...recognize and not count our own clicks when we are logged in?
As @Glen mentioned "Under the HP Earnings Program we still have to abide by the same Terms of Service for Amazon Affiliates."
As per the Amazon tos you are allowed to click on your own ads to make sure they're working right. However you cannot place orders through your affiliate Id
What pd did is totally legit. And the clicks are supposed to show unless you guys at hp found a way to block self clicks.
Yeah, I also do that from time to time (with Amazon), because I have portals to some items that are in limited supply. It wouldn't make much sense to leave them up if the item(s) in question are out of stock, lol! And how tedious would it be to have to go through Amazon to check every limited supply product periodically?
But maybe there's another way to do it, I don't know.
I've never clicked any of my own ads.
Excepting Amazon, who is fine with it.
After all, how else can we fine-tune the critters?
To recognize the owner is simply, because you are logged in with a specific IP.
To check if your theory is true, you can try clicking one and see if tomorrow you will have any data or not coming from it.
I tried and it still say 0. Also in the site there is written that you will receive a % of what HP receive by adding that feature, because they are parthners.
So if something is sold and the link come from them, they receive some money.
Mickji, I have to correct you so that other Hubbers don't get mislead...
Under the HP Earnings Program we still have to abide by the same Terms of Service for Amazon Affiliates. We cannot order under our own Affiliate ID and we will not get paid for any orders we make for ourselves. This means that we really should not click on our own ads. Amazon matches our order to our own account and simply will not pay for our own orders. I wouldn't take the chance even trying because too much of that and they might request dismissal from the program.
Just so you know… One time long ago, when I was testing something, I had clicked one of my Amazon links. Without thinking, I later ordered something and it went though under my ID since the cookie was still there. But later I received a notice that the earnings on that item was canceled because it was my own order.
As for clicks… They do still register the click in your report. If you did not see your click when you tested, that means you tried it when you were in HP's 40%. That click would have shown up in HP's report, not yours. Since we don't get paid for Amazon clicks, this is immaterial.
You also said we receive a % of what HP gets. This is wrong. They get paid their full earnings 40% of the time and we get paid our full earnings 60% of the time. That's how it works for all ads on HP.
One more thing, Amazon does not go by IP address. They know who you are by your account. I would think that each Amazon ID assigned via the HP earnings Program is reported to Amazon indicating to whom it belongs. Maybe one of HP's staff can chime in here and verify if this is done. That's my guess so that they know who we are, and therefore we cannot get paid for our own orders shipped to ourselves as per the terms of service. I could be wrong on this last thing (which is why I'm asking staff to verify what I say), but I have not found anything written anywhere that says the rules are different under HP.
PD I read your earlier comment on another thread too. By any chance all of your clicks happened when you were on HP's share of clicks?
If you were editing a single hub and then tested them all once you were done, it could be possible. I don't think HP can do what you just asked.
I'm just hoping that HP's answer is Yes. Otherwise, I guess I'll have to work up the energy to do an experiment.
I would feel more comfortable with the split if I received 60% and hp received 40% of all earnings, at all times. I'm not aware of how the 'times' are divided. Is there a peak period widely known to be most productive for earnings? eg time of day or day of week?
And if so, do we get allocated that peak period 60% of the time?
Or is our 60% of the time always during off-peak periods ... a bit like being allowed to use a snow resort 60% of the time, but always during summer and never when the snow is thick and fresh?
I'm puzzled why every single transaction is not simply split in the 60:40 ratio - hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, whatever time period works.
If our earnings page showed 'total earnings' but we knew we would only receive 60% at our next payout, that's a pretty simple concept to get one's head around.
Does anyone actually know how the 'times' are determined?
Paul Deeds posted an answer to this several weeks ago (I can't find it). But, basically what he said was that the time-sharing was randomly generated throughout the day and not on a set schedule for sharing. The AdSense Host API program is for sites, like HubPages, which generate over 100,000 page views per day. The site selects the percentage share and AdSense displays the ads over random times. You can read more about how that revenue-sharing model works here:
https://developers.google.com/adsense/h … ligibility
Me too, LTM! I mentioned that in a post awhile back. I would much rather share 40% of the commission for a "big ticket" item (e.g., a Rembrandt, lol) on Amazon, than risk not making anything off of the commission. Maybe HP could write an algo where items above a certain amount, when sold, were subject to a revenue model like that? I don't mind the current set-up too much for smaller items that move in bulk (e.g., books, t-shirts).
