's fine with us.... And of course, linking to your own site is fine..

We only ask that a member does not link to copyrighted pictures directly. We ask that you link to the site pages, not the pictures.

~~~ Thanks!!
 
N Gauger said:
We only ask that a member does not link to copyrighted pictures directly. We ask that you link to the site pages, not the pictures.
Click to expand...

At this juncture I'd like to point out that all images are copyrighted by the photographer regardless of if such is stated. When displaying images online not taken by one's self explicit consent is needed from the image's owner. (Those guys with Major League Baseball are proactive in this regard with their ominous copyright statement.) Unauthorized "borrowing" is why I have ceased sharing photos on most public forums anymore.

~BS
 
I imagine that if you linked directly to the Walthers site it would automatically label you as "item out of stock" like everything usually is on their website - for N Scaler's anyway !!
 
railohio said:
At this juncture I'd like to point out that all images are copyrighted by the photographer regardless of if such is stated. When displaying images online not taken by one's self explicit consent is needed from the image's owner.

~BS
Click to expand...

Absolutely Right!!! - There are a few other Photographers here besides me, that wholeheartedly agree with that mindset. The Gauge/Zealot gives all members the benifit of the doubt in our General Rules For Posting:

3. Use of Copyright Materials (Avatars, Images, etc.): Images posted by a member must belong to the member, or they must have permission from the owner to use it in this way. Otherwise, simply post a link to the picture you'd like others to see. Images from other Gauge members must be treated as their property as well, please ask their permission if you want to download it for your own use.
 
I think there's a lot of copyright law that needs to catch up with the internet.

Linking to an image is one thing (whether embeded or not) - the accreditation is implicit in the link. I have neither removed the image from its' source, nor claimed credit for it nor altered the image in any way.

Pasting an image with no accreditaton into a document is a different story.

Third, if someone's going to get bent out of shape about their copyright, they should care enough to embed their copyright information in the image.
 
Squidbait said:
Linking to an image is one thing (whether embeded or not) - the accreditation is implicit in the link. I have neither removed the image from its' source, nor claimed credit for it nor altered the image in any way.

Pasting an image with no accreditaton into a document is a different story.
Click to expand...

Seems like you're supporting the idea of linking which seems to remove controversy regarding how images are shared. That makes it easy.

Although not a photographer myself I have a great respect for copyright and prefer to err on the side of caution. A link only takes seconds to create and to activate. :thumb:

Ralph
 
The issue is called...

... "hot linking"- posting the URL to an image on another website so that the image appears on your site. I write a website for a business as well as my own and there are tools that disable others from "hot linking". There are ways around it that would be as unethical and otherwise illegal.

I could go on.

Mark
 
There is a great difference between just linking to an image and embedding one in a post. Posting a link allows viewers to see the image's source, embedding a photo does not. This in turn takes credit away from where it's due. Even embedding a copyright statement in an image doesn't prevent people from "borrowing" it. Generally they have the same reaction you do, "credit is in the image so I can steal it if I want."

Most people rebel at the notion of copyrights because they have an inherent feeling that information is free. The simple fact is that information is not free, be it textual or visual. Authors and photographers expend their own time and money to create, without proper compensation what's their motivation go continue?

~BS
 
Seems like a similar issue going on w/ music, but I hold a different opinion. See when you post an image on flikr or one of those photo sites like Kodak etc, you CEASE being the copyright holder, read their fine print. Once you post your content on their site it's theirs w/ no buyer remorse so beware. If you take a Pulitzer prize winning shot or some contest winning shot of your layout and post on one of these public sites w/o carefully reading the disclaimer you could actually be sued (it's happened) for using YOUR OWN photo.

Any parent will say they have cute kids :) I'm a parent and my kids and my vacation are how i stumbled on this small issue of copyright. I posted a photo of a rainbow over the Caribbean I took out of a bar when i was in Jamaica on webshots.com where i held all my photos. The photo ended up in a coffee table book, which the makers of decided was a good idea to try and sell back to me ... I wasn't happy and low and behold nothing i could do about it because the images belonged to webshots and they sold it to the book publisher. Same deal w/ my kids a photo of my oldest (when he was younger) ended up on someone else's website as "stock photography" ... i stumbled across it because i was in media at the time. Pissed me off, but again nothing i could do about it.

I now have MY OWN photo site that i rent space on the internet to host, i spent the time to configure the software and databases etc and i post my photo's there, i have no copyright rules other than if you want your stuff copywrited, put it in the description of your album. I offer a login to just about anyone who asks nicely :).

Yes it does cost money when bandwidth runs over but these folks are making bazillions on advertising and selling stuff, flikr was sold for billions the other day!! I personally would prefer to share what i have and the skills that i have w/ a group for nothing (same principle I've come to love about The Gauge) for the betterment of the group than squeak a profit from them, like some of these websites do.

Capitolism holds quite a few connundrums :) me thinks. If they don't sell they can't make the website and you can't link to it, if they sell they don't want you to link to it, but you are upset because you can't so you don't buy from them, so they don't have a website for you to not link to :).

I've been hunting for more space and reliable bandwidth to offer The Gauge a more permanent home for their images royalty and bandwidth and copywrite relinquishing free, and the instant i get that space i'll offer it to all here. After all it's the least i can do for those who've helped me w/ my love of trains, and has give me and my sons something else to do together other than argue about pokemon and change diapers ;).

So ... is information free? Well i'd ask you that same question, click around in the forums, i would say there is a ridiculous amount of precious information being freely shared, and i for one and eternally grateful to those who share it.

Should you link other people's stuff, not w/o their permission in my book. Should they offer some content for you to link freely, yes, if they were smarter business people. The record industry tried the same tactic and look where that got them. :p:twisted:

Wow this post sure as heck didn't feel this long when i was typing it hahaha.
 
This has been an interesting discussion. While I have not posted pictures anywhere, I do share my photographs freely with, usually, their subjects. In some instances, I have taken photographs of a "public" event hosted by an organization or business, and presented them with a CD of the photos. As long as they use them internally, I don't care what they do with them; but I do ask that, if they use any of them in advertising or other publicity, that they simply give me credit as the photographer. I am NOT a professional photographer, so I don't expect payment. If I were a professional, that would be a completely different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom