Correct way to post photos?

[mikeyh]

Hi,

 

Sorry if this is an obvious question that's been answered lots of times before - I can't find anything though. I've posted a few pictures on here before by re-sizing to less than 1MB and uploading as attachments. However - just trying a few things in the test area and it seems you can just copy an image already uploaded to Flickr and paste it here, as below, which seems easier.

 

Does this work o k or are there any drawbacks? Is this allowed or is it better to continue resizing and uploading photos? I'm hoping to find time to start a layout thread this holiday so want to get it right - any help or advice appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

[cal.n]

I don't think there is rule against copying and pasting photos from Flickr, it is always a pain resizing photos to below 1mb and if Flickr is quicker, go for it.

 

Looks like a nice layout, look forward to the thread.

[Gwiwer]

You may upload and display your own images.  You may upload and display images taken by others if you hold copyright or have the copyright owner's permission; posting a statement to this effect acknowledging the photographer / copyright holder is good form.  You may not post images for which you do not hold copyright or permission but you may post a link to them.  The difference lies in that a link will not display the actual image here.

 

You may upload images directly to RMweb if the file size is below 1MB.  You can also post images using the image button from the toolbar or by typing IMG tags yourself.  These images can be any size but must first be hosted at a commercial host site such as Flickr, Photobucket or SmugMug.  Very large images might cause the width of the reading pane to be distorted or require you and other viewers to scroll across to read text and see the complete image therefore it's best to keep to the more moderate sizes those sites offer.  Hosting and tagging saves a lot of resizing though you do first need an account (which can be free) at the host site.

 

The image-insertion button is the green square more or less beneath the "smiley" icon; hover the cursor over it and the word Image should appear, click it and enter the URL of the hosted image in the box in order to show your image in the post.  If you prefer, or if you suffer a systems incompatibility and cannot use the insertion button, simply type your own image tags either end of the URL which require square brackets and no spaces - I have included spaces to show the method.  [i m g]URL [ / img]

[martin_wynne]

You may not post images for which you do not hold copyright or permission but you may post a link to them. The difference lies in that a link will not display the actual image here.

 

You can display images here for which you don't hold the copyright providing it is a hot-link to the original image (i.e. you use the original image URL inside img tags):

[img=http://radioparadise.com/graphics/tv_img/49344.jpg]

Hot-linking has been held to be not a copyright infringement because you have not made a copy and the owner still has full control over what is displayed, and he can prevent hot-linking if he wishes. It is of course a courtesy to post an attribution to the source of the link.

 

For example:

 

linked from: http://radioparadise.com/graphics/tv_img/49344.jpg at http://radioparadise.com

 

Martin.

[Kylestrome]

These images can be any size but must first be hosted at a commercial host site such as Flickr, Photobucket or SmugMug.  

 

This is a little misleading. Images can, of course, simply be left on your computer!  

[Guest]

This is a little misleading. Images can, of course, simply be left on your computer!  

 

Absolutely. I don't "host" my images online anywhere. They live snugly in a little folder on the PC and get uploaded to RMWeb straight from there. One thing that I do use, not just for resizing, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro. I've never had the desire to learn (or the cash to afford) Adobe's PhotoShop but a simple image manipulation programme is very handy for resizing, reducing file size, cropping, adjusting brightness etc. Looking at the photo in the original post, I'd say you've got that covered though... it's a very nice image.

[Mikkel]

You can display images here for which you don't hold the copyright providing it is a hot-link to the original image (i.e. you use the original image URL inside img tags):

[img=http://radioparadise.com/graphics/tv_img/49344.jpg]

Hot-linking has been held to be not a copyright infringement because you have not made a copy and the owner still has full control over what is displayed, and he can prevent hot-linking if he wishes. It is of course a courtesy to post an attribution to the source of the link.

 

For example:

 

linked from: http://radioparadise.com/graphics/tv_img/49344.jpg at http://radioparadise.com

 

Martin.

 

Martin, is that a quote from the forum rules that I have missed? (genuine question).

 

It is increasingly being done on here, but I usually refrain from it myself although it can be very tempting - partly because I thought it was against forum rules, and partly because I am sceptical of it from a personal viewpoint:

 

Firstly, although the owner may retain control of the hotlinked image itself, he cannot control the context in which it is used.  Secondly, a site may have obtained special permission to use an image, but the owner may not want the image used on other sites. Thirdly, by hotlinking images you are arguably "stealing the thunder" and uniqueness of other sites, and thereby potentially reducing their value.

 

Some might argue that hotlinking actually drives more traffic to a site, and if any studies exist on that it would be interesting to see them. I am not a fundamentalist on the issue, just sceptical for the above reasons.

 

If permission has been given or if the site in question allows embedding, that is of course a very different matter.

[Gwiwer]

This is a little misleading. Images can, of course, simply be left on your computer!  

 

Yes they can but they can only be uploaded directly to RMW if the file size is below 1MB.  For many of us that might be the case.  Some of us are adept at resizing and can do so in a few memorised keystrokes.  For the rest there are other options.

[Miss Prism]

There was a discussion a few years ago here on the subject of hotlinking, and I think Andy Y declared it inadmissible. (But then I have been away for some time, so maybe the position has changed.)

[Gwiwer]

There was a discussion a few years ago here on the subject of hotlinking, and I think Andy Y declared it inadmissible. (But then I have been away for some time, so maybe the position has changed.)

 

I recall likewise but again am open to correction.  Or in the jargon of today "upgrade".

 

I have read numerous arguments on as many sites regarding hotlinking and understand that it is considered poor form even if lawful because it effectively uses bandwidth paid for by the third party yet outside their control.  In some cases this causes sites or pages to cease working when bandwidth or traffic levels are exceeded and could result in additional costs to the third party in order to reinstate their own work.

 

Hotlinking has been described by some as bandwidth theft.  I can understand why though don't wish to enter into a debate on the subject here.  The OP question has been asked and answered.

[The Stationmaster]

Absolutely. I don't "host" my images online anywhere. They live snugly in a little folder on the PC and get uploaded to RMWeb straight from there. One thing that I do use, not just for resizing, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro. I've never had the desire to learn (or the cash to afford) Adobe's PhotoShop but a simple image manipulation programme is very handy for resizing, reducing file size, cropping, adjusting brightness etc. Looking at the photo in the original post, I'd say you've got that covered though... it's a very nice image.

 

Agree - none of my images are 'hosted' anywhere other than on my own 'puter or a standalone storage drive (unless they have been pinched by somebody else) although in one or two cases people have been given permission to use them on their websites - with due acknowledgement.  So you can obviously use your own images straight off your own 'puter and there is no reason to save them to an external site if you don't want to.

 

As far as resizing is concerned it really depends on what software you have on your 'puter or you can use the RMweb software to adjust the size.  In my case I adjust the image, including cropping if needed, on the Preview programme on the Mac which is so simple to use that even I can understand it.

 

For example the image below, taken at the HWDMRS open day earlier this year was 2.8mb when downloaded from the camera - the first step was to physically resize it to 15500 (wide) by 1200 (high) pixels - recommended a long while back as the maximum sixze suitable for RMweb and then to resave to a size not exceeding 550KB  (also recommended for RMweb) and then I attach it to the post using the 'Reply With Attachment' button below the post.  as you will see from this image it is larger on the screen than the one you posted but it is compliant with the past recommended maximum sizes for posting on RMweb.  BTW try 'clicking' on the image below

 

[Miss Prism]

Irfanview is very good for resizing, and is free.

[Andy Y]

I recall likewise but again am open to correction.  Or in the jargon of today "upgrade".

 

I have read numerous arguments on as many sites regarding hotlinking and understand that it is considered poor form even if lawful because it effectively uses bandwidth paid for by the third party yet outside their control.  In some cases this causes sites or pages to cease working when bandwidth or traffic levels are exceeded and could result in additional costs to the third party in order to reinstate their own work.

 

Hotlinking has been described by some as bandwidth theft.  I can understand why though don't wish to enter into a debate on the subject here.  The OP question has been asked and answered.

 

Yes; in general terms I advise against hotlinking (unless it is your own material hosted on your own resource). Aside from the fact it's someone else paying for the traffic (particularly pertinent when it's a private site) it means that the image could disappear (with no link to the source) or the file changed to display incorrect content or even inappropriate material if someone objected to their material and bandwidth being abstracted.

[uax6]

I prefer pictures to be uploaded to here, and there is a serious issue behind this. I view RMWeb mainly at work (inbetween the trains!) and the firewall won't allow me to view anything on Flickr and the like, so lots of threads are basically unreadable.

 

Yes its my choice to view here, but when you look back in the archive you will also see that photos disappear when these hosting sites go pop, or when people have a clear out, at least if they are posted on here, they will remain as long as this site does...

 

(Yes Andy Y you have an archive responsibility too!)

 

Andy G

[Mikkel]

Yes; in general terms I advise against hotlinking (unless it is your own material hosted on your own resource). Aside from the fact it's someone else paying for the traffic (particularly pertinent when it's a private site) it means that the image could disappear (with no link to the source) or the file changed to display incorrect content or even inappropriate material if someone objected to their material and bandwidth being abstracted.

 

Thanks for the clarification Andy.

 

Having just argued against hotlinking I now realize that I'm guilty of hypocricy by having a Pinterest account which I use to my hearts content! This interweb stuff is a complicated thing.

[Andy Y]

Thanks for the clarification Andy.

 

Having just argued against hotlinking I now realize that I'm guilty of hypocricy by having a Pinterest account which I use to my hearts content! This interweb stuff is a complicated thing.

 

I too use Pinterest for collating collections of images that I may need to go back to. I have them set to private though so it's more of a personal filing resource than re-publishing. I suppose I'm just old-fashioned and agree that a lot of the re-use of material on the 'net is communistic. Many a Facebook group is just re-use of others' material; to find previously unpublished material on said site is unusual if it's not what some had for dinner, a pint they've now drunk or how many presents the kids had for Christmas.

 

You're right; the nuances can be complicated but the majority don't really give a monkey's about technicalities or moralities.

[martin_wynne]

it means that the image could disappear (with no link to the source) or the file changed to display incorrect content or even inappropriate material if someone objected to their material and bandwidth being abstracted.

 

Hi Andy,

 

But that applies equally if someone simply posts a clickable link instead.

 

All you are doing by hot-linking is saving the reader the trouble of doing that. And also often making your post more readable if the image and the text can be viewed at the same time.

 

Surely the arguments about bandwidth and quotas belong in the past? The days of dial-up modems and a tiny bit of "homepage" web space included with ISP accounts have long gone. We now have several GB of cloud storage, fibre broadband, and streamed content.

 

Generally if you don't want your stuff used all over the internet, don't post it on the internet -- especially not in these days of Facebook. Or alternatively change your server settings to require a password or login, or to prevent hot-linking, or upload only on forum sites where uploads are visible only to logged-in members.

 

For the avoidance of doubt:

 

    Anything on any web site under my control, including the Templot Club forum, can be hot-linked anywhere.

 

    Anything I post anywhere else can be hot-linked anywhere.

 

Provided in all cases a proper attribution to the source is given. Which is surely the most important consideration in any situation regardless of the technology involved or the type of link, and applies equally to the world-wide web as it would to a parish newsletter.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Mikkel]

I too use Pinterest for collating collections of images that I may need to go back to. I have them set to private though so it's more of a personal filing resource than re-publishing.

 

Good idea, settings duly changed.

[Andy Y]

 

But that applies equally if someone simply posts a clickable link instead.

 

All you are doing by hot-linking is saving the reader the trouble of doing that. And also often making your post more readable if the image and the text can be viewed at the same time.

 

Surely the arguments about bandwidth and quotas belong in the past? The days of dial-up modems and a tiny bit of "homepage" web space included with ISP accounts have long gone. We now have several GB of cloud storage, fibre broadband, and streamed content.

 

Generally if you don't want your stuff used all over the internet, don't post it on the internet -- especially not in these days of Facebook. Or alternatively change your server settings to require a password or login, or to prevent hot-linking, or upload only on forum sites where uploads are visible only to logged-in members.

 

 

All perfectly true but I guess we have different approaches to it. I will admit to hotlinking myself but from sites where I know it would have no material impact.

 

I probably have a different perspective because of the implications at my end; I have had several cases of material owners not understanding the same technicalities that you and I do and wasting unnecessary amounts of time threatening legal action for breach of copyright when there was no such issue. One case was simply down to the settings on their Flickr account and that they had enabled sharing and refused to countenance that they should change their settings; I should miraculously stop any 'thefts' or pay up any charges they felt fit to try and create.

[Ian J.]

IMO, if it's on the 'net, it's basically public, even if not intended to be.

 

A case in point: Disney recently made a Soundcloud site for their 'FYC' (For Your Consideration is for Oscar nominations) tracks of Michael Giacchino's music for 'Rogue One'. However, in the code for their web pages they didn't obfuscate the file names and locations for the MP3 tracks, meaning that they were in plain view when viewing the source code of said web pages. This meant they could be directly linked to without going via the Soundcloud player, and downloaded as well (don't ask me how I know). Effectively they made the music available publicly although I doubt that was their intent. As it is certainly within their capability and budget to keep the original files obfuscated, I'd like to see how they could defend their copyright of the music if it came to a court of law.

[martin_wynne]

IAs it is certainly within their capability and budget to keep the original files obfuscated, I'd like to see how they could defend their copyright of the music if it came to a court of law.

 

If it's their copyright it's their copyright. Plastering it across the entire world doesn't change that.

 

What it may change is the damages they could expect if the copyright is infringed by others.

 

Likewise with our photos. A court may reasonably say "well what did you expect if you posted it on Facebook?"

 

Martin.

[Ian J.]

If it's their copyright it's their copyright. Plastering it across the entire world doesn't change that.

 

What it may change is the damages they could expect if the copyright is infringed by others.

 

Likewise with our photos. A court may reasonably say "well what did you expect if you posted it on Facebook?"

 

Martin.

 

Part of the problem for Disney would be payments to the composer, musicians and other artists where royalties would be due on the issuing of the recordings, unless all the music and compositional work was paid for (beyond it's use in the film) in entirety in advance (which does sometimes happen).

[mikeyh]

Hi,

 

Many thanks to everyone who replied. So I think the answer is that either way is OK! Will probably use some of both methods and see which turns out to be easiest and gives best quality.

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

[Colin_McLeod]

Regarding resizing photographs a quick and easy method I use from my phone is to share the photograph on Facebook with the privacy settings to "only me" . The version that appears on Facebook is automatic resized by Facebook. I then "save" the Facebook version on to my phone then upload it to the RMweb post.

[Scottish-Exile]

When I've posted a photo (using the Image button), it displays OK but has the legend "Attached Thumbnails" above it. Looking at other photos others post, they don't have this. Any idea how I can post photos without this "Attached Thumbnails" appearing?