I don't think that's possible because they just place their code. If they were to do that, they wouldn't know who's sale it is and hence it would not be possible to give you the commission.
The only thing they could do though is create a tracking id for each of us (Under their account) and then at the end of each month or whenever amazon pays, calculate and split the total cash. Don't think that;s going to happen due to loads of difficulties in creating something of that magnitude and managing it.
Couldn't the code be modified to include pricing identifiers, though? Or maybe a separate type of capsule for larger, more expensive items?
Pricing identifiers and a separate type of capsule both for the same purpose right (Either of the two ways)? Well, again the same reply applies:
I'd love it too if it were possible though
Adding separate tracking identifiers and tallying up at the end of the month might be tenable for more expensive items, though, due to the infrequency of sales (less work for HP). For example, a rare item like an original painting that sells for several hundred thousand dollars is only going to be sold once. Even something like an expensive plasma flat-screen probably isn't going to sell so often that a separate capsule/identifier would be unmanageable for staff, right?
Anyway, just a thought!
Hahaha you made my day. I was thinking items over 400 dollars and you were in the thousands.
LOL! Yeah, it would obviously have to be pretty expensive for the idea to be worth the extra effort on HP's part.
EDIT: Didn't a Hubber sell a truck to someone via his/her eBay capsule recently? I forget who it was, but I remember that he/she hadn't received a commission, and was asking the forum for help in rectifying the problem. I never found out whether this had anything to do with eBay's 24 hour cookie window, or the 60/40 split, or what. I also don't know if the problem was ever resolved ... Does anyone else remember that?
It is possible, but as you identified it would be more difficult to manage on an ongoing basis (since it would work differently than all the other revenue sharing). It would also be a fair amount of work to make the change. We don't think the benefit justifies the cost.
Thank you for responding, Mr. Deeds.
One question, though: Would you be open to revisiting the issue at a later time if more big ticket items were consistently begin sold on HP? That is, as the HubPages brand expands and more lucrative ventures become feasible from a cost/risk perspective. Either way, thanks again for your candor.
Why restrict it to just amazon? Couldn't the same thing apply across all revenue sharing? 60:40, 100% of the time?
No need to get that complicated. Your small ticket items are split 40/60 the same as your big ticket items. So it all balances out in the end.
Just to make one thing clear, the items sold are not split 40/60. The 40/60 split is done by using your Affiliate ID 60% of the time and HubPages' Affiliate ID 40% of the time.
Why should they? As a staffer said on another thread - they have to apply a cost/benefit analysis to every programming change they make.
Your proposed change would not increase HubPages' income, so there's no incentive for them to do it in that sense. It might not increase Hubbers' income, because the current system has swings and roundabouts - sometimes HP wins on the big ticket items, sometimes we do. So what would be the benefit to justify the man hours?
With regard to big ticket items — it would be the difference between HP receiving no income at all 100% of the time, and 40% income from a sale all of the time. That would be the incentive, but I realize it wouldn't make financial sense unless high pricetag items were being sold consistently. For example, I listed a painting for $5 mil (USD) on my Hub about Norman Rockwell (You truly can buy anything on Amazon! They have a great new Fine Art Section.), but I used an anchor link rather than the Amazon capsule, because I didn't want to risk losing out on the commission were the sale to fall on the wrong side of the 60/40 split. I would have had no problem using the capsule if I knew that 40% of the commission would go to HP in the event of a sale, and 60% to me, though.
I realize that this is an extreme example. But were someone to have linked from my Hub and purchased that painting in my hypothetical scenario, HP would have received $160,000 (USD) from the sale — 40% of 400,000 is 160,000, whereas 400,000 is eight percent of 5,000,000.
P.S. That painting was taken down off of Amazon Fine Art, though. Maybe someone else bought it. It was a longshot anyway! lol
P.S.S. Actually, it looks like it's back up! I don't know why they keep de-listing and re-listing these paintings.
lol. Now that's the kind of example that gets attention.
We have a saying in the States, LTM: "The squeaky wheel gets the oil!"
Of course, I just want to reiterate that I have a deep and abiding respect for the HP team, as well as for HubPages as a whole, and am very thankful for this platform and all of the hard work that goes into it ... In other words — Please don't moderate me!
The maximum you can earn on fine art is $200. See section 4. "Limitations on Advertising Fee Rates for Certain Products":
https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp … tisingfees
Here's an almost 5 million dollar painting, not sure if that's the one you were linking to.
Aw, man! There goes my whole argument ...
Yeah, that's the one. Now I know why lobobrandon was talking about $400 (USD) items. It seemed an oddly low amount at the time.
Guess I shoulda listened to old pappy Bernsby: "Son — always read the fine print!"
Am I reading this right? If so, have precautions been taken? Seems to me that an accidental 20K and 80% anomaly might actually be possible.
"In addition, notwithstanding the advertising fee rates described on this page or anything to the contrary contained in this Operating Agreement, if we determine you are primarily promoting free Kindle eBooks (i.e., eBooks for which the customer purchase price is $0.00), YOU WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO EARN ANY ADVERTISING FEES DURING ANY MONTH IN WHICH YOU MEET THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(a) 20,000 or more free Kindle eBooks are ordered and downloaded during Sessions attributed to your Special Links; and
(b) At least 80% of all Kindle eBooks ordered and downloaded during Sessions attributed to your Special Links are free Kindle eBooks."
You'd have to ask why any Hubber would be putting free Kindle books in their capsules, since they can't make a cent of commission from them, so I don't think that's likely to be a problem.
I had a link to a free copy of Paradise Lost on one of my Hubs. I just figured people would appreciate the heads-up?
Many Hubbers go the keyword route.
Plus, I would guess that both Hubbers and Amazon use them as bait to get potential customers onto the site.
Plus, who knows where the customer wanders once they're there...
That's a good point — I hadn't thought of it that way. Hubbers get a commission for anything folks buy on Amazon after linking from a Hub, correct?
I assume you mean, because there's currently an incentive for Hubbers to use in-text links rather than Amazon capsules, to avoid having to split the commission?
I doubt that's happening on a large scale. Notice how many people are switching over to the HubPages Amazon program - they wouldn't be doing that if they had a lot of in-text links, because those won't be switched over. It's so much easier to use the HP capsules, and a capsule with an image and price is more likely to sell than a simple text link.
Well, if nothing else, this thread has only served to remind me how much I still need to learn. I had been debating joining the HP Amazon merger, because of the in-line link I was using for that $5 mil painting. But, since I have now learned that there is a price cap on commissions ($400), there doesn't seem to be much reason not to join.
For permission to use Norman Rockwell images published after 1923 on your Hub, you must obtain written permission from the copyright owners:
http://www.nrm.org/about/image-services … nformation
Hmmm ... But, every image I used was listed as Creative Commons on Flickr, or Public Domain on Wikmedia?
(I just did a Google images advanced search with copyrighted pix filtered out.)
Thanks for the link.
Still, I'll just wait and see if HP feels it necessary to weigh in on the matter. As far as I know, I haven't done anything wrong. Isn't there a fair use clause, or something? And, again, every photo I used was listed as eihther CC or PD.
The entire article is about Norman Rockwell, and as such every photo is attributed to him. I haven't defamed him or reduced his legacy by using the photos, and the article is written solely for the purpose of praising him as a great American artist. Also, any monetization from the Hub goes through legitimate channels (HP Ad program, Google Adsense, Amazon, eBay, etc.). Afterall, the people selling on eBay don't require a written copyright permission for listing pictures of their Norman Rockwell paintings and other paraphernalia for sale!
Here's where HP "weighs in on the matter":
You can't legally use someone's work unless you have permission. Just attributing the work is not permission. Yes, you are monetizing his images, using them for your own monetary gain and commercial purposes without permission of the copyright holder.
The people selling their pictures on eBay or Amazon are posting pictures they have paid for and own.
Yes @WF, I have read that Learning Center entry ...
