Request: Disable automatic importing of images

Discussion in 'Forum Announcements/Suggestions' started by renthus, Jul 25, 2014.

  1. renthusWell Known MemberMember

    I'm probably a minority in that I actually care about this, but is there any way that we can make it so that images shown via img tags (NOT those uploaded via the upload tool) don't get imported and stored on the fishlore servers? I keep most of my images on my own web host or my imgur account, and I like being able to maintain a degree of control over them (to the extent that any control over uploaded content can exist). If a picture is hosted on my imgur account, I can pretty much delete it. When it's on your servers, I've lost all control over the file. Considering how much of a stink the mods raise over posting images we don't own, this feels like a weird thing for you to be doing anyway.

  2. MikeFishloreAdmin Moderator Member

    We have had issues in the past where photos have been deleted that were linked in that manner and it rendered the thread useless. This is after other members have taken the time to respond in threads and those threads could be very useful to other members or visitors with the same question in the future.

    With that being said, if a member contacts me or another moderator we will definitely try to work with you if something needs deleting.

    Also, please keep in mind, as part of the membership agreement when signing up members agree to the following:
    "IMPORTANT: All uploaded photos, videos, articles and text (posts) become property of If a member is banned we may or may not delete the banned member's posts, videos, articles or text."


  3. renthusWell Known MemberMember

    I see how that would be a concern. Still, I like the idea of keeping the current system as the default, but implementing a checkbox toggle in the UCP, almost like an "opt out" for the (probably) small minority that actually cares.

    The bit from the membership agreement is actually key to my thinking. With standard bbcode img tags, without this auto-import thing (which, and I may be wrong, seems relatively new), the images are never actually uploaded to your server. The bbcode gets parsed into <img> tags, and a line like <img></img> will be stored on your server. The actual example.jpg image file never touches your servers, the http GET request just gives my browser the html, and then goes and requests the image from that other host. Legally speaking, you can't claim ownership of things like that. It would be like Yahoo claiming ownership of Google Maps data because someone posted a link to street-viewing their house.

    But that's not quite what's happening. In this case, without the users ever providing consent (unless it's hidden somewhere in the terms of service), their files are being fetched and copied/redistributed to your server. Again, though, this is more or less bogus. When a user chooses to post text or upload media via the upload tool, then you've got implied consent for you to be claiming/receiving their data. In this case, though, it's the equivalent of someone sending me a link to a Youtube video, but then me going and ripping the video file and claiming ownership.

    tl;dr: This case doesn't really count as "uploaded photos," and even if it did, from neither a legal nor logical perspective can you claim ownership. IMO your options are to either add a specific disclaimer in the ToS that links to images will be imported and that it's effectively identical to a user upload (an approach that's kinda rude in its own way), or just implement an opt-out checkbox that 99% of users won't choose and will be unlikely to present problems.


    By the way, this is from the IMGUR Terms of Service.

    Last edited: Jul 25, 2014
  4. MikeFishloreAdmin Moderator Member

    The main purpose behind it is not to horde your photos rather it is to keep the integrity of the thread. Fishlore is not a photo storage service. It is an informational forum where losing a picture in a thread could render the thread useless and the time members took to respond in those threads would be wasted. Nothing more, nothing less.

    If this a big concern I would just not upload or link your pictures here. Problem solved.
  5. renthusWell Known MemberMember

    The snippet from imgur's ToS wasn't meant to compare your policy to theirs. It was meant to point out that by downloading and claiming ownership of content uploaded there (and these policies are pretty standard across image hosters), Fishlore is technically breaking copyright law (their ToS is legally valid and binding). In other words, the rules that the mods are so (rightfully) diligent about enforcing with regards to linking/embedding images that we don't own are equally applicable here. It's a DMCA issue.

    Personally, I'm grudgingly willing to simply use hard-links to my images as opposed to img tags, thus bypassing your import system, but that doesn't change the fact that claiming ownership of automatic imports is pretty blatantly illegal (and morally questionable) given that this most definitely does not count as personal use.
  6. TJBenderWell Known MemberMember

    I'm a professional photographer, and I'm loathe to upload my work to sites like Facebook or Twitter because you just don't know what they're going to claim and/or do with it. In the case of FL, I wouldn't hesitate to upload a photo, because I know that Mike's not out to steal and sell our images, and I know that the FL TOS wouldn't hold up in court if he even were so inclined as to claim ownership of someone else's picture (he's not).

    If it bothers you so much, just watermark your pictures. Problem solved.
  7. renthusWell Known MemberMember

    Oh I agree with you. I don't think Mike is going to do anything bad with my stuff. However, I'm one of those people who fights things on principle. Considering how much of my own stuff (open source projects, for instance) I share and publish, being able to maintain control over what I create is kinda a big issue for me.
  8. TJBenderWell Known MemberMember


    It's my second-favorite piece of photography software, right after Photoshop. Quick, clean, you can pick the placement and opacity, and putting something like:

    (C) Your Name, 2014
    No release is granted
    All rights reserved

    will take care of virtually any TOS that tries to leech your photo. If nothing else and someone does decide to try and steal your image (*cough*Instagram*cough*), all they own the rights to is an unusable watermarked picture.
  9. LucyModeratorModerator Member

    Too bad other sites don't 'raise a stink' eeerrrr I mean respect other people's work and not allow pictures to be posted without explicit rights to do so.
  10. SlugWell Known MemberMember

    I agree I'm not that worried about Mike or Fishlore doing anything of the sorts with my Images, and I know Mike/Fishlore would have no problem with me going and printing/selling prints of certain photos of mine after I posted them here. I understand the reason to preserve threads.

    However I am taking further steps to protect myself off of this site with copyrights. I can't tell you how many times i get tagged in a photo on facebook, or linked to a photo saying someone is using it without permission, or my copyright stamp is cut off, etc. To many times to count. Its crazy to think MY photos have made it that far across the globe to pages I can't even read due to languages. Those I've already posted, especially to social media I've already determined I cannot control those any longer, they are in the hands of the internet. But from here on out I've set copyright in my camera settings so in the EXIF data it will say my name and copyright date so anywhere it goes it should retain it, as well as moving my copyright stamp somewhere on the photo it can't be removed. Still trying to come up with a creative but non eyesore way of making this happen but its coming. I'm very lenient currently on letting people use my photos anyway if they ask.

    Point is, while I agree with both sides, its just not a battle I need to fight. I was a bit confused when I first noticed it but I'm just not to worried about it.
  11. renthusWell Known MemberMember

    ^ If you read the rest of my posts you'd see that I agree with you, and if anything I'm going further with the whole thing of respecting the rights of content creators. Not sure if you read it like I was saying reacting to copyright is bad, but that wasn't the intention.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice