jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (83 posts)

Has HP loosened the rule on attribution of images??

  1. mary615 profile image94
    mary615posted 3 years ago

    I am reading more and more Hubs where there are beautiful photos, but NO attribution to them.  I just read one that clearly has a watermark of the person holding the copyright.  When you look at the photos, it is clear they were taken by a professional photographer.
    What are your thoughts on this???

    1. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I can tell you they always keep a close eye on all I use so I wonder at this too. It clearly can't be bots that watch over all or it would get everyone. Must be elites or "whatever" they are called now simply keeping a sharp eye on just certain ones that concern them personally in my opinion. That explains too why my hubs are as good as theirs but I suffer to reach 90 while they vacation with 100.
      Good to see you back, Mary!

      1. mary615 profile image94
        mary615posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, Jackie.   I never left HP, just have not written anything new for a few months until I came back to publish two Hubs.    I've been checking in regularly to check my acct.
        Have been over at Bubblews and enjoyed that, but now the outlook over there is bleak!

      2. WryLilt profile image87
        WryLiltposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Elite has nothing to do with moderation or anything else. All they do is welcome new members. They don't get any special privileges. They likely keep their high scores because they have higher traffic than you.

        The only person who can moderate a hub is a staff member.

        1. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
          Jackie Lynnleyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Really? Well HP says "nothing" is done manually so I assume that means by them either. Whatever the reason it is clear to see all things are not divided equally. I am intelligent enough to know a good writer from a so so one and if the so so one does better  than the really good one, following all rules; something is not right. Many of us can see this and anyone who doesn't has not took a good look around or you would see it.

          1. WryLilt profile image87
            WryLiltposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I was an Elite for a few months back in 2011. I can assure you that there is no big conspiracy.

            You don't have to be a "good writer" to do well on the internet. You have to know how to write content with good SEO and that is likely to be shared on social media.

            Moderation IS done manually. Whenever a hub is reported, it gets added to the moderation queue for moderators to check and decide whether or not the

            However if a hub isn't reported and the automatic monitors don't pick up an issue, a hub may stay published for years. Because there are millions of hubs, the system isn't perfect and some drop below the radar.

            1. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
              Jackie Lynnleyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well I have an email from HP saying nothing is done manually so who do I believe? This is just another thing wrong here, when we can't even believe the emails we receive from HP? I certainly know you don't have to be a good writer to to do well on the internet and I realize now those are more of what HP is after, not talent.

              1. WryLilt profile image87
                WryLiltposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Can you provide some context for that email? Reports are definitely done manually, as a staff members needs to check whether the reports are legitimate or not. Otherwise, a hub could be removed just because someone had a chip on their shoulder.

              2. Marisa Wright profile image93
                Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I can only assume that was in a different context.   QAP is all done manually - the moderators are human beings, you can even apply to do the job!   Photographs can't be checked by a filter, except for watermarks - that's done by human beings, and it's not widely done - I believe they rely on spot checks and Hubbers flagging. 

                So doing the right thing with photos is largely an honour system and up to your conscience.  As writer, we get upset when someone steals our work.  So why do we think it's OK to steal an artist's or photographer's work?  Just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't make it OK - that's like saying, I'll throw my orange peel on the street because I can see four other pieces of litter there. 

                The big risk is that someone like Getty Images will come after you.  Yes, the risk is small but the cost is huge - they do pursue cases and they claim ridiculous amounts of money as compensation.

    2. Writer Fox profile image78
      Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Attributing photos is NOT a requirement on HubPages.  Have you failed to notice the word 'optional' when you upload a photo?

      Name of source (optional)
      Source URL (optional)
      Caption (optional)

      The suggestions mentioned in the Learning Center are optional and may be requirements for Hub of the Day, but they have nothing to do with getting traffic from search engines.

      Photos which are in the public domain do not require an attribution.  Photos which have been purchased do not require an attribution.  Photos which come with the permission of the copyright owner to use without attribution do not require an attribution.  Photos which you took or graphics which you created do not require an attribution.

      Many Hubbers make a critical mistake of putting spam on their Hubs by the way they use the source, URL and caption. And, many Hubbers don't realize that the 'Caption' on HP is actually the Alt image tag and should be used appropriately.  Often, the Hubbers who complain the most about traffic from Google are the ones who are delivering spammy messages to Google with their photo attributions.

