Image Confusion

1. 0

   Ben Blackwellposted 10 years ago

   I am still not fully aware of how the image attributions work.  Can someone take a look at these hubs and tell me if I have attributed the images correctly?
   
   http://benblackwell.hubpages.com/hub/Wr … mall-Words
   
   http://benblackwell.hubpages.com/hub/Wr … Semicolons
   
   http://benblackwell.hubpages.com/hub/Br … et-Kune-Do
   
   They all have different image sources (the second article contains only images I've created).
   
   Thanks.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      livewithrichardposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You are crediting the location but not the artist that created the image.  http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images … gement.php
      
      "Image courtesy of [contributor name] / FreeDigitalPhotos.net".  The name of the image creator is usually right under the title of the image.  This go as the source.  The URL should lead directly to the image and not just to the root domain of the site.  This lets visitors go directly to the image and allows them direct access to the image creators portfolio.

      replyreport
   2. 85

      Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The most important thing is to credit the actual photographer.  He's the license holder, not the site!  Of course, if the site demands a mention then include that too. 
      
      As I said to Richard, I always link to the photographer's profile (photostream on Flickr) rather than just the image.  That way if a reader clicks on the link, they see a showcase of the photographer's work instead of just one image, which I feel probably does the photographer more good.

      replyreport
2. 96

   EricDockettposted 10 years ago

   Freedigitalphotos dot net suggests that you include the image creator's name in your attribution, but it seems like the way you linked back to their site satisfies their TOS. I usually like to include the image creator regardless. 
   
   It's smart to credit yourself as the source for your own images. Just something as simple as "© Ben Blackwell 2013".  It removes any confusion and lets people know they aren't free to take.  Even though they'll swipe them anyway. 
   
   You have a pic of George Orwell that isn't attributed.  That may be okay depending on where it came from, but I'm guessing not.  If it's public domain it's still smart to attribute and link to the source just for clarity.  If you're not sure if it's public domain, there's a good chance it isn't. 
   
   Seems like you're on the right path, just a few minor fixes.  There is a Hub on this in the Learning Center, BTW.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Ben Blackwellposted 10 years ago

   K.  Thanks guys.  I will update my articles to reflect these changes soon.

   replyreport
4. 32

   Writer Foxposted 10 years ago

   For search engine optimization:
   1. never, ever, give a link to an image unless it is required by the image owner;
   2. if you do give a link, only give a 'NoFollow' link;
   3. never link to a site whose content is not directly relevant to the content of your Hub;
   4. never link to your subdomain Profile for an image that you own;
   5. if you link to another one of your websites or image hosting places (such as your board on Pinterest), never give more than one link from a single Hub.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      livewithrichardposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Which is required on almost every single public image sharing site even if the image is in the public domain.  If the site requires attribution then you must use attribution directly where the image is being placed and not in some obscure location hidden in your content .  I don't know of any copyright holder that would allow someone else to freely use their content without any back recognition.
      
      
      Please share if you have discovered a way to do this here on HP.
      
      
      Good advice, however if an image is closely related make sure you comment on it within the caption area of the image module using a variant of your keyword phrase.
      
      
      Unless the page you are hosting it on has more authority than the hub you are linking it to, which is almost a certainty.  Subdomains have to rise or fall on their own merit, we do not get any boost from the root domain of HP.  So any links you create to your subdomain will help you in the long run... the more relevant the better.
      
      
      The fewer the better but no more than 2 links to the same domain are allowed if you follow HP's TOS (Some sites are an exception such as Wikimedia and some white listed photo sharing sites.)  On Pinterest, one to your own boards and one to a shared/public board is fine... On Flickr, one to your own album and one to a Group album is fine...etc..

      replyreport
   2. 85

      Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Shouldn't that be "more than TWO links"?

      replyreport
      1. 32

         Writer Foxposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Not for search engines.

         replyreport
5. 32

   Writer Foxposted 10 years ago

   Public domain images never require attribution. (Nobody owns the copyright; that's why they are in the public domain.) The "NoFollow" linking ability on HubPages is still under discussion in the proverbial Thursday morning 'Community Meeting' and will be implemented when management decides to comply with Google Webmaster Guidelines for promotional and non-related/non-endorsed links. Over-linking to your Profile subdomain is considered spam and can hurt your subdomain in rankings.  Remember, there is already one link on each Hub back to the Profile.  That's enough for the Profile.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      livewithrichardposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      While you are correct on no need to attribute content in the public domain, there is still a need to cite the original copyright holder if possible.  You can not be sued for using or altering public domain content, however, doing so can lead to serious consequences.  For example, college professors can be terminated, students can be expelled, and others that claim ownership of someone's work can be publicly humiliated.
      
      Relevant links to your subdomain will never be considered spam.  If your profile is used as your portfolio of work and you have related content in your portfolio then there is no fear of penalty.

      replyreport
6. 0

   Ben Blackwellposted 10 years ago

   I have just finished updating my hubs.  I attribute my own images with my name and no link, public domain images with the source as 'public domain' with no link, and everything else is properly attributed.
   
   Thanks.

   replyreport
   1. 32

      Writer Foxposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Cool.

      replyreport
   2. 32

      Writer Foxposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry you're getting some confusing comments here.  You don't have to give a credit to any public domain image, but you can certainly say that an image is in the public domain if you want to.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      livewithrichardposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ben, I only looked at the first link 'Writing with Small Words' and though you now attribute the copyright holder you have not attributed the way that site wants you to attribute, which is "Image courtesy of [contributor name] / FreeDigitalPhotos.net".   The url link is correct and the way it is done on most sites but why risk it.  It's really up to you if you want to follow their guidelines, its like getting them free promotion which is a fair trade off for allowing us a platform to use other people's images.
      
      When I use photos from sites like Flickr or Morguefile, I attribute the source like this: "By SoAndSo via Flckr" or "Image courtesy of JoeBob via Morguefile."  And then the url points directly to the image page.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         What you're doing is strictly correct, but personally what I do is link to the photographer's photostream, not to the individual image.  I feel that gives the photographer more benefit, because their photostream page will show the reader a greater variety of their work.

         replyreport
   4. 32

      Writer Foxposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You do not need to give a link to digitalphotos.net.  All that is required is an acknowledgement to FreeDigitalPhotos.net and the image creator. Giving a link is siphoning off the flow of your PageRank.

      replyreport
7. 32

   Writer Foxposted 10 years ago

   Multiple links to your subdomain from your Hubs can be considered linkspam by Google and there have been documented cases of this happening on content sites where authors were linking from dozens and dozens of photos back to their Profiles. Linking a photo back to your HubPages' Profile is NOT relevant to the content of a Hub. You seem to misunderstand what a followed link signifies to search engines.
   
   There is absolutely no need to cite the original copyright owner of an image which is now in public domain. Using a public domain photo is in nowise 'claiming ownership.'

   replyreport
   1. 70

      livewithrichardposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You are making no sense... who in their right mind would link from a hub to their own profile... that is ridiculous considering the link exists as soon as the hub is created.  Hahaha  I must be spammy because my hubs create hundreds of links to my profile.  The Root Domain of Hubpages has created thousands of links pointing to my subdomain.... is that spam? 
      
      I am talking about links from outside of this site pointing inbound to your profile or to your hub, preferably to your hub.  However if the inbound links point to your profile instead of your hub it is still helpful and not spammy because your profile links to the relevant hub. 
      
      But more specifically, WE are talking about links you place in your photo modules pointing AWAY from your content and linking to the SOURCE of the image.  Nobody ever said they were to point to your profile... why would they if you are not the SOURCE.
      
      I agreed with you that there is no rule in place to attribute Public Domain content, however proper protocol dictates that any content that does not belong to you or has originated in the Public Domain and altered to cite the original Copyright holder if it is known and can be documented.  Using Public Domain content can in fact make a claim of ownership if there is no citation, no remark of where the content originated from, no admission that the idea was not yours to begin with. 
      
      Writing that is in the public domain cannot be published with a new authors name only, that is considered plagiarism.  Images that were once in the public domain and colorized are no longer protected by public domain.  The colorization is credited to a new copyright holder that did the coloring.  Also, there is the case of the Mona Lisa.  Anyone can use that image as it is in the public domain. however there is a derivative of that image that has a mustache and a hat and is copyright protected by the derivative creator.
      
      @Ben  Not linking to the source of an image or documenting the source, even if it is yours, is a deceptive practice that many of us have been guilty of.  As a new contributor online, do not go down the path of the old ways.  Build trust with your readers and followers by using proper attribution on EVERY IMAGE you use.  Don't be deceptive... Don't use false copyright claims, if you properly attribute your images then nobody can claim you are being deceptive.  Remember that the image creator is similar to you as a content writer... Would you allow someone to freely use your written words without any credit to you?  Can you think of any copyright holder that would?

      replyreport