On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
One click vs.. I don't agree that it's at all comparable
Well, in neither case is it obvious that the credits are even available at all, and I think that's the important similarity. But that's neither here nor there. If we're okay with the image merely linking to the image page on Wikipedia, it should be okay for hotlinks too.
(Why are the links not something simple anyway, again, like http://commons.wikimedia.org/thumb/Image:ImageName.png/800x600? That would *almost* allow replacing "thumb" with "wiki" to get the image page . . . there's no reason to have it retrieve directly from the filesystem, when everything is cached by Squid anyway.)
But see in the hotlinking case we're an active participant. It doesn't continue without our help.
You mean, it doesn't continue if we decide to actively (possibly at a hit to performance) go out of our way to try to filter out those images. And even then it still probably continues, just people have to reupload it somewhere -- without *any* ability for the interested viewer to track where it's from, tech-savvy or not.
Besides, as I pointed out.. there are clear actions which we can take to mitigate the harm: good linking instructions, offering extensions to popular blogging platforms, and preserving/filling out image metadata.
That I agree with. :)
Cool. 'nuff. You might want to hunt down mangus little JS example. I can't find it at the moment, but the user interface was pretty reasonable as I recall.
Is there any problem with something that just looks like Flickr? Actually, I don't see any interface for this on Flickr -- say ImageShack, then?
Where should the instructions be put, right under the image?
Do we have agreement that we actually want this? It's rather a big leap in the opposite direction from the OP. :)