      Also of interest, Google does not differentiate between webpages with exclusive photos and those with photos which appear on other webpages when ranking.

      1. mary615 profile image94
        mary615posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for your reply!

      2. WiccanSage profile image95
        WiccanSageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is eye opening Writer Fox.

        How do you attribute CC images from Wikimedia and such as required without it coming off as spam links to google?

        Thanks!

        1. Writer Fox profile image78
          Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You can credit Wikipedia photos which require the CC attribution by putting the link in a text capsule, checking the NoFollow option for the link, and link to:
          http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en
          You can use the simple anchor text 'photo credit' for the link.

          If you are using several photos from WC on a single Hub, you can designate each author in the source box (John Doe via Wikipedia Commons*) and put the link for all Wikipedia Commons photos at the bottom of your Hub as outlined above.

          1. WiccanSage profile image95
            WiccanSageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks this is really good to know.

          2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Writer Fox:  Could you show an example of placing the link in a text box, etc?  You've lost me.

          3. Marisa Wright profile image93
            Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Probably not, because each photo on WC requires a different attribution - either none (if it's public domain) or to the image owner. If anyone is linking to WC several times, it's very likely they're not following the instructions correctly.

            Your solution is a good one for sites like Flickr, though.

            1. Writer Fox profile image78
              Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              All that is required is to list the name of the image copyright holder.  For instance, on one of my recent Hubs I used this image from Wikipedia:
              http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: … 960530.jpg

              If you look at that page, and click on "Use this file on the Web" at the top, you will see that a credit to  Antonia is required, the words "via Wikimedia Commons" and a link to the cc license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0).  Note that the link does NOT go to the Wiki page where the image is found, nor to the author's page.

              So, on the Hub where I used more than 20 images from Wiki, each image lists the individual author as the source and the words "via Wikimedia Commons." In this example, I used: Source: Antonia via *Wikipedia Commons.  The asterisk is noted at the bottom of the Hub with a clickable, NoFollow link to the cc.org license required.

              It would be crazy to give 20 links to Wikimedia Commons on a single Hub under any circumstance and nonsense to link to that cc.org license 20 times.  I don't know why you don't understand this.

              1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
                TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Writer Fox:  I think I may get it now...but please educate me on the alt tag situation.  I watched the Matt Cutts video about it and it seems to go against everything I was taught here on HP.  I thought captions were to include extra key words, not describe the photo image briefly.  Help please!!

                1. Writer Fox profile image78
                  Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  This is a problem on the HP platform because whatever you put in the "caption" in a photo capsule is used for the Alt tag.  Search engines expect the Alt tag to describe what is in the image, just like the video from Google explains.  So, you have to choose whether you are going to take the HP advice or the Google requirement. 

                  What I do is try to insert a hybrid caption/Alt image.  It's a horrible way to do it but you have to consider that what is normally hidden, except during a mouse-over, is visible on HP to the viewer as a caption.  To put something in the "caption" on a HP photo that is simply a correct Alt tag is going to look stupid to a viewer.

                  What I do isn't the best answer.  The best answer is for HP to create separate places for Hubbers to give an Alt tag and an image caption.

                  1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
                    TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks WF:  It may look stupid but I'd rather please Google and look a bit stupid.  I will hybrid when I can, but I see what you mean.

          4. viryabo profile image85
            viryaboposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks a bunch for this.

      3. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
        Jackie Lynnleyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If you use a picture that is a free download HP will not even publish your hub saying the hub is about free downloads even though it is just one picture and the hub nothing about free downloads! What about that; cause it just happened to me and I am very sure??

        1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jackie Lynnley   I use free public domain photos all the time and have never had this problem.  You must be doing something wrong.  I'd write to the team and ask them about this.

      4. Marie Flint profile image92
        Marie Flintposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is all too complicated for me. I try to give attribution wherever possible, often emailing the website where I found the photo for permission to use it. (I just like to give credit to those sources that have helped me construct my hub; for me, it's web ettiquette.) Writer Fox is right, though, you are not required to give attribution in those cases he mentioned.

