Need help? Check out our Support site, then


img src links to images hosted on blogspot get replaced, why?

  1. Hi.

    When I link to an image on blogspot with the img tag, I find that maybe a day or two later the link has been replaced with a link to a copy of the image in my wordpress media library. This happens without me uploading the image to the media library or doing anything to explicitly copy it. It only happens on sites from blogspot, in the form subdomain.subdomain.blogspot.blahblahblah.jpg. One image was repeated many times in my image library until I finally replaced it with a copy from a different domain.

    This sounds minor but it really bugs me. I feel like I could go away for a week and come back to 3 gigabytes of copies of a single image in my media library, and then what?? Any assistance you can provide would be much appreciated.

    Thank you.

    The blog I need help with is themassalian.wordpress.com.

  2. When I link to an image on blogspot with the img tag, I find that maybe a day or two later the link has been replaced with a link to a copy of the image in my wordpress media library.

    The larger question is why you are hotlinking the image from another website. You are effectively giving the other site control over the load time of your site (besides the apparently out-of-fashion moral question about this practice, which I will not get into). If that site goes down, you are left with no image. It seems to me that WordPress.com is essentially safeguarding your site for you.

  3. Oh, I don't think it's immoral at all. The photos are labeled and captioned with links to their sources, so there's no question of either plagiarism or discourtesy.

    There are a couple of reasons why I prefer to link directly to images. One is that I don't trust scaling algorithms. I prefer to reference images that the original photographer uploaded or authorized for distribution. Barring that, such as the case with vintage scans, I prefer high quality work like that showcased at Doctor Macro's. That's the ideal, anyway.

    tldr: (a) image quality, and (b) authenticity.

    As for the downside, I don't like the vulnerability or the slow load times, but it's something I can work with. There's a downside for image hosts to the long posts compared to more discrete image posts a la Tumblr in that the ratio of bytes downloaded to page traffic generated will presumably be higher the longer the post, but I don't think I'm hitting any poor dope's homespun Apache server, and I'm hardly generating any traffic anyway. If somebody complains, I suppose I'd delete the link before I'd go to battle for the moral rights of the critic, but I can only suppose because it hasn't happened yet.

    Feel free to offer further advice about the larger questions. I'm new to wordpress and trying to make it work for me. (If you have any insight into the problem with blogspot images that would be useful, too, thank you.)

  4. Oh, I don't think it's immoral at all. The photos are labeled and captioned with links to their sources, so there's no question of either plagiarism or discourtesy.

    It's not plagiarism, but it's content theft. Saying where you stole the content from doesn't make it less of a theft.
    For example, you've posted images by Ryan Garisson, Robert Farber and Erez Sabag. RG's site says "COPYRIGHT © RYANGARRISON.COM"; RF's site says "Copyright © 2013 Robert Farber. All rights reserved." ES is more explicit: "Copyright © 1996-2013 by Erez Sabag Studio, Inc. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted. No part of these images, work or videos may be used for any purpose without explicit authorization from Erez Sabag. Reproduction, modification, storage or archival of any work in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission."
    Would you like me to drop a note to them so we can see what they think of your "courtesy"?

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic