I check out many of the new hubs as they come across my Home page. I'm interested to see how many people use their own original work, how many correctly use and credit public domain photos, and how many are outright stealing photos from the Internet.
When someone posts a professional looking photo and provides a link, I click on the link to see where they got it. In way too many cases, they've just pulled it from someone's website and incorrectly think they can use it because they credit the place they stole it from.
Today I did this with a new hub (about pies) and found that they also copied the content from that site, though they did put it into their own words. This Hubber has a score of 97. How can this be?
As a photographer, website designer, and writer, I find this very upsetting.
Agreed. But as long as people just are under the impression that everything on the internet is free, it will be an ongoing battle.
And it's a big reason why Pinterest is disliked by many writers, graphic artists and photographers.
I find it upsetting also! Some Hubbers have a high score, but never credit their photos properly or not at all. One Hub of the Day had photos that were not credited at all. I try and use my own photos even though they are quite unprofessional looking. If I were a professional I would NOT pin to Pinterest.
Did you make the graphics in this hub?
Sideshows and Political Correctness
I think people need to learn which sites are okay and how to cite properly before posting. Although the HP staff does their very best to point new hubbers toward the learning center and faq, many people begin posting without reading this important stuff.
When you see it, let the author know that you have flagged it and why and provide a helpful link to the learning center's article on legal use of images. Maybe they just didn't get the memo.
(Not in that one hubber's case that you mentioned that stole the entire article. That's just crazy.)
The graphics from that hub came from the Coney Island Sideshow Museum, with which my son is affiliated, and were used with their knowledge and permission. It was one of the first Hubs I ever wrote, so I guess I didn't credit it properly, but that can be easily fixed. It's one of the very few Hubs I've written that doesn't use my own photographs.
By chance I believe I ran across the hub Bill is referencing. Today that hubber is up to a 100 author score. I think this hubber incorrectly believes that as long as you attribute a photo's source, it is OK to use it. With the huge number of hubbers and hubs, I don't know how enforcing the correct requirements is possible, unfortunately.
What I found more troubling, was that her hub was nearly identical to an article that is on the site she took the photo from. I feel that this reflects badly on all Hubbers and thought that HubPages was more diligent in their efforts to prevent this kind of thing.
I pretty much only use my own images these days, although I'll sometimes go with something that's public domain. Having said that...
When adding to images to an image capsule on here (HubPages), there's "source" and "URL". Both are followed by "(optional"). I've always assumed (and seen someone from the HP team say this at one time) that when images are obviously personal photographs, and when the Hubber knows they're his own pictures, saying who took the pictures is not required. Public domain images have a whole range of different types of rights for use. Some public domain rights pretty much say, "Use it however you want to, and do whatever you want to it." Others request credit to whoever created and/or offered the image. Some ask for a link. A few times I've added my own image and not included that it's mine, mainly because adding my name "a zillion times" to the same page looks "stupid". I've always been under the impression that if it's mine I'm free not to point that out if I don't want to.
In the past, whenever I've looked for public domain stuff I've most often tried to stay with the stuff that has the least restrictive kind of license. So these days, when I get to that "source" box and decide what to do about the "optional" thing, I'll include my own name when the image is mine (mostly so nobody thinks I got it from someone else), and I may/may not include "public domain" (although I most often do, I think). I've always assumed that if the source doesn't specify credit, and if HP has "optional" (which I've always taken to mean (essentially), "Here's the space for credit if the image requires it, or if you want to include it even though you don't have to".
If any of that's wrong, and if anyone wants to point out what's the right way to do things; anyone under the same kind of impression I've been under could change their ways (or at least look further into whether what someone says is the wrong way is, in fact, the wrong way). So many times when someone does something that's not right it's only because they thought they they way they were doing things was OK. Sometimes, too, what can look like someone "just too someone else's image" (or text) from a blog could actually be the same person with a different name. I'm not saying that's always the case, but it can be. I've had a few times when someone assumed something that wasn't true about something I've done on here. Sometimes a good way to do things might be to just politely ask the person if/when possible.
@Lisa: Properly claiming credit for your own photos can draw traffic from Google Images. Doing so for each photo, ensures that your name is attached to each photo.
<link snipped - no promotional links>
Both this image and the one just above it (scroll up) are mine, but attributed differently.
Howard, thanks. That's useful information for people who take their images more seriously than I do mine. I pretty much have always only wanted to make sure nobody thinks I took someone else's image. My concern with my own stuff is that if anyone ever searches for, say, "pink petunias", and gets my pictures; he's not going to be too thrilled with my quickie cell phone pictures (but in spite of it, he may steal the image anyway; because God knows a lot of people aren't really picky about what they steal. ). However, later on I'm going to go have a better look at the information in that Hub. It is useful and not anything I've ever paid much attention to (Google images). One of these days I may change my peculiar (and I know, often misguided) ways of doing things.
That sounds fine to me, so long as you're sure the image really is public domain. I see a lot of people referring to photos as "public domain" just because they appear on a website with no copyright statement or specific license. Which is not the case at all, in fact exactly the opposite.
If I knew of this pie hub, I would flag the hub and the hubber profile, and also out the person here on the spot to shame her.
This is just another example of the stupidity of hub and hubber scores and also a worrying indication that double standards may be operating on this site.
It seems to imply that the 100-score "teachers' pets" can get away with theft and cheating, while others are persecuted by having hubs pulled for the most minor infractions.
I see the site name has imprinted its web address on the photos she used. That isn't allowed, AND her hub has been pinned 19 times already, and they weren't even her photos.
Oh, jeez, Bill! I just left a nice little comment for this Hub! Thank you for the head's up. I'll go back and flag it. Or what else can one do other than contact HubPages Adm or her?
I do feel your pain about people who steal and don't bother to give credit where credit is due. I don't KNOW how to pull photographs from sites, so I only use my own photographs and drawings.
As for those Hubscores? Mine drift anywhere from 85-94. But as long as I'm constantly making pennies, who cares???
I always use my own photos when I can, because a lot of my hubs are recipes. I feel that posting someone else's photo of recipes is like false advertising. But once in a while I need a generic photo of something that I don't have on hand. Google "Public domain photos" and you'll find lots of sites that allow you to use their photos for free. Some are for unrestricted use, some require that you give them credit, and some have slightly more restrictions.
This makes me sad. I looked through this hubbers hubs and did searches on her topics and many were just rewrites of what was already out there. She was not ranked on the top pages so maybe goole realized this isn't original content. However, I use most my own photos-not very professional looking, but they are mine. For one of my cooking demonstrations I actually did the video-it does not look professional but it is mine! She said in response to her comments she made them and they tasted good- well why did she not take pictures as she made them? I'm not a professional and I don't pretend to be...Mary615 has such integrity she actually asked in another forum if it would be moral to share an old favorite recipe since she doesn’t know where it originally came from- now that's honest. I think this hubber has lost all integrity. This is probably going to get me my first ban…
Visited Manley's hub! Wow, what a trooper. She re-wrote the hub and used all her own photos...looks great. Much better than the first one in my opinion. It is well worth a second look. I voted it up and I am now following her. Great Job, Kristin Manley.
Thanks for the suggestion, Bill! Something for me to look forward to when I'm beyond the DUH stage of tech. I've been doing DUH for quite some time. Hahahaha! I do understand using photos for recipes, through. It's not that we can always take photographs to illustrate our Hubs.
My Hubs have a mixture of my own photos, and free public domain images. When using the latter, I always credit the site where they came from. With the exception of one image, I have not been able to find the name of the image's creator. When I can, I will be naming them.
If HP permitted us to use watermarked or embedded credits on our original photos, this may help stop this sort thing.
The Whriters Dog, I think most people do exactly what we do. Either use the public domain images mixed in with our own. Some do not use there own (learned this in other threads) because they do not want people pinning them or using them without permission, so I agree about watermarks on your own photos. I used some pictures of my son's he took of birds on one of my hubs. One of them he recently won an award for, I really don't want someone using this picture- so I am taking it off and replacing it with one from the public domain--- It is not that she did not use her own photos. Her photos were not from the public domain images. The problem with me is she used photos from a website who has asked for people not to use them without permission- and used their information (just reworded it) did not give them credit and is presenting it as her own original idea. Either she is doing this because she does not understand what is permissible or she is not honest. Either way she should fix it. My rant earlier was it is best to take a picture of your own-even if you are not a professional and it looks amateurish than if you can not find one in the public domain than steal.
A hub that is apparently plagiarized should be flagged. I'm sure someone here has done that by now. (I haven't because I haven't personally verified.) Furthermore, if this is a pattern with multiple hubs, then the author's profile page should be flagged. Don't be too concerned about being overly judgmental. You're not making the call, HubPages will do that. You're just pointing out who and which to look at.