        Downloads? I'm not aware of ever having used them. I always right-click the image and select  "Save image as." Then I choose Desktop where I can easily find the photo. I've never had a problem this way.

        When I asked a HP staffer about this issue, he said HP does not check photo attributions. If an outside source complains, the hubber is simply requested to take the image down. The staffer also recommended, however, that I continue attributing my photos for those that are not mine, just as I have been doing. ***

        1. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
          Jackie Lynnleyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, well I know, all too well and I always cite too, otherwise they would not have known it was a download! There are many free, beautiful download pictures out there and I do not go looking for them, So when in doubt say nothing I guess should be the new rule so we can all be trouble free and safe.

      5. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Writer Fox: You really shocked me with this comment and now have me worried since I attribute and caption every photo.  I do feel that it is important to give credit where credit is due, however....and also it is a protection against a lawsuit if you do not attribute a copywritten photo for which you do not have permission.  Would you please explain more, though, about the spam thing?  I have no clue.

    3. Phyllis Doyle profile image92
      Phyllis Doyleposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Mary, I think many people just do not read the rules and suggestions -- especially some new members who are in a hurry to just start publishing.  I get frustrated also when I see photos with no attributions. Even if HP "suggests" or marks as "options" , I attribute all photos.

      In the Learning Center
      http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/lega … d_14267020

      Under "It Is Not Ok"

      1. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
        Jackie Lynnleyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I see hubbers that have been here for years do not attribute and have very high hubber score if not 100! How is that?

    4. relache profile image88
      relacheposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's a scenario where I just flag the Hub for the moderators and get on with my life.

  2. LCDWriter profile image94
    LCDWriterposted 3 years ago

    I see fantastic hubs all the time with photos that have no attribution.  It makes me so irritated.  I've read enough forum posts to know that for some people no one will ever say anything.  In other cases people have come after the hubber for money because of illegal use of photos.  There are so many great creative commons sites that it seems to me it's a bit lazy to not use photos that are legal.

    1. galleryofgrace profile image83
      galleryofgraceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Any photos I use that do not show an attribution are "mine" personally meaning "I" took the photo. Photos from the free sites are attributed to the owner. The free sites that I have seen require that attribution be given but I guess some people don't bother.
      If I remember correctly photos with watermarks are not allowed on HP.

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    No, the rules have not changed.  Things just slip through.  If it bothers you, report them smile

    1. LCDWriter profile image94
      LCDWriterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Reporting them is not encouraged by hubpages because hp has said before they have no way to know if the author got permission or not.  Public domain images do not require attribution but so many people just Google and add a picture they like.  I personally don't ever want to take that chance.  I want it clear and provable where I got images.

      1. mary615 profile image94
        mary615posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I won't report the Hubs I see with no attribution, I just thought HP was very strict about doing that.  I will always attribute mine!

    2. Marie Flint profile image92
      Marie Flintposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I have reported a hub I thought was violating the photo attribution "rule," but HP said, "no, they don't check attributions." If a hubber get a notice, he or she simply has to take it down.  I've seen hubs with watermarked images, too, which are not supposed to be allowed; yet, HP features them. I just think it's courtesy to credit the source. If I don't know the license or if all rights are reserved, I try to get permission from the website where I found the image by emailing them through their "Contact" icon or email address. I use my own photos, too, but sometimes I need outside sources.

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    These things are optional when best practice does not require their use (e.g. when it is you own photograph).

    The Learning center says:

        Do not use others' images unless they have a Creative Commons (CC) or Public Domain license
        When citing others' images, include author name, license type, and source in the source bar of the Photo Capsule (e.g. Bob Smith, CC-BY, via flickr or Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons).
        Also be sure to link to the image's source page in the URL bar in the Photo Capsule

    1. Writer Fox profile image78
      Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Giving a followed link to a webpage which has content not related to the content on your Hub is bad advice and can harm the rankings on Google.  There are other ways to give a link, if one is required by the image owner, than using the one in the photo capsule. One of the worse things people do is give five or six followed links to photos on Wikipedia.

      1. Gemini Fox profile image90
        Gemini Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Whaaaat?!  Aaaaaaaagh!  (tearing hair out . . . not much left)
        Just changed some unpublished hubs with a lot of photos to do just that!  As HP recommends!  But this hurts Google rankings?!

        1. Marisa Wright profile image93
          Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If they're all linking to Wikipedia, then you're doing something wrong.

          When you use a photo, attribution is all about crediting the  photographer, not the site you got it from.   Occasionally you'll be asked to attribute to a site, but that's the minority - and you'd never do it for Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. All their photos are either public domain, or attributed to the owner of the image.

          What WF is saying is that such links should be "no follow", and you can't do that in the photo capsule. 

          I must say I' ve never given that much thought, because when I joined HubPages, there was no link in the photo capsule.  The only way to credit your photos was to put a section at the end of your Hubs and thank all the photographers there.

          1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Marissa:  When I first started writing here, I used Wikimedia all the time and did not know about the no follow.  Now I'm going back into every hub, removing as many photos from them as possible, and for the rest, I am leaving the name of the source, but attributing the photo in a text capsule.  Am I doing the right thing here?  This one really took me by surprise.

            1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
              TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Marissa:  I also am placing "no follow" on each link.  Please let me know asap...this is a ton of work!

            2. Marisa Wright profile image93
              Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So, who did you credit for the Wikimedia images?  Not Wikimedia, I hope,  because none of the photos belong to them.  For each photo, you have to scroll down and you'll see the information about what attribution is required. 

              If it's Public Domain, there's no legal requirement for a link. 

              Sometimes it will say it's free to use without attribution - again, no link. 

              More often a website will be listed - you need to visit the link, make sure it really is legal to use (you'd be surprised how often people upload a photo they've got no right to!), then attribute as requested.

              http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo … _Wikimedia

              WF isn't correct about a link not being required.  That used to be the case, and I've been telling people the same thing for years!  I always used to do the link anyway, because I felt it was rude to the photographer otherwise - but then someone pointed out that the latest Creative Commons license does require a hyperlink to the material.   However that still shouldn't be to the version on Wikimedia - it needs to be a link to the original, or if that's not available, then a link to the person who took it.

              http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License … ison_chart

              As far as the link to the license goes, that's easily solved - it's likely all your images have a CC license, so just mention that once at the end of your Hub with a link, and you're good.

              As for the alt tag - that's a tag that is often used by Google to search for images.  On a blog, you can usually create a caption and a separate alt tag.  On HP you can't - the caption IS the alt tag.

              1. Writer Fox profile image78
                Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Again, you are posting incorrect information.  The author or uploader of a photo on Wikipedia Commons determines what attribution is required and each image has  information specific to that image. Clicking on an image or media file on Wikimedia Commons will take you to the information page for that media file.  Then, clicking on the link at the top of the information page which says "Use this file on the Web" will tell you what attribution is required for that particular image.  I have seen very few where the author or uploader requires a link to himself.  Sometimes you will see a business or organization ask for this, but it is rare on Wikimedia.

                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8983456.png

                1. Marisa Wright profile image93
                  Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I can't agree.  I just looked at a few flamenco images and they all include the name of the uploader in the attribution link. 

                  Perhaps it depends on the type of subject you're looking for images of.

                  1. Writer Fox profile image78
                    Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps you would like to post an example where a link to an author/uploader is required.

          2. Gemini Fox profile image90
            Gemini Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, Marisa – made that comment when half asleep.  Let me clarify.

            I like to credit my photos at the bottom of a hub best (in a text capsule - feel it’s less “messy”) so just number/name my photos.  For hubs that are Public Domain (although I know I don’t have to) I number them all per the Wikipedia number (in the case below #3).  For hubs that require attribution, I was linking to the Wikimedia page of the author using Wikimedia Commons as the anchor text.  HP states that you should do this in the Learning Center so that if someone else wants to use the photo, they can find it.

            Can’t find it now but there was a ProTips on a HubPages Weekly that explained how to simplify what Writer Fox is saying below (in WF’s response showing the globe) regarding attribution to particular authors (is there a place where ProTips are archived?).  This is basically what it looks like (links inside { }):
            --------------
            Photo Credits:
            [1] Courtesy of the {University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin}
            [2] By TUBS, CC-BY-SA-3.0, via {Wikimedia Commons}
            [3] Wikipedia Public Domain
            [4] Ryan Douglas, CC-BY-SA-3.0, via {Wikimedia Commons}
            --------------
            But I guess Writer Fox is saying that all those links back to Wikimedia hurt your SEO?! 

            So I went back and clicked the “No Follow” box and saved the capsule but found that clicking the anchor text Wikimedia Commons will still take you to the author’s page . . . is that right?  Does “No Follow” prevent the SEO from linking but still allow the reader to link?  Sorry, not entirely understanding “No Follow” . . . . Writer Fox? 

            Also, seems crazy to have to link to the cc license – if a reader doesn’t know what it is, look it up!  If this is a must, gonna have to figure out how to do this.

            1. Writer Fox profile image78
              Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              NoFollow means that Google (and other search engines) will not distribute your PageRank to the page you link to, but that visitors to your Hub can still click on the link and find the information, just like on an Amazon ad.  (Google Webmaster Guidelines also require all ads to be NoFollow.)  NoFollow also tells search engines that you don't necessarily endorse the content on the page you link to.

              As for using photos from Wikipedia Commons, as I mentioned above you must check each photo to see what link is required.  Most photos require that you link NOT to the page where the photo is found (which is what HP suggests) or to the author's page, but to the CC license.  To use photos from Wikipedia Commons legally, you must give the link requested by the copyright holder.

              1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
                TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Writer Fox:  How do you make an Amazon Ad "no follow".  This is the first I've heard of this and I am hoping HP does this automatically for us. Does it?  I see no place where you can even do it.  Please advise asap.  Thanks.

                1. Writer Fox profile image78
                  Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It's done automatically by HP.  But, if you link to an affiliate site or to Amazon using your own account instead of the HP capsule, those links need to be NoFollow.

                  1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
                    TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Writer Fox   I do not know what we would do without you on this site...really!  I have learned so much from you, and while it is a lot of work to go back and make corrections, it feels good to know I am doing things the right way.  Thank you.

              2. Gemini Fox profile image90
                Gemini Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you for the response, Writer Fox!

                Re: No Follow:  thought that was the case.

                Re: attribution:  Wow . . . it can really get confusing!  Think I'm a little less confused now though!

    2. mary615 profile image94
      mary615posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks.  That's what I always do, too.

    3. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What about free wallpaper? I mean it is free to anyone and if you give credit wouldn't those be OK?

  5. The Examiner-1 profile image82
    The Examiner-1posted 3 years ago

    The photos which you are seeing may simply be free to use, Public Domain or permission granted by owner.

  6. starme77 profile image88
    starme77posted 3 years ago

    it may not be a requirement , however your hubs may not look good to the search engines if you have photos on them that are copied without permission so if you do not want traffic then go ahead and copy all you want to cause your gunna get dinged

  7. janshares profile image88
    jansharesposted 3 years ago

    mary615, after reading these responses, it looks like the confusion that creates inconsistencies in attribution has to do with what's required when we want our hubs considered for HOTD, Editor's Choice, or a high QAP rating. I don't think I understood until now that Google doesn't really care.

    It's also the chances we take not attributing correctly that may get us in trouble with original photographers, not with HP. I know I've lost a lot of sleep over this topic since I've been at HP. I'm beginning to think a lot of the stress was unnecessary. But I do agree with your concern about watermarked images, which do not look professional (unless it's your own) and seem to break a glaring rule, regardless of HP standards.

    1. susi10 profile image94
      susi10posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I have heard that you could lose your AdSense account if you use unattributed photos, but I need someone to clarify that.

      1. Writer Fox profile image78
        Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not true.  You can lose your AdSense account if you use copyrighted photos without permission and the copyright holder complains to AdSense. This is true for plagiarized text content also.

        1. susi10 profile image94
          susi10posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for that Writer Fox!
          This really should be publicized more because it is very easy to check whether images have been copied by uploading your image to Google Images from your computer  and searching for that exact image. If a photographer finds out, there would be trouble.
          But, it is very unlikely to happen.

          1. Writer Fox profile image78
            Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, unattributed and unauthorized are two different things.  Many stock photo agencies have automated programs to check for plagiarized images and they send invoices to websites who have used them without payment.  I check for infringement of my images and regularly file DMCA requests.

