Been following the Snowden NSA leaks and learning some new terms I've never heard before.
1)The Silk Road of Deep Web uses Tor that is hidden from the NSA if using Linux OS. (But On 2 October 2013, the FBI shut down Silk Road - so still can find and arrest)
2)The Deep Web, Deepnet, Invisible Web, Undernet or hidden Web is not part of the Surface Web indexed by standard search engines.
Is Hubpages - although open and on the surface and trying real hard to be noticed and pop up on top of the SEO game - perhaps Google's Hummingbird is some type of tsunami that submerges the Hubpages domain?
The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value
AskJeeves - question-answering integrated with meta search
askOnce - metasearch application from Xerox, translates queries across languages, supports security and access controls.
BrightPlanet Deep Web Directory (local and public sources)
Domino Extended Search (can query Notes, databases, and search engines)
Deep Web Technologies - searching scientific databases
OpenText Query Server (see example at QueryServer.com)
Hummingbird Search Server (formerly Fulcrum)
InfoJukebox - meta search engine works only with Microsoft Internet Explorer on Windows
Intelliseek - can search local content via bridges (such as Lotus), create its own index, and search external databases and web search engines. Tries to track source quality and responsiveness.
iPhrase code library
MatchPoint (proprietory crawlers)
MuseGlobal - mainly for libraries
SLI Search (connectors to databases and other indexes)
Thunderstone Webinator (and Texis DB)
Verity Federated Search (includes connectors to Lotus and other sources, ranks relevance by whatever they send back for results, can gather and rank whole documents in the background)
Maybe Google sucks?
Hummingbird will ignore keywords and focus on meanings and relatable topics
I created this image for a Bubblews post I did. Can I ask where you got it? Not a big deal, just curious? I should clarify and say the reason I am asking is because my payment from there is delayed - and I am thinking it may be due to them thinking my images are not original if they are being used in other places. Thanks.
(1)I am unable to take down the pic in my post with an edit because it's aged.
(2)Fair use includes teaching, critiques, comments, reporting, and research so my use of pic is OK.
(3) It doesn't need the copyright symbol to be copyrighted.
(4) Source: http://www.bubblews.com/assets/images/n … 378261.png (5)https://www.tineye.com says there are no other copies of this image.
(6) Under Page Info > Security > Owner "This website does not supply ownership information"
Check for yourself link location, and image properties. In future use jpeg format because adding metadata can only be done online to a jpeg only and doesn't work on .png images. I tried to get info with http://www.findexif.com/ but it says "Not a valid image type for EXIF data: png"
My original post does have copyright notice on it which is WHY I asked where you got it. If you want to run around using people's stuff that's on you, but please don't make the excuse you have the right to use it. unless it states it is in the public domain or has usage rights, you in fact, do not. Even if you did decide to use it - you should have cited where you got it from since the work is not yours.
Just because it is on the net doesn't mean it's free to use. Why do you suppose it is we have to cite our photo sources on Bubble and on Hubs in the first place?
All I did was ask where you got it because I have concerns about a delayed payment for my work and wanted to make sure it isn't because stuff is being used and Bubble thinks it's me using something improperly. That's my only concern. I have since taken it up with them and they have initiated the payment so I'm not worried.
Citing sources avoids these kinds of misunderstandings.
Your use does not qualify as fair use.
Your use, while valid per the license over at MorgueFile (user: pippalou), does not constitute a copyrightable work. The text, your only real contribution to the image, is too short and generic.
Hmmm guess I'm not getting an answer about the use of my image. You'd think common sense would dictate that if you use an image from the internet you credit the source unless it's on a website like Morguefile or something where you are allowed to use without attribution. I guess if it's on the internet it must just be free.... smh.
No that is not accurate. ChristinS, Did you do anything to protect your copyright like a watermark, a mailing or even one of those thingies that look like this @ only with a c. And do you know if the image has been copied and used multiple times and that is where it was taken from?
