Can you insert a graphic offsite?

[Joel Shepherd]

Better analogy: I'm giving out free hobnobs to anyone who visits me at
home; you give people my address and say "free hobnobs here" and suddenly
everyone's turning and taking my hobnobs. Are you stealing hobnobs from
me?

The issue is not hobnobs or pictures. We're not talking about "picture
theft" and if we were there is already copyright law to address that
issue.

The issue is bandwidth, which many people who run websites pay for
monthly, for the specific purpose of serving content to visitors to
their site. When another person uses that bandwidth to serve content to
_their_ visitors, they are taking something of value from the original
site owner. The original owner has been deprived of bandwidth which they
are paying for to serve up their own site.

E.g., someone hotlinking to a large video file on my site can rapidly
consume bandwidth I'm paying for to serve both that file and hundreds of
smaller pages. If the abuse goes far enough, either my own visitors are
cut off from all content on my site, or I pay much higher fees for the
extra bandwidth to keep the site up. I am being deprived of something of
value which I've paid for. That sounds an awful lot like theft to me.

Drop the analogies for once. The issue is not that hard to understand.

 

[tm]

The issue is not hobnobs or pictures. We're not talking about "picture
theft" and if we were there is already copyright law to address that
issue.

The issue is bandwidth, which many people who run websites pay for
monthly, for the specific purpose of serving content to visitors to
their site. When another person uses that bandwidth to serve content to
_their_ visitors, they are taking something of value from the original
site owner. The original owner has been deprived of bandwidth which they
are paying for to serve up their own site.

E.g., someone hotlinking to a large video file on my site can rapidly
consume bandwidth I'm paying for to serve both that file and hundreds of
smaller pages. If the abuse goes far enough, either my own visitors are
cut off from all content on my site, or I pay much higher fees for the
extra bandwidth to keep the site up. I am being deprived of something of
value which I've paid for. That sounds an awful lot like theft to me.

Drop the analogies for once. The issue is not that hard to understand.

So, no beer? Why bother then?

 

[Noel S Pamfree]

You clearly don't understand what I am trying to do!

I want to use pictures held on my own server on my work website.

I simply wanted to know if I could do it without having to copy them from
one server to another.

Noel

Best not to think the worst of people before you hear them out!

 

[dorayme]

You clearly don't understand what I am trying to do!

I want to use pictures held on my own server on my work website.

I simply wanted to know if I could do it without having to copy them from
one server to another.

Noel

Best not to think the worst of people before you hear them out!

You can do it as has been made clear. If it helps, not too many
believe you wanted to do it for any other purpose than was
legitimate. It is just that someone mentioned some ethical
consideration - yawn - right at the start) and others tore off
like hares with the issue, having some fun along the way. This
is what newsgroups are like. Don't take it personally. Yes, it
is remarkable that it is so often the first issue on the lips of
some folk... Actually. I now feel bad at not slapping the guy
down myself, (Goddamn it, I was too respectful). Usually it is
the puritanically historied yanks who's lips these issues are
always on, but in this case, I am ashamed to say, it was a
convict historied Aussie. But he is totally unusual, he is a
non-Woody-Allen-movie-going suit-owning individual. Don't worry.

-- dorayme

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme

You can do it as has been made clear. If it helps, not too many
believe you wanted to do it for any other purpose than was
legitimate.

I don't know that anyone assumed he did.

It is just that someone mentioned some ethical
consideration - yawn - right at the start)

I merely mentioned it in case the OP was not aware of the ramifications
- as he has now made clear that he owns the other site, it is obviously
not an issue. For him, anyway. Others reading the thread may be wanting
to link to someone else's images - and they need to know that they need
to get permission to do so.

and others tore off
like hares with the issue, having some fun along the way. This
is what newsgroups are like.

Indeed. And no one was discussing the OP personally, just the issue of
hotlinking in generally.

Actually. I now feel bad at not slapping the guy
down myself,

Well excuse me!

(Goddamn it, I was too respectful). Usually it is
the puritanically historied yanks who's lips these issues are
always on,

Unfortunately (thanks to the Yanks) we live in a world full of
litigation, so you need to be careful about these things.

but in this case, I am ashamed to say, it was a
convict historied Aussie.

Well, my parents are both Brits who came out here as kids, so no
convicts in my family tree. My wife has a few, though - if that
helps.

But he is totally unusual,

Aren't we all?

he is a
non-Woody-Allen-movie-going

I go to very few movies at all, but no - I haven't ever seen a Woody
Allen movie. What that has to do with the OP's post I have no idea. But
of course this is Usenet. It doesn't have to be related.

suit-owning

One (1) suit. Which I have hardly worn.

individual.

"Yes, we're ALL individuals".
"Er, I'm not."

Don't worry.

Indeed.

 

[Toby Inkster]

The thing is though, that with deeplinking, they don't visit your
house.

One person visited your house, and constructed outlets for hobnobs
from your hobnob-room. Big hoovers sucking the hobnobs from their
packages and spitting them out at the other end, which happens to be
outside your house or even in the next street.

Nah. Providing a URL to visitors is not analogous to hoovering up
free hobnobs -- it's analogous to providing directions to a source of free
hobnobs. It's still me that's giving away the hobnobs and I can choose to
stop giving them away, or restrict access, whenever I want.

 

[dorayme]

I merely mentioned it in case the OP was not aware of the ramifications
- as he has now made clear that he owns the other site, it is obviously
not an issue. For him, anyway. Others reading the thread may be wanting
to link to someone else's images - and they need to know that they need
to get permission to do so.

Yes, there are all sorts of people that read these posts and they are lucky
to have some reminders about this sort of thing. I will never mention your
suit again.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme

Yes, there are all sorts of people that read these posts and they are lucky
to have some reminders about this sort of thing. I will never mention your
suit again.

Thank you. Now let's get back to the important stuff, like winning the
cricket (South Africa haven't got a chance!).

 

[Els]

Nah. Providing a URL to visitors is not analogous to hoovering up
free hobnobs -- it's analogous to providing directions to a source of free
hobnobs.

Sounds like we're talking about two different things. A direct link
with an href to an image is one thing, but I thought we were
discussing placing someone else's images in a page through an <img>
element, passing the picture off as one's own, and wasting my
bandwidth. I have a large picture of lions on my site. The amount of
bandwidth that takes by my own visitors is fine. But I don't like the
amount of bandwidth it costs from the MySpace users who have hotlinked
my largest image as their backgrounds, which all their MySpace friends
are looking at on a daily basis.

It's still me that's giving away the hobnobs and I can choose to
stop giving them away, or restrict access, whenever I want.

Of course. No MySpace user is seeing my lions on their homepages
anymore. But taking someone else's stuff is still theft, whether the
door was locked or not.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Can anyone tell me if it is possible to place a graphic on a website which
is held on another server?

Yes, it is possible to link to a graphic, music file, or many other
things on another domain that may be on the same or another server. I
have both a .net and .info domain, both on the same server, and I link
from one to the other all of the time. The control panel handles both
domains at the same time, and would handle yet another, if needed.

Where a problem may arise is when someone else with a very popular site
hot links to one or many of your files, especially very high resolution
images or massive streaming audio or video files. People have been know
to put up image sites, where all of the images are hot links from other
sites. The same goes for music and video. I have a few streaming audio
and video files for broadband that run up to 80 MB each. Although I
have paid for several GB a month of bandwidth - bandwidth now is dirt
cheap on some commercial hosts - if I exceed this I will have to pay a
stiff extra fee. To prevent this, I have a throttle policy that will
limit the bandwidth to prevent this until I have time to correct the
problem. Also, if you store many massive image or media files in the
same directory, do not allow access to this directory. Else someone,
knowing the URL of just one file in the directory, can get in to view
all files there and perhaps hot link to some or all of the files there
for one of their sites. Also my domains keep track of hits to various
files. If you find that someone is hot linking to a massive file in
great excess, you just change the file URL. Then you replace the
original URL with another image or media file of small byte size. This
usually stops the hot linking very rapidly. Some people use a "stolen
from" message, and some use something extremely rude or in very poor
taste.

 

[dorayme]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme


Thank you. Now let's get back to the important stuff, like winning the
cricket (South Africa haven't got a chance!).

Here is my first message from my fancy-pants (ie. non OE) MT-NewsWatcher
ng software on OS X. Where the hell is that signature? Mr. Little will
be on to me.

I get a funny feeling with the Safricans, they can be a dangerous mob.
Still, i am sure you are right these days (especially now that all the
fixers are hopefully gone... remember?)

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme

Here is my first message from my fancy-pants (ie. non OE) MT-NewsWatcher
ng software on OS X.
*waves*

I get a funny feeling with the Safricans, they can be a dangerous mob.

Did you see the result of their game against Western Australia? It was
only a 3 day match, and WA beat them by an innings and 48 (IIRC) runs.
Surely against Australia they haven't got a hope if even WA beat them by
that much.

Still, i am sure you are right these days (especially now that all the
fixers are hopefully gone... remember?)

I do.

 

[JDS]

You clearly don't understand what I am trying to do!

I want to use pictures held on my own server on my work website.

Sure they understand. If it is your own server, then you have permission
from the server owner. Nobody assumed you were stealing bandwidth, it was
just pointed out that you shouldn't

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Drop the analogies for once. The issue is not that hard to understand.

So, no beer? Why bother then?[/QUOTE]

Feel free to have a quick shot to steady your nerves. There. Better?

 

[Toby Inkster]

Sounds like we're talking about two different things. A direct link
with an href to an image is one thing, but I thought we were
discussing placing someone else's images in a page through an <img>
element,

So this is fine in your books?

<a href="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg">Image</a>

But this is not?

<img src="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg" alt="Image">

(The two are rendered almost identically in Lynx, given the right
options.)

How about this?