            1. LCDWriter profile image94
              LCDWriterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm interested in what you're saying here Writer Fox.  It makes me wonder why HP would encourage a link to the photo (even if properly cited) but you indicate it could hurt traffic.  If it hurts traffic for us it hurts it for HP since they take 40 percent.

              So, why the conflicting information from HP?  Are there good SEO sites that explain this that you could send us to?

              I mostly use pixabay and wikimedia commons and I do link and I'm not one that is complaining about my traffic but I would really like to read more about your side since I have abided by HP's side.

              1. Writer Fox profile image78
                Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You'll have to get HP to explain its position.  I used to complain in the forum all the time that there was not a provision to NoFollow links to affiliates, which is a Google requirement. HP only recently implemented a way to do this, but only in a text capsule.  I also complained that they were giving followed links back to people's subdomains every time they left a comment, which Google considers as 'comment spam links.'  HP finally changed that practice, too, but only a few months ago.

                You don't need a 'good SEO site' to read about this.  Just go read Google's Webmaster Guidelines.  It's Google's opinion which should matter to you.  Google introduced the NoFollow attribute in January of 2006. The attribute has been part of Webmaster Guidelines for eight years. Google expects webmasters to implement its guidelines and those who don't will suffer in Google search engine rankings. 

                Pixabay does not require a link to use its photos.  Every time you give that site a followed link you are telling Google that you personally, highly recommend the webpage and that you are willing to share some of your own Hub's PageRank with that webpage.  Why are you doing that?

                1. LCDWriter profile image94
                  LCDWriterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Has HP ever weighed in on this officially?  I would really like to know if the believe that links to images from creative commons pictures hurts a hub.  It's not that I don't believe you....I'm reading information right now.  I just want to understand why a site as old as hubpages does it this way and what their thinking is on it.  Right now I assume it's what is in the Learning Center which is how I do them now.  If there's a better way that will make all of us more money and rank us better, it would be great to find a way to implement it.

                  1. Writer Fox profile image78
                    Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    When HP made the change to allow the option for NoFollow links in the text capsule, there wasn't even an announcement made, let alone an explanation about why they violated Google Webmaster Guidelines since the day the HP site was created.  There was, however, a lot of public comment by HP employees when HP traffic from Google tanked in 2011 when the Panda algorithm rolled out.

  8. Hackslap profile image79
    Hackslapposted 3 years ago

    Its surprising if HP's loosened its grip on what pics you can or can't use on a hub ... I accidentally uploaded one with a watermark on one of my hubs and it got unpublished until I rectified the error....better to still play it safe and continue to correctly credit the pics by citing the source...you don't want strike outs on your profile for 'quality/copyright' issues..

  9. vocalcoach profile image93
    vocalcoachposted 3 years ago

    I'm glad this topic has come up.  Lately I've noticed some hubs using Pinterest photos and Face Book photos. The only attribution given is "pinterest' and 'face book.'  I think HP should do something - especially with those containing a watermark.

  10. supremeupbeat k profile image25
    supremeupbeat kposted 3 years ago

    Yes,this is .I agree.

  11. TDowling profile image91
    TDowlingposted 3 years ago

    Writer Fox:

    In your first post in this chain you said, "Many Hubbers don't realize that the 'Caption' on HP is actually the Alt image tag and should be used appropriately."

    Please explain what you mean by "used appropriately."

    BTW, I agree that I would like to see HP police images and attributions. I always look for attractive images for my Hubs. Sometimes it's very difficult to locate an image in the public domain or "ShareAlike" image. 

    Thanks, -TD

  12. wrenchBiscuit profile image89
    wrenchBiscuitposted 3 years ago

    I attribute photos that are not public domain and I also occasionally donate money to the photographer when possible ,like on sites like Pixabay.Usually I donate 25 or 50 cents. Having said that,I don't concern myself with what other people are doing or whether they attribute or not.

    I am a songwriter and a composer of music,verse,and video.I get ripped of all the time online but it doesn't concern me.I have spent a lifetime developing my skills, and I have invested a great amount of money  over the years. People often download my videos,soundtracks,and Mp3's without even a "thank you".

    But in this behavior they only cheat themselves.I am the artist.I am the one they should seek to acquire or steal,not the art that I produce,for it is only a representation of a past muse; interesting or entertaining perhaps,but these works cannot think or feel. I am the source of it all! But those who are addicted to materialism cannot see the forest for the jimson weed at the edge of the thicket.Let them steal to their hearts content,but they will never see what I have seen,or experience the transcendent beauty that at times has left me dumbfounded, and weeping.