And yes it is accurate that if you just throw stuff out there it is public domain. Otherwise why do all those people actually do stuff to protect their work -- because they are stupid? I think not.
Your implied accusation is actionable under slander statutes if not true.
Hi Eric. I copied your profile pic and put it in my asshole of the month competition.
It's not slanderous - on my original post there is a copyright notice. Why don't you shut up when you don't know what you're talking about Eric. This doesn't even concern you.
Don't you have some religious zealotry to enact somewhere, you know since you're allegedly so full of love and all that? NO, technically you can't just post pics without looking at the usage rights on them. I didn't accuse anyone here - I simply asked where it was obtained. I like the idea of where Mr Ewbie plans on putting your picture - it seems fitting.
Ouch. Where is this original publication? with the notice. And yes suggesting someone is a thief is slanderous unless true. And personally attacking me is fine if it makes you feel better. How is that for zealousness. And yes you can just post pics without looking at usage rights. The law is clear. It is up to the holder to put the user on notice. Otherwise it is not theft but public domain.
And if you did not imply that ptosis was a thief why did several comments agree with you that ptosis was a thief? like "busted". Take some responsibility. And no you did not just ask -- you stated it was yours. And i suggest it may have been yours but you gave it away.
I did NOT accuse the person of being a thief!! do you not have reading comprehension skills? LOOK at the original question I asked. I simply asked where they got the image and said it was NO BIG DEAL. You are the one sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Kindly butt out. I am aware of copyright laws, NO just because something is on the internet does not make it public domain. You should always cite sources when you use something that is not yours - period.
If something doesn't concern you - you should leave it alone. Sorry, but I don't like pot stirrers and I certainly don't like being accused of slander when I never accused the OP of theft. Where did I say "you stole my image"... I did NOT say that - I asked where it was obtained to clear up a potential misunderstanding with the site where I originally posted it.
On second thought and your kind way of writing to me I apologize. I must have read something into this wrongly:
"Hmmm guess I'm not getting an answer about the use of my image."
"If you want to run around using people's stuff that's on you, but please don't make the excuse you have the right to use it" "I created this image for a Bubblews post I did. Can I ask where you got it?"
Again, I must be getting old and over zealous I fully apologize for speaking my opinion and will remember not to do it, if it is different than yours, for the sake of harmony. Which I understand is your goal.
I'm sorry, I was harsh. I should not have jumped on you like that. I took it personally that you were accusing me of slander when that was not my intent. I certainly don't feel it was "stolen" - used without citation yes, I don't consider that "stolen"
I had an issue getting a $60+ redemption from the site where I originally posted it. My concern was that it was perhaps making the rounds and that was what was stopping the payment, because they assumed I took it and posted it as my own... I took it up with them, it's been resolved.
As far as stealing, I consider the Saudia Arabia post with it's scraped full content of the HP site stolen - see the other thread on that if you haven't yet. I will state again, I do not believe the original poster is a thief. This is a hubber that has been here a long time.
Peace, I know you mean well. Life's too short to get upset over something this trivial. Have a lovely Sunday.
ChristinS we are of accord. I think you did great service in approaching the issue. It is important to all of us to maintain the integrity for ourselves and others. I applaud you for it. I think probably so does ptosis. I know it made me think harder on the issue and I need that.
It seems that checking the properties of the image, the url is a bubblews image.
ht tp://www.bubblews.com/assets /images/news/1014838583_1380378261.png
Of course to post an image to HP, you just add the link, not so much theft IMO?
actually to end the back and forth. HubPages actual policy is to cite the work so they can verify if you used it improperly or properly. And the use of an image must eventually be traced back to a central origin. So unless the site you use specifically says that anything on there site is free to use, reproduce, etc. Then technically it is theft. Regardless of one persons use of it somewhere else. Theft is theft.
In this case I have not done enough to understand where chrisitian s got the image from to modify it. So from a base line of understanding the person who started this thread did not properly attribute the work back to bubblews and therefore did not use it correctly stole the immage from christian s. End of discussion right? Wrong. Another point I want to make is that a lot of people seem to think that if they go back and forth with someone enough they will acheive something. The original posting person should not have said anything back when christian first brought up the point. They should have simply stated they were sorry or better yet commented with the proper attribution for the work. Believe me the staff watch things like this. And a few wrong clicks on your keyboard can cause you a headache. Trust me I know. Spouting off that you used it correctly and that is not copyrighted is the wrong approach. When someone tells you that they are using that image on another site before you and that it may be affecting them. Grow up and say Im sorry and try to fix.
Ok im done.
Congrats on the image Christin S. It's beautiful. Sadly that means it will probably pop up all over the place, but it is truly spectacular.
I apologise for laughing out loud at what is a serious issue, but I had a mental image of newbies looking for a Hummingbird Update. "Welcome to hp. See what a bunch of experienced writers can do with a few words?"
I didn't understand the original post, but I will always remember to copyright my photos. .
Thank you If I wasn't on the receiving end of shoddy legal advice and being called a slanderer I'd be laughing too lol.
It's truly not a big deal. I did not say ptosis stole the image - I just wanted to know where it was sourced from was all. I do put copyright notices on my work. I haven't watermarked photos previously because HP doesn't allow it, but I will for other sites.
Sorry - I didn't mean to create a HuHu. I got the pic via google search. I did not go to the original web site. I did not import into hubpages, I just copied image location link and put [img][/img] brackets on it. It is not a lame excuse asserting fair use rights. This is a forum - not a hub. I understand why you got upset because of the money delay I would be livid myself if I thought the two were related.
From: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/h … on-60.html
"Including a copyright notice is a reasonable first step to take if you want to prevent anyone from using the pictures you take with your Canon EOS 60D without your permission. Anyone who views your picture in a program that can display metadata will see your copyright notice and know who owns the rights to the picture. Obviously, that won’t be enough to completely prevent unauthorized use of your images. And, technically speaking, you hold the copyright to your photo whether you take any steps to mark it with your name. But if you ever come to the point of pressing legal action against the perpetrator, you can at least show that you exercised due diligence in letting people know that you were the creator and hold the copyright"
Here's the online metadata tool to find info on any photo online @ http://imgops.com/
It says on your photo:
Camera info not found. Author and Copyright not found. GPS coordinates not found.
EXIF data not found. XMP data not found. Maker Notes data not found. ICC Profile data not found.
BTW: Love you picture on the hummingbird, where did you shoot it? I have the hub 'Photo Gallery Coronado National Park' taken with a Canon Powershot but your photo looks like you have a way better camera than mine. I am planning to upgrade to a DSLR so would like to know which camera did you use? I had a hard time even at the fastest speed and shutter not to get blurred wings unless the wings were all the way forward or all the way back when they change directions.
Everyone Has A Photographic Memory. Some Just Do Not Have Film
It's totally fine! I was just concerned that it was holding up a payment, but I let them know and it's all good. I was concerned they would think I was claiming images that weren't mine were my own - they get finicky over there sometimes and don't usually tell you when or why they are holding a payment back. It's resolved and it's totally all good - seriously
As for the pic, I do photoshop. the orig pic was a stock photo of a hummingbird at a feeder, I cut the birdy out, put him on a new faded background so he'd stand out and then added text - yeah, I cheat like that. My actual camera has never been able to capture one in real life, I've tried but they are do darn fast. The closest I ever got was a honeybee whose wings I shot and it turned out beautifully. That was on my old camera and it was am Olympus point and shoot believe it or not.
I live in the "Hummingbird Capital of the United States" & there is NO WAY can point and shoot a hummingbird - what you do is get the feeder, can talk - just don't move - and put it on fastest 'film' speed and fastest shutter speed, and put on forever repeat shoot - point and pray. I was holding the camera and used the banister to prop up my arm.
For lightening shots - it's the opposite, tripod camera, lowest speed, longest exposure, (like 15 or 30 seconds), on infinity focus, have to keep hitting the button after each exposure. Point and pray. Frustrating when the camera is 'thinking' and another lightening streak goes off right in front of your camera. Out of 400 pics I had 11 good shots. Desert monsoons are awesome.
Here's a handheld video of a desert Monsoon that show how much lightening there is like a strobe light never ending. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10wcmr3nEZo
BTW: If used a stock photo - cropped and added text then claim as your original work as you did in the thread may be considered art plagiarism in an ethics class - even if the photo was open domain because with Public Domain, we can…
Use the material in the creation of a new product.
Republish the material as is and sell it.
Legally change in any manner we wish.
We also have the legal right to omit the original author’s name and replace it with our own if we wish.
The act of plagiarism in itself is NOT illegal only copyright infringement is.
plagiarism from the dictionary is defined word for word as follows.
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
Copyright infringement is defined as follows
a violation of the rights secured by a copyright
If someones work is copyrighted (98% of all work is) and you copy it. You have broken the law of copyrights and there for, if you dont change it have committed an act of plagiarism.
Just to let every one know. I did a full search and found this exact hummingbird in a handful of websites and the one that seems to have started it is called savoring your sixties. From where they got it is unknown, that is the first time Google noticed it.
It's known. They got it from MorgueFile. You can verify this through looking at the image's name on the website you've mentioned.
oh, that is true. I see what the fuss is now, lol. The file was uploaded 1 month 22 days ago and unfortunately for everyone's upset it appears to be a free to use free to copy work that you do not need to attribute. That being said and thank you sandonia for pointing out the origin, the HP community requires attribution as a general rule.
Wow! Great research! I don't know how you found it in the morgue file that said:
" You are allowed to copy, distribute, transmit the work and to adapt the work. Attribution is not required. You are prohibited from using this work in a stand alone manner. Read the license summary"
What search engine did you use? I tried the online search engine for duplicate images and it said 'none" - which one did you use to find this?
I don't think Hummingbird is trying to submerge HP as a whole, but certainly some of the material here has no chance of rising to the top, nor should it. I read a decent Moz write-up about Hummingbird yesterday with tips on how to check our sites. It's worth reading.
thank you, I will read that, always interested in information as I do not make money here on HP or plan to. I do have a professional blog that does fairly well elsewhere and articles about information on how to improve your situation in any context are well worth my time in my opinion.
Upgrading my camera to a Sony A58 - so I can sell my pics. It's just a beginner's DSLR but learning how how to copyright properly as in this photo: Angry Bird
by Michelle Cesare7 years ago
Hello Hubbers,I learned about creating backlinks from Hubbers and I want to say thank you for teaching me the backlink method.I took the time to search for my backlink URL and was pleasantly surprised to see my backlink...
by Gary Anderson2 years ago
I thought if a hubpage was listed in Google search it was featured. But apparently that is not the truth. I guess I will keep the hubs up and run my own check on them.
by accofranco8 years ago
How can one make his hubs to appear more on search engines? Please if u know u aren't prepared to answer this question as a way of assisting me to grow on HP,just don't post a reply.Plz i need serious minded detailed...
by Marshall Fish4 months ago
Hello all,I published a new article "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In: The Complete Series Box Set-DVD Review" over the weekend, and don't see it listed in Google, Yahoo, and Bing search engines. My past...
by jim109 years ago
I recently joined StumbleUpon and by Stumbling my sites they seem to get a lot more views. I was hoping to find friends on StumbleUpon. So if anyone wants to be friends so we can stumble each others sites I am Jim10....
by Marie Flint3 months ago
I came across this piece of advice in the first part of the Learning Center:"Write to educate your readers on your topic: create content on subjects that you are an expert; don't create content for search engines,...
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.