Image hotlinking... why?

Imageshack never works for.

Its a piece of poo IMO

I use photobucket because that works and keeps my pictures
 
If you don't want everyone and anyone hot-linking your images then don't put them up on the public domain, implement security if you are concerned about your bandwidth and user base.
 
I must admit, the hotlinking rule doesn't make much sense when it comes to websites like the bbc which would never replace the image with something dodgy obviously, and everyone pays for the website via the tv license so are entitled to the bandwidth.
 
GSXRMovistar said:
If you don't want everyone and anyone hot-linking your images then don't put them up on the public domain, implement security if you are concerned about your bandwidth and user base.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and as for re-hosting, this is essentially just stealing somebody elses work is it not.
 
Clarkey said:
Indeed, and as for re-hosting, this is essentially just stealing somebody elses work is it not.
Click to expand...
<devil's advocate>

Heh, that's a good point... how many people request permission before potentially violating someone's copyright by uploading their work to one of the many image hosting sites?

</devil's advocate>
 
fail at the internets said:
If you put something on the internet surely you expect that your content will be viewed and as such shouldn't be able to moan once people do.. No hotlinking rule is silly imo.
Click to expand...

Do you realize it costs money to host images? Why should I pay when somebody takes an image off my website and puts it on his own? The image is on his website yet I'm paying for it. If you can't see what's wrong with that, you're not thinking hard enough.

Let's say I make a watch appreciation website - I take photos of this particular watch, I then host it on my website, which costs money. Then another person thinks 'oh I'll make a watch appreciation website too', but instead of paying for his website or taking his own pictures, he goes to mine, presses right click on my pictures, and copys the image location onto his website. If people visit that website and sees the images, -I'm- paying for it, and not him.

Money, people! Simply rehosting will be fine with 99% of image hosts. If that person asked to take the images on my website and hosted them himself, I would be ok with it, because then I'm not paying for it anymore. The image being copyrighted, and the image being hosted, are two entirely different issues. So you can actually 'steal' an image in two different ways. One is to take the picture still being hosted on my server and putting it on another website. The other is to duplicate the image or making it appear on a website other than the place it originated from. The vast majority of images aren't copyrighted at all, unless explicitly stated otherwise (the rule of the internet - it's not copyrighted unless it says otherwise!) So the 'oh it's not your picture so it's stealing anyway even if you rehost' is a rubbish argument and rebuttal! Not rehosting is stealing and forcing others to pay! Don't do it!

Yes I used to run a website, and had massive problems with image leechers before in the past. I eventually set it up so that when it detected hotlinking, the image on the usurper's website would be replaced with explicit and extreme homosexual pornography. It's harsh but it's really the only way to deter bandwidth stealers.
 
Last edited:
KNiVES said:
I eventually set it up so that when it detected hotlinking, the image on the usurper's website would be replaced with explicit and extreme homosexual pornography. It's harsh but it's really the only way to deter bandwidth stealers.
Click to expand...

or attract some of em lol
 
Actually the whole "hotlinking is bad" mentality is a bit out-dated.

Back in the old 56k days of the internet people who had websites didn't have nearly as much bandwidth as they do today, so if people hot linked their images it caused problems. Today though, we (webmasters) have so much bandwidth available to us that it really doesn't make much difference. It's only very large, very popular sites that it matters to.

Example: I pay £5 and have 100gb bandwidth (per month).
 
Last edited:
marc2003 said:
you wouldn't say that if you were paying for hosting and you had a monthly bandwidth cap. then someone hotlinks an image and your bandwidth charges skyrocket and you have to pay $$$. or even worse, you reach your cap and your site is taken offline until you pay up. think about it..... :)
Click to expand...


You think about it.
Who stops someone hot-linking my images else where that they find here on a non-hot linked rule forum.

Also, half the time how are mods going to know if it's my site or not.
 
Energize said:
I must admit, the hotlinking rule doesn't make much sense when it comes to websites like the bbc which would never replace the image with something dodgy obviously, and everyone pays for the website via the tv license so are entitled to the bandwidth.
Click to expand...

This is my problem with it tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom