* * * * *
Transcluding images
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this.
As I'm wont to do from time to time, I check the log files to see who may be
linking to my site here and I see a bunch of references from MixedFolks.com
[1]; one of their forums.
Interesting, I think. I need to check this out.
Only you have to be a member of the site to read the forum.
Okay.
I then check to see what entry they're pointing to, only they aren't linking
to an entry, but directly to one of my images [2] (well, technically, not
mine but an image stored on my server).
On the one hand, the image is there on my server and anyone can link to it
(or rather, include it in their page with a bit of HTML (HyperText Markup
Language)—it's not hard at all). That is, after all, one of the points of the
web.
On the other hand, someone is using a image (I really can't say it's mine)
directly from my server, which consumes bandwidth that I'm liable for. And
for a page that I can't even look at!
On the gripping hand [3], it's not like this image is being sucked down
thousands of times (it's only about 60 requests so far this month).
So while it may be well within my right to replace the image with something
that says:
> This pathetic wanker is stealing bandwidth and still has trouble tying
> their shoes.
>
That may be a bit harsh of a punishment for what, really, isn't all that
much. And besides, I'm more curious as to what use the image was being used
for, than upset over the use of the image itself.
But the site is (indirectly, and through no fault of the people who own the
site) using bandwidth from my server, and it's to a page I don't have access
to.
I wrote to the webmaster of the site about this, asking how the image was
being used and not upset over its use (I was, to tell the truth, more
interested in seeing the page in question). I received the following back:
> **From:** <
[email protected]>
> **To:** “Sean Conner” <
[email protected]>
> **Subject:** RE: A link to an image
> **Date:** Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:03:31 -0500
>
>
> OK, I found the post on my message board that contained the picture you
> mentioned and deleted the link to the picture. There was a Happy Valentines
> Day thread going and someone had linked to your pic.
>
Not exactly what I was asking for, and i do feel a bit bad (I certainly hope
the person who linked to the picture didn't loose access for what was
intended as something harmless in their eyes).
But they did use my bandwidth for a page I couldn't see …
And that's not the only instance I found—this post-it note [4] (from an entry
about missing a delivery [5]) was linked directly [6]. I'm not as upset over
this (as there were fewer hits on this image and I could view the page to see
it in context of that page) but still, it would have been nice to have some
attribution …
Update
> **From:** <
[email protected]>
> **To:** “Sean Conner” <
[email protected]>
> **Subject:** RE: A link to an image
> **Date:** Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:03:31 -0500
>
>
> Nah, no one got in trouble. There are lots of linked images on the boards.
> I was having the same problem with images being linked from my website til
> I turned on hotlink protection.
>
I don't feel quite as bad now ...
[1]
http://www.mixedfolks.com/
[2]
https://boston.conman.org/2001/02/14/hv.png
[3]
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/o/on_the_gripping_hand.html
[4]
https://boston.conman.org/2000/12/18/postit.note.jpg
[5]
gopher://gopher.conman.org/0Phlog:2000/12/18.6
[6]
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=846541
Email author at
[email protected]