<a id="foo" href="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg">Image</a>
<script>
var i = new Image();
var h = document.getElementById('foo');
i.src = h.href;
i.alt = h.innerHTML;
h.href = '';
h.appendChild(i);
</script>

And what if that Javascript isn't on the page, but is instead run by the
visitor? (cf. Mozilla's GreaseMonkey extension, Opera's native User
Javascript capability, "bookmarklets" in any Javascript-capable browser.)

Where exactly do you draw the line? And why do you need to draw a line at
all? If you want people to view your images, why does it matter what HTML
element I use to link to them? Every visitor who views your image is
going to use X kilobytes of your bandwidth, whether I use A or IMG.

passing the picture off as one's own, and wasting my bandwidth.

Now that's not an issue with "theft", but one of passing-off: an issue of
copyright violation.

But if I write:

<p>Here is a great picture that Els took:
<img src="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg" alt="Image"></p>

then how am I passing it off as my own?

 

[Els]

So this is fine in your books?

<a href="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg">Image</a>

But this is not?

<img src="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg" alt="Image">

Yup.
In the former example, people see my URL in the addressbar, and might
check out the rest of my site as well. In the latter example, there is
no indication at all that the picture is mine, and no one will visit
my site after seeing the image.

Must say that there is one exception that I know of, and I have made
an exception for that blogger - she doesn't get my substitute message.
She got a picture from my site, but included the original <a href> the
image was in. People see the image on her blog, notice it's clickable,
and when clicking it, they go straight to a bigger version of the
image on my site, page and all.

(The two are rendered almost identically in Lynx, given the right
options.)

Well, most of the people looking at my images don't use Lynx ;-)

How about this?

<a id="foo" href="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg">Image</a>
<script>
var i = new Image();
var h = document.getElementById('foo');
i.src = h.href;
i.alt = h.innerHTML;
h.href = '';
h.appendChild(i);
</script>

And what if that Javascript isn't on the page, but is instead run by the
visitor? (cf. Mozilla's GreaseMonkey extension, Opera's native User
Javascript capability, "bookmarklets" in any Javascript-capable browser.)

I couldn't comment on that, as I have no idea what that script is
doing - I don't speak JavaScript...

Where exactly do you draw the line? And why do you need to draw a line at
all? If you want people to view your images, why does it matter what HTML
element I use to link to them? Every visitor who views your image is
going to use X kilobytes of your bandwidth, whether I use A or IMG.

There's more than one difference. One of them is people seeing my
images without me being credited at all (ordinary MySpace visitors
don't look look in the source to find the original URL). Another is
that my bandwidth is used far more than I had planned. I have only a
certain amount of visitors per day, and it's not a strain on the
server whatsoever. Now add the multitude of people on MySpace en
similar blogs who have my large image as their background, and
multiply that by their visitors. If I wouldn't stop them, the actual
bandwidth taken by this picture via other people's sites is more than
the bandwidth taken up my my own visitors looking at many images.

Don't get me wrong - it's not passing my bandwidth limits. But if I'd
let them and have a couple more wanted images, it might. I pay hosting
for people who visit my site. Not for everybody else's visitors.

Now that's not an issue with "theft", but one of passing-off: an issue of
copyright violation.

True. I used the term 'passing-off' to indicate the picture is shown
in their page, and no one will suspect it's not their own, so they
wouldn't even know of the existence of my site. Hence, no benefit for
me.

But if I write:

<p>Here is a great picture that Els took:
<img src="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg" alt="Image"></p>

then how am I passing it off as my own?

You're not. But you'd still be stealing my bandwidth

Let's turn this thing around. If you'd have a large image (300kB) on
your site, would you have no problem whatsoever if I would use it as a
background, hotlinked, on my (hypothetical!) 5000+ visitors a day
blog?

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Els

I couldn't comment on that, as I have no idea what that script is
doing - I don't speak JavaScript...

The Javascript is grabbing the image location from the link and
displaying the image instead of the text (with the text as alt text),
and then removing the address from the link. OTTOMH it is the same
result (assuming Javascript enabled) as:

<a id="foo" href=""><img src="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg"
alt="Image"></a>

Users without Javascript will of course just get the normal link.

 

[Els]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Els


The Javascript is grabbing the image location from the link and
displaying the image instead of the text (with the text as alt text),
and then removing the address from the link. OTTOMH it is the same
result (assuming Javascript enabled) as:

<a id="foo" href=""><img src="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg"
alt="Image"></a>

Users without Javascript will of course just get the normal link.

Okay, then I'd file this method under 'not acceptable', since it still
isn't leading the visitor to my site.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Okay, then I'd file this method under 'not acceptable', since it still
isn't leading the visitor to my site.

But if they go to your site they're probably going to download not just
the image, but also probably a web page, and maybe some scripts and style
sheets.

Isn't that stealing even *more* bandwidth?

 

[Els]

But if they go to your site they're probably going to download not just
the image, but also probably a web page, and maybe some scripts and style
sheets.

Isn't that stealing even *more* bandwidth?

No, that's *using* bandwidth.