Created •
Why do I hotlink on SU?
- This isn't really a rant; there are only shades of grey in this issue, I think, and this is just my own opinion. I hotlink wherever I can, though am happy to respect those sites that specifically request it not be done, and if I find that out after the fact (substitute images) I'm happy to remove the original and leave a text pointer. That said, as I read through copyright notices on various art sites, I see that many of the copyright notices prohibit copying and storing their images elsewhere; rarely have I found any reference to hotlinking.
- To hotlink or not to hotlink? There are pros and cons to each side. The two main ones that I see involve a) bandwidth on the originating site's server, and b) copyright.
- Bandwidth is seen as being there for the site's actual visitors. They want visitors, otherwise, they wouldn't have a website. They want "interested" visitors, granted, but the interest generated by using their images to bring those visitors to their sites (and subsequently using a lot more bandwidth during their visit) makes the initial bandwidth used an investment that I would consider worthwhile, were I that site's owner. They're getting advertising in return.
- I think copyright is the weightier issue. Often I've seen a photo or work of art on a stumbler's site, appreciated it, but only to find it sitting on Flickr or some similar site, with no other way to find its originator than to try and follow a trail of stumblers, which often results in a dead end. No credit to the artist or photographer, no way to find that person's site or any information about the work. And this is done for the original purpose of not stealing bandwidth. While sharing is still part of it, the originator of the image is left without a "share" and the blog owner and visitors are the only ones with a part in it. The question that bears thinking about is which is the bigger theft?