But as I said, I only used Creative Commons and Public Domain listed pix, as far as I know. The people posting pictures on Flickr could have taken them from re-prints from their own collections, and then made them available through a CC License. While I freely admit that you have vastly more knowledge about online content creation than I do, I am not convinced of your argument on this point. There are also other Hubs on HP that have made use of Norman Rockwell paintings, a plethora of monetized websites online, and many, many blogs depicting the artist's work, in addition to the pictures on eBay.
Thank you for your input, though I must respectfully disagree (unless HP tells me that I am wrong). Good day, sir/madam.
HP did tell you that you were wrong in that Learning Center link.
You can disagree all you want and the fact that other people violate copyright law doesn't make it legal. If someone reports your plagiarism to the copyright owner, it could cost you some big bucks.
Are you willing to risk having to pay $8,000 per image?
http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-inf … -are-scary
Yup, that's always a risk. If someone has taken a photo of a painting, I'm always hesitant to use it for exactly that reason. They may have licensed their photo for free use, but the original artist may not agree.
Having said that, I've never heard of a genuine case of a blogger or online writer being sued for thousands of dollars. I've heard of scammers making the threat, but that's all. I've also received a few emails from people asking for a photo to be removed - and once it's removed, that's the end of the matter. So personally I don't worry about it too much. For me, I like to adhere to copyright law on principle, because I think it's important to do the right thing by other creative people - not to avoid being sued.
Those are my thoughts on the matter, as well.
If those are your thoughts, you need to remove the two dozen photos published after 1923 which are under copyright. It doesn't matter if some other thief posted them on Flickr.
And, remember that violating someone's copyright is against HubPages' TOS.
Writer Fox, for the love of —
You've made your point and I've made mine. I understand that I am a relative newbie to this game, and that I still have a lot to learn about the ins and outs of online content creation. To that effect, I sent an email to the HP team asking for clarification on this issue, and I will happily follow their recommendation. If you'd like, I could write them again and ask them to be sure to send you a carbon copy of the reply. Wouldn't want you to be kept out of the loop!
You need to start writing to the copyright owners of the images you used. You can start with this owner of all of the images from the 'Saturday Evening Post' which you appropriated without permission:
The Curtis Publishing Company
1000 Waterway Boulevard
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Phone (317) 633-2070
Fax (317) 633-8841
Or, would you like me to contact them for you?
You're going to be pretty busy, as only a cursory glance through HP's internal search shows a whole lot of Norman Rockwell paintings being used on Hubs (many without even an attempt at citation)! But ... why stop there?? Queue "Norman Rockwell" into Google, and the SERP brings up 3,700,000 results. You'll want to make sure each and every one is using images correctly, of course. I'm sure The Saturday Evening Post will appreciate your diligence — they may even hire you! You could have your very own column: "Writer Fox's Quest to Eradicate (Perceived) Copyright Infractions."
You know, when I first became active on this site, I was impressed by your apparent expertise — especially with regard to SEO. I also thought you were very helpful in the forums. You gained a fan. I read your Hubs, and even posted a link to one of them suggesting that noobs like me read it to gain insight, and to help their freelance writing careers. In my enthusiasm, I mistakenly posted a snippet (2-3 paragraphs) of the Hub in question in the forums, in order to cite your expertise to another Hubber.
Within the hour, HP notified me that you had filed a DMCA complaint for copyright infringement, which I thought was kind of silly.
My next interaction with you took place during the recent Sochi 2014 Olympics, where you attempted to argue that Putin's anti-gay laws weren't anti-gay at all: "This is not about gay rights; this is about propaganda aimed at children." Which I thought was ludicrous, and said so. (http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/120063)
And now this ... It has become apparent to me that you are, in fact, not the person I thought you were when I first became active on this site. This will be my last correspondence with you. Make good on your veiled threats to me, or not, as it will only make me feel more sorry for you — as I must assume some other, more sinister, motivation for your unsolicited and tenacious "advice" regarding my work.
As I have stated (thrice), I will wait to hear from HP before determining whether or not I should edit my Hub. You may be right about the photos in question, but then again, you may be wrong. So, you will forgive me if I don't immediately take your word for it. I am sorry if this is not enough to satisfy you. I have tried to respond to the issue at hand in a measured, responsible, and professional way. Thank you again for your input.