    1. Millionaire Tips profile image87
      Millionaire Tipsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you - it feels like stealing if I don't attribute the image. I also will likely forget where I got the image, so the link helps me find it again.

      I can't imagine that Google wouldn't realize that properly attributed images will have links to photo sites.  I would rather let them figure that out for themselves instead of creating some contorted workaround for it.

      I once read a sentence - I don't remember it exactly, but it said something like "write a good article for the reader, not Google, and let Google figure out why it is good."   I like that philosophy - it is a lot less work for me, and keeps the focus on the reader, where it belongs.

      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Writer Fox:  I asked this question of Marissa, but am now asking it of you because I really do not understand much of this conversation right now.
        If I have a Wikimedia Commons photo, and I post the author's name in the photo capsule and then write "photo credit" and then write the url link and place a no follow on it, am I doing it right?

        1. Writer Fox profile image78
          Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I looked at a few of your Hubs and couldn't find one where you used a Wikipedia image.  From what you describe, I can't tell if you are doing it right.  Are you placing the NoFollow link in a text capsule?  Then, that's great because you can't NoFollow a link in the photo capsule.

          The URL you link to:  make sure that it is what is required on the photo information page on Wiki.  Find what is required by clicking on the "Use this file on the Web" on the top of the information page.  It usually requires a link to the CC license, NOT the author or uploader of the image.

          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8983480.png

          1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Writer Fox:  I only used Wikipedia when I first started here, so those images are ones from my earlier hubs.  I am in the process of following your guidelines on every single hub, whether it is Wikimedia or free public domain.  I am putting "no follow" on all Wikimedia photos and crediting those  with the generic license as you suggested, at the bottom of my last text box.

            I also am removing as many Wikimedia images as possible to upgrade my posts.

            Thanks for taking a peek.

      2. Sherry Hewins profile image96
        Sherry Hewinsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

  13. Mark Ewbie profile image83
    Mark Ewbieposted 3 years ago

    I started doing my own pics because I could not fathom the legal requirement business.

    I do have a genuine question though.

    My understanding was that all pics should have a link back to the creator.  So I put my name .hubpages.com on all my pics as the source.

    I don't know from reading the above whether I am leaking link juice (ugh) or Google will think I am spamming my profile (eek).

    A lot of the time I hate the internet.

    1. Writer Fox profile image78
      Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      HP has requirements for choosing the Hub of the Day and for paying people in the Apprentice program which require extraordinary photo citations.  For example, to be considered for Hub of the Day you have to provide a link for Public Domain photos, even though this isn't required for other Hubs. But, I haven't found a place where HP says you have to provide a live link on photos you took. 

      And, yes, you are spamming your Profile page if you provide followed links to it from all of your photos.

      Also, remember that any link you give (followed or NoFollow) should be specifically related to the content on your page.  People who have a Hub with dozens of links to Wikipedia, for example, are telling Google that Wikipedia is probably a better source for information on the subject than the Hub is.

      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is interesting because recently I was awarded an HOD without realizing that I had met the requirements for images, etc.  I'll be changing that thanks to your help, so I wonder if they'll erase it lol!!

  14. profile image61
    nfl-predictionsposted 3 years ago

    I am all for sharing content and photos if there is a clear source and link.

  15. mary615 profile image94
    mary615posted 3 years ago

    I'll continue to use my own photos whenever possible to avoid any problems.
    I used to put a link back to my profile on my photos, but I've stopped doing that. 
    I think my photos show I did them myself, ha, ha.

  16. Barbara Kay profile image87
    Barbara Kayposted 3 years ago

    The apprenticeship program required us to supply the link at Wikimedia to the photo page. This is why you are finding so many photos done that way. Because of that, I thought it was a legal requirement.

    You are right about Public Domain photos. There is no reason to credit anyone for them, but it is polite to include who the painting or photo was created by.

  17. starme77 profile image88
    starme77posted 3 years ago

    Not all photos on the commons are free to use without attribution, some do require it. Just need to read the fine print for each photo you use from there.

 
working