I’m always a bit crestfallen when I go back to some sites I used to visit or sites I have posted on to find that links, especially links for images, no longer work.  Sometimes the sites are gone altogether; sometimes just some links are broken. Most often, it’s links to images that no longer work. Of course, image files are somewhat large; large equals bandwidth/storage and bandwidth/storage equals expense. But on the other hand, videos abound and they are very much larger.

I’ve been posting using embedded linked images, both for quotes, and as links to material located elsewhere on the internet. Many of the embedded links have been to images, documents, or images of documents hosted on google sites. 

To date, google has been reliable. However, the recent crippling ‘improvements’ made to google, coupled with the recent foiled attacks on the internet itself (SOPA, PIPA) have led me to the realization that these embedded linked images could be ‘pulled’ or otherwise rendered unavailable at any moment.

That these crippling ‘improvements’ seem to be increasing in both frequency and intensity despite their obvious lack of utility has led me to reconsider reliance on embedded linked images. 

These embedded linked images are convenient and look good, but maybe it’s time to consider the danger of relying too heavily on them.

Have others had thoughts along these lines?

You can attach an image to a post here. It takes a bit more work. You have to download it and then often resize it to get under the 75 KB limit. But it’s permanent.

I’m not sure what’s considered more polite. Embedded images eat up the hosting site’s bandwidth, but don’t generate ad revenue. But taking an image without providing a link back is theft of a sort.

I can bump up the 75 KB limit if people think that’s too restricting.

YouTube gives their express consent for you to post their content on any site. Without that express consent, you’re in a different situation.

happydog - 23 January 2012 07:06 AM

YouTube gives their express consent for you to post their content on any site. Without that express consent, you’re in a different situation.

I think I understand what happydog is saying here.

If so, what happydog is saying is that there is a very important difference between this:

.

and this:

.

That is to say that the embedded image (above post, top) is ‘authorized use’ (implied by virtue of google providing the image embedding link)

And that the locally-stored lower image (above post, bottom) is “[w]ithout that express consent” and therefore we’re in a different situation.

Is that correct?

There are two separate issues here, copyright and bandwidth.  I’m not sure about how linking to images is treated by copyright law (and I would not be surprised to find that the law is unclear at this point), but when you do it, you are using the original site’s bandwidth--creating a demand on their server(s), usually without providing any compensation for it (such as eyes on advertisements that might occur if you just referred to reader to the original site).  Attaching an image that is stored on wordorigins’ server is certainly making a copy, but it does not parasitize someone else’s server bandwidth.  Especially for images that are small portions of some larger work, like the examples you posted, I think that the original site’s owners are more likely to care about the bandwidth issue than copyright issues (and “fair use” could be an effective defense for the latter).

I assume that since Google Books helpfully provides an “Embed” link, they not only do not mind but are positively encouraging you to embed links (as in your first example).

languagehat - 23 January 2012 11:08 AM

I assume that since Google Books helpfully provides an “Embed” link, they not only do not mind but are positively encouraging you to embed links (as in your first example).

I assume so, also. 

However, it is possible that the embedded images will not persist.

If the embedded images do not persist, and if we have relied upon the embedded images to convey information crucial to the sense of the posts, there is substantial risk of having the posts become senseless in the future.

As to copyright, which as had been said applies mainly to copied and not embedded images, most of our images fall within the scope of fair use. It’s not like we’re reposting art works or commercial images. Reproducing a clip of an image from a page in an 18th century book to illustrate a word origin is different from copying today’s comic strip or a photograph that is available for sale or ad revenue elsewhere.

On point is this: “it is possible that the embedded images will not persist.”

By “not persist”, I meant that they may cease to exist as links at some future time, such that: folks coming here (or to an archive in the future like ‘yuku’ has been an archive of the former site) may not see the images (unless we host them [or web snapshots of them] here.)

If the sense of our posts here on wordorigins relies upon external ‘embedded linked images’ that may cease to exist at any moment in time, then what is the sense of posting anything sensible?

Nonsense?

LOL

.

If the sense of our posts here on wordorigins relies upon external ‘embedded linked images’ that may cease to exist at any moment in time, then what is the sense of posting anything sensible?

My life may cease to exist at any moment in time but that doesn’t stop me from doing what I can while I can, eh?

I really think the vanishing of Google Books links is far, far down on the list of things it’s sensible to worry about.  Google bids fair to be around for some time, and they have every incentive to keep their links working.

happydog - 24 January 2012 06:52 AM

If the sense of our posts here on wordorigins relies upon external ‘embedded linked images’ that may cease to exist at any moment in time, then what is the sense of posting anything sensible?

My life may cease to exist at any moment in time but that doesn’t stop me from doing what I can while I can, eh?

What if we have the sense to get back inside from a crumbling window ledge we are standing on?

I always use Photobucket to host my images. Of course you have to make sure the image is not copyrighted. I think that speaks for itself. Sometimes you only need to link to the original webpage to be ok but you can also buy an image for a buck on Dreamstide or look for Royalty free images.