Yes, Earl, you plagiarized 350 words of my Hub and posted that content right here on the Forum. Of course I contacted HP to have it removed, which they did. And it took over an hour because you put my content on two posts. And of course you thought it was all silly because you don't have any respect for the work of others or the concept of blatant copyright infringement. Even now, you aren't even embarrassed about what you did and the last thing you would ever do is apologize – the mark of a willful plagiarist, not someone who "mistakenly posted a snippet."
You've been given the HP instructions for photos, the link to copyright terms and even a list of the copyright holders and their contact information – and still you keep those photos on your Hubs and refuse to remove them. That's why most authors don't deal directly with the plagiarists to have their unlawfully-used content removed.
And now you want to turn this discussion from intellectual property rights to your gay rights. You think people are making threats against you and have some "sinister motivation." You still can't wrap your head around the fact that plagiarism is wrong, against the law, and you should remove the copyright-protected Normal Rockwell photos from your Hub. It's sad evidence that most plagiarists will not remove stolen content until they are forced to do so.
Examples are all over the Webmaster forums. Here's just a couple of links:
Both refer to Getty Images, whose business it is to sell images. I'd expect them to chase plagiarists diligently, because stealing photos from them is stealing their livelihood - though they do seem to use unreasonable bullying tactics.
What I haven't seen is any such threats from companies who are NOT in the business of selling stock images.
More and more, bulk copyright owners have signed up with Picscout to identify plagiarized photos and that is the reason for increased detection and notices. Also, lawyers ('ambulance-chasers' in American culture) are jumping in for a cut of the action.
The bottom line is, copyrights should not be violated. Using someone's copyrighted content or photos without permission is theft and it is against the law. People who do that are plagiarists and there are penalties at law for what they have done. It's a prima facie matter and there is no defense for plagiarism. (The owner doesn't have to prove actual damages.)
I always try to respect copyright - I'm not saying anyone should plagiarize. I'm just saying that the penalties for breaching copyright in most cases do not run into the thousands of dollars.
I did some Googling and found a handful of references to compensation for stolen photos, but in all cases they were pictures taken from sites which had no licence statement on them, and therefore were clearly copyright images.
Like I said, I've been contacted a few times by photographers and artists whose work I found on Flickr but which turned out to be stolen. In all cases, I've taken the photo down at once, and the photographer has been happy with that. In fact, they've actually thanked me because I reply with full details of where I found the image and any others I'm aware of. In one case, we even came to an agreement for me to use another of his photos, free of charge, for a project of mine.
Well, after hearing back form the HP team, I decided to remove any photos of paintings from Flickr past the 1923 date, and without a Public Domain attribution, just to be on the safe side. One exception was with four photos of paintings from 1943 ("The Four Freedoms") which were actually U.S. Government posters of the paintings in question, and had that PD-Gov attribution.
Matt actually taught me something new: For example, did you know that even Monet's and Van Gough's that pre-date Norman Rockwell by about a hundred years may still be under copyright protection?? I guess I just assumed that depictions of famous works of art would somehow belong to everyone, like in a museum. I also learned that, apparently, Creative Commons licenses on Flickr are not always accurate.
Is this only for photos of paintings and other artistic works, I wonder, or is the problem more widespread? Also, what — if any — are some specific types of work that would make you skeptical about the validity of a CC license, besides pictures of famous paintings?
As I said before, it was not my intention to make light of intellectual property laws, nor to do anything untoward — I am learning as I go — and I only wish to make a positive contribution to the HP community, while growing my professional brand. I just wanted to wait for confirmation from HP before drastically modifying a Hub I had worked hard on (I did, however, turn off ads and make amazon capsules on the hub invisible while awaiting a response from HP). In any case, I apologize if I came off that way to you or anyone else, as a result of my inexperience.
Yes, I feel that it is much less disconcerting to be approached by folks who don't automatically assume the worst and attack. I would have responded in kind had I been placed in your situation, in those instances you mentioned, when photographers/artists approached you and pointed out improper usage. It sounds as though you were able to foster a mutually beneficial relationship in at least one instance!
I also agree with you that intellectual property should be respected on principle, and not just due to the fear of litigation. I also think that most folks generally want to do the right thing, though they may stumble from time to time.
