On 18 Jan 2001, at 15:53, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I've been using the internet since when all I had was
> > gopher and elm and pine. Not as long as some but longer
> > than most of the people I know. Time is my enemy.
> > Indexers are my ally. I type in my criteria and get my
> > results and search from there. I imagine more users are
> > like myself and we appreciate anything that helps us to
> > find what we want easier. If everyone who produced any
> > content prevented anyone from
> > linking/summarizing/indexing it than my internet time
> > would suck. I'd waste most of it just trying to find the
> > things I want to see.
>
> My major annoyance is the way that this thing works. You don't go to
> the page that the image is on, nor is it even mentioned. You are just
> given the image, bypassing all explanations, copyrights, credits,
> summaries, captions, context. If that's how my image was to appear, my
> page would look like that.
>
> How is the person who searched for a picture of a cat ever going to know
> that he's got my cat picture on his desktop and that he's not allowed to
> make a postcard of it and sell it?
>
> Yes, indexes are good. No, this particular one isn't.
I'm with Aaron (and most PDMLers) on this one, I personally don't care who
is providing the engine, nor do I care if the thumb-nail images are stored or
generated, they are still modifying my copyright image to create the thumb-
nail image without my consent inferred or otherwise.
Displaying the image in their page via a deep link is inappropriate as none of
the context of the original image is displayed, however the search engine
obviously relates to the page since the images I found using my name as a
search criterion don't have any copyright information imbedded nor are their
file names a derivative of my name. So it seems that they are happy to use
the information contained in the page that the image URL appeared in as the
basis for the search index but don't care to display this information. Bill
replacing indexed images in the PUG with a copyright message is a prime
example of how incongruous and inappropriate this practice is.
Apart from the fact that someone commercial or private who finds you image
has no idea of what your requirements are with respect to usage I am
irritated to say the least that Lycos themselves are effectively using my
images to generate revenue via banner advertising.
As I am running out of web space in many case I am linking my images in
my pages from different base URLs so in these cases someone who finds
my image and wishes to contact me regarding usage must perform other
text based searches which may or may not work in order to find any
information relating to this image, its not just as easy as removing the image
information on the URL and seeing what page comes up in the browser.
If practices like that we have seen from the Lycos multimedia search site
and other such sites are left unchecked and unchallenged by content owners
then these procedures will become the defacto standard, we will then
eventually effectively loose our implicit copyright to our own images
regardless of the supposed international copyright conventions. That's why
some of us see red on the issue.
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
Fax +61-2-9554-9259
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