I am interested to see that the plagiarised material of this hub is still up, despite the fact it must have been flagged several times by virtue of it being drawn to people's attention in this thread.
Moreover, we have not been favoured with any official comments on the matter from HP staff.
So, are we to assume that the favoured 100-point hubber-scorers can steal other people's work and not face any comeback here? Incidentally, I was interested to note that a 100 hubber score can be achieved by someone with a lower average hub score than my current one, whereas my current hubber score is 91 and has never exceeded 94.
"To those that have, more will be given.... "
I immediately flagged this sucker when I saw this Forum post, and I am sorry that I had left her comments in the first place. When you read these articles on HubPages, you automatically feel that the writer is being honest with you. Now, all I can do is remember the name and ignore her writing from now on. This is so frustrating, but I did my part and flagged it. I saw the article this morning, and she was still getting comments, but her score dropped to 95. Big deal! Scores like this don't count! I do understand that writers steal all of the time, but HubPages is for my entertainment. And, by enjoying this article and leaving good vibes that weren't really earned by this "writer"--well, I'm screwed as a reader. Her behavior is such an insult to those of us who write our own hubs, take our own photographs or even struggle all the time with tech. So do the right thing and give credit where credit is due! Most of us already do!
"Impressive?" In what way? For her STEALING? The score means nothing, but there are Hubbers out there who are totally anal about their scores and find it such a "milestone" to hit 100. Like, are you earning more pennies just because you've hit 100? N-O-T!!!
I'll be honest, my only objection to the hub was having a watermarked picture. It can't be one rule for some and a different rule for others.
The hubs itself did fall on very similar lines to other sites, but so do many of mine!
And I used to have 100 hubscore.
Maybe that is what is wrong, I need to re-word other people's work again to attain that dizzy height! (only joking).
Let this drop folks, because at the end of the day, that was a very well written hub that is reaching a wider audience I expect than many other articles out there do.
That is the advantage of the Hubpages platform. For all we know, that is her site too she 'seemingly' copied (but didn't, because it is re-worded).
For me, I'd never even heard of the topic she wrote about, so if she hadn't, I'd still be in the dark.
Bill, you have some amazing photographs! Would love to pick up your cookbook someday.
Thanks. At the present time, my cookbook doesn't contain any photos, but I'm working on a new edition that will have full color photos of every recipe. I'm about half way there.
Just read a Hub that was a 6 line poem. First photo had a watermark from Dreamstime.com, the second photo had no attribution at all. The same author is asking readers to share with FB, Twitter, and Pinterest. I thought photos to be pinned on Pinterest should be your original.
Just tell me to mind my own business and I will.
They don't have to be your own but they should not be copyrighted to someone else.
Flag it for watermarked photos and add the detail in the comments section. We all have a part to play in maintaining standards.
I just checked another hub and had to laugh. This hubber used very professional-looking photos, so I checked the attribution. Each one was dutifully labled: "Source: Internet"
This may be common in the future if online thievery continues as it has!
Heck no! I got it off Pinterest, so it must be legal!
Whatcha talkin' 'bout Randy?! I OWN Pinterest!!!
Cool, cause I believe Bill--see the post above--would like a few words with you!
Hey Bill! Internet is as good a source as any!
Pssst... Randy... does he know where I live?
Well, never a truer word has been spoken, or written in this case
by imgreencat6 years ago
I spent quite a while collecting some public domain photos that I thought I could use for my subjects of interest. I burned them to a disc, and I'm able to view them in my documents as well as off the disc. ...
by ruthwalker3 years ago
Hi there, joined HP a little while ago but only just got round to writing my first hub. It is going to be an historical piece but seem to be spending most of my time trying to find who owns copyright to the images I...
by ThreeKeys13 months ago
Just noticed my two public domain images for my creative call outs to invent a replacement word for "love" and "loss" were removed. Its the first time. How come?
by Mary Hyatt5 years ago
If I can't do my own photography, I go to great lenths to credit the source I've used, but I have noticed that some of best Hubbers use a photograph with no credit, then there are others who go to a lot of trouble and...
by FloraBreenRobison5 years ago
Based on the answers to the question I posted yesterday - motivated in part by the TOS difficulties with Pinterest and the new Pin It button - many people see no reason to cite photgraphs that are:a) in the public...
by Celina Martin4 years ago
Just wondering, is it necessary to mention source link while using photos from search engines. And, if I do will it be beneficial for my hub or not?
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.