If I may, I wanted to ask your advice about something indirectly related, though: Remember awhile back when we were talking about Photo accreditation in a separate section, as opposed to right under a pic (in another forum post)? My interpretation from the correspondence I recently had with the HP team left me thinking that Photo Credit attribution not under a picture is frowned upon here. Also, the HP team mentioned that DMCA complaints may actually result from not citing photos in the way suggested in the Learning Center, irregardless of SEO considerations. Do you think that, in light of those two points, it is still worthwhile to place a separate photo accreditation section? I still don't fully understand the SEO implications. Perhaps accreditation in both places (both under photos and in a Photo Credits section), but with the links back to the source at the end of a Hub would be an acceptable compromise?
Thanks for your insight, as always, and (once again) I apologize for the long question.
You've learned an important lesson! The thing with Flickr is that many members don't understand about copyright and probably aren't even aware what the licence means. Often, those photos of artwork or sculptures are posted as part of a vacation set, or you'll find someone who "collects" photos of artwork for their own pleasure. I can't think of any other examples offhand, except for the odd one where you'll actually see a copyright notice on the bottom of the photo, in spite of the CC licence being given!
Citing at the bottom of the article is acceptable. Until very recently on HubPages, it was the only possible way to do it - there was nothing in the photo capsule to allow it. Yes, you may be more likely to get a DMCA notice if the citation isn't under the photo because (like Psycheskinner), the owner may not notice the citation. But it is there, and therefore - if the photo is used legally - the DMCA won't be valid.
The only reason I suggested putting your citations at the end of the Hub is because you seem to prefer a long complicated citation, which looks ugly under the photo, especially when teamed with a long caption. You could do "belt and braces" if you like, but if so I strongly suggest you use the "Name" field, so that the Source line doesn't run into two or three lines (so for instance, if the source is wikimedia, put the wikimedia link in the source, and put just "Wikimedia" in the Name section.
*Googles 'belt and braces'*
Ah! I get it. Thanks, Marisa. I still have so much to learn, and I appreciate the patience of Hubbers like you who are ready to lend a hand!
I've just learned something myself: I went to check on the requirements for a CC licence and as with many things, it turns out it has changed over the years.
When I started here, a CC licence meant that you had to mention the photographer. Period. You didn't even have to provide a link to their page, though it was regarded as a courteous thing to do. Now, the requirements have got much more complicated:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License … ison_chart
So perhaps I'm wrong in saying that your credits are unduly complex!
A couple more thoughts:
Other things that people photograph on Flickr are company logos, pages from books or newspapers, posters.
Wikimedia Commons and especially Wikipedia are real traps for the unwary. Remember, there is NO editor checking that photos on Wikimedia/Wikipedia are legal. They rely completely on volunteers, and it seems there are fewer people managing the images than the text. Often, the person posting the image on Wikimedia is not the owner of the photo - it's just that they've created an entry on Wikipedia, then gone looking for a photo for it. Sometimes they do credit Flickr - then you go and check Flickr and find it's an "All Rights Reserved". I've seen so many illegal photos on Wikipedia - and of course, once they're on Wikipedia they get copied everywhere.
Yeesh — Now there's a CC 4.0! I'm about to just dust off the ol' digital camera when I need a visual aid from this point forward! (It would certainly be less of a headache.)
But then, the allure of all those adorable pet photos on the web is such a siren call ... Nice one in your Hub about Flickr with that cat in the toilet, btw. I posted it to Pinterest with the caption: "Don't Flush!"
Did you really write that Hub just for DizzyMsLizzy? That was nice of you.
Just because a lot of people break the law, does not make that act no longer illegal.
I do not have the capacity or resources to sue people who take my illustrations and photos, I just send a DMCA notice when/if I find them. Does that mean it is okay to steal from me? I don't think so.
A very casual check of your hubs showed you are not always attributing the photos you use as the photographers have respectfully requested. I suggest that you correct this.
The talk of penalties etc is quite beside the point IMHO. We make content, we should respect the work of others in the same business
That's news to me! As far as I know, I have cited each and every photograph that I have used correctly. Could you please quantify that accusation with specific examples?
Your wall street sign and New York row house pictures require attribution under CC license. I only looked at two hubs, but I found those two examples.
I use a lot of Wall Street signs, and a few rowhouses over multiple Hubs. Each one is cited with a link back to the source, along with photographer information that I have been able to attain to the best of my ability, as well as the date that I incorporated them — this is true for every single photo I have used here, with the single exception of one NFL Hub (my first published), where the ads are turned off. To my knowledge, my Photo Credits section is more comprehensive than it strictly has to be.
You did not name the photographer or provide a link in either, and you are required to. The albany houses, and the wall street sign. You may well have done it perfect on all the other pics, I don't know. I am just telling you those two need fixing.
Yes psycheskinner, I understand you. But I am afraid you are mistaken:
1. "Single family homes in Albany, NY." Source: Matt H. Wade, CC-BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons. 2010 May 30. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albany_Houses.jpg
7. "Townhouses in Brooklyn, NY." Source: Newyork10r, PD-Author, via Wikimedia Commons. 2006 Aug 14. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bedst … stone1.jpg
5. 'A sign on Wall Street, as captured during the venting of an adjacent steam stack.' Source: Paul Sparkes, PD-Author, via Wikimedia Commons. 2007 Mar 04 (cited 2013 Sep 20). Available from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wall-Street.jpg
These are a few examples of the format for citation that I use for every photo taken, across every single one of my newer Hubs. Any other citations that I have used in older Hubs adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Learning Center Guide on this subject — with the exception of the NFL Hub (no-ads) that I have already mentioned — before I was advised by a Hubber whom I respect to convert to a Photo Credits capsule, instead, for SEO purposes.
I just noticed you're crediting wikipedia in some of these photos. You're also telling people where to get the image - which is not the point.
The whole point of Creative Commons is to give credit to the photograper. Wikimedia is not the photographer - so you're using Matt Wade's photographs illegally right now! Think how you would feel if someone quoted from your Hub, then credited HubPages with no mention of you - it's exactly the same.
If you find a photo on Wikipedia, it's very important to go to check the licence details thoroughly - which means going to Wikimedia first. For that particular image, the photographer has very precise instructions as to how he wants to be credited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Upsta … ttribution
Note that there's on reason to mention Wikipedia/Wikimedia at all in your credits, because they have no ownership of the photo.
Taking a glance at some of your Hubs, it looks like you've got a fair bit of editing to do (on which score, I trust you do edit your old Hubs when you learn something new? While I think constantly tweaking Hubs is a waste of time, it is vitally important to correct mistakes of attribution or citation in old Hubs).
Psycheskinner is one of my favorite terriers that never quits. I'm not kidding. She will never, ever let go.
Walk away. I'll try to distract her with something sparkly and shiny.
The relevant info would have been that you do not always credit photos under the photo, which is where I was looking for it.
I decided a long time ago that the easiest way to stay out of trouble with photo credits was to use my own photos. The vast majority of my photos are original. The other few (very few) are simple to credit.
Good luck to everyone relying on sourced photos. May I suggest you start carrying a camera everywhere you go?
P.S. It is becoming easy to locate copied photos, now that we can reverse search photos. I check for mine to make sure nobody is stealing them.
by Paul Edmondson3 years ago
We are going to increase Amazon earnings for most of you! Amazon is becoming part of the HP Earnings program. In early November folks will have the opportunity to switch to get paid their Amazon earnings...
by The Write Life10 minutes ago
Just in case anyone here that uses Niume doesn't know, they just recently discontinued their earnings program.
by Mary McShane22 months ago
I just got this email. Is terminating your account normal if you don't have any sales or referrals in 90 days????Hello,Thanks again for joining the Amazon Associates program. We’re reaching out to you because we...
by LetitiaFT5 years ago
I don't wish to sign up directly because I live in France and, if I understand correctly, would have to sign up with the French program. Only my readership is anything but French! In the meantime, I'm adding the...
by Shadaan Alam11 months ago
Well, no doubt google adsense is one of the best in terms of earning revenue from hubpages. However, i have only been earning cents at adsense!! That's so bad. I desperately need help from fellow hubbers, what should i...
by StellaSee9 months ago
Currently I'm signed up with Google Adsense and I've been debating whether I should sign up for the Hubpages Earning Program because I'm hesitant to give out my tax information. Or should I worry about this only after I...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.