Mar. 15th, 2012

nicpel: (Default)
Okay, so the debate, whining and arguments about proper image usage on Squidoo rages on (and probably will forever until HQ cleans up and clarifies its policies). Today's latest entry into the kerfluffle: If an image is free and clear for use (public domain, your own work, or from a free image source like morguefile), why "waste valuable space" on a lens including image credits if you don't have to?

Let me tell you why.

1. HQ is at least starting to ask for image credits to be included on Quests for front page placement. Certainly this is the result of several recent Lenses of the Day coming in to question because of their dubious image sourcing (one was flat out taken down last week before the day was out). I'm not thrilled that they're only requiring credits, not checking that the images are free and legal to use, but it's a start. So if you want to see your lens get extra traffic from being on the Squidoo entry page? Credit your photos.

2. Credits are a way to easily get click-outs. Click-outs are good. Click-outs boost your lens rank. If you're using a photo from morguefile, wikimedia commons, or any other site, why not include a small image credit with a link out to the source file? Some people might want to see the image in original/full resolution, or check out more of the photographer's other work.

3. Credits prove you are working with the system. Many Squid Angels (like myself) are diligent about only blessing lenses if we can see clear, hard evidence that any/all images on the lens are legally allowed. And sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference between a great personal photo, a great photo from morguefile, or a completely copyrighted photo that isn't supposed to be used on a commercial site like Squidoo. So why not make it easier for us, if you want the lens rank boost of a blessing? Even non-Angels may only "Like" lenses or share them around if they are sure the lens is following legal image usage.

4. If a photo is your own work, why not brag about it! If you're using your own photography on a lens, tell the world! Who knows, someone might like your work well enough to commission you or pay you to use your photography on another website or for other purposes.

5. Ease of future editing. Say you've uploaded an image to a module after grabbing it (legally I hope) somewhere on line. A few months later you want to reformat the image/crop it/enhance it/answer a question about its origin and original photographer. Or maybe there's a system bug/crash that loses your original image upload. By including a credit/link when originally adding it to a lens, you save yourself the trouble of having to hunt down the source of that image again in the future.

6. It's just good etiquette and polite. Whenever I see or hear someone whining about having to provide image credits on a lens, I wonder if they aren't protesting too much. Yes, it takes a few seconds extra work. But even if you don't HAVE to credit someone for using their photography, isn't it a nice thing to do? Good karma, people.
nicpel: (serious)
I'll just give my answers here because I'm tired of head-desking in frustration.

"If I took a quick picture of my kid's toy, why am I crediting?"

Because it adds credibility that you actually have personal experience with the item you're reviewing, writing about, promoting, etc.

"If I draw something, why am I crediting?"

Um, because it's YOUR HARD WORK and I should think you'd want to take credit for that. I sure as heck don't put any of my art or drawings out there without stating that it's my work. I honestly don't understand NOT DOING THIS.

"If I paid out cash to use a stock photo that didn't require credit slapped all over it, why am I crediting?"

Because a lot of people abuse stock image sites. Fact of internet life these days. They don't pay, yet they use an image (even just a thumbnail if they can't download the full-size version without watermarks) and there's no way to tell if they bought it or are stealing it. Perhaps they're even stealing the full-size version from someone ELSE who paid for the rights to use that image on ANOTHER website.

"If an image is absolutely positively in the public domain or cannot be copyrighted for various reasons, why am I crediting?"

Because not everyone KNOWS it's "absolutely positively" in the public domain - I mean, how precisely do YOU even know? There are a lot of images on Flickr and Wikimedia Commons claimed to be Public Domain that aren't or have dubious rights. I've seen a lot of publicity photos for actors and rock bands scanned in and uploaded to Flickr and called "Public domain" when they sure as hell aren't.

Once more, I fail to comprehend WHY PROVIDING IMAGE CREDITS IS SO AWFUL AND TERRIBLE A BURDEN. I see nothing but benefits in doing so...and a lot of potential negative in not crediting.

*sigh*

Profile

nicpel: (Default)
Nicole ("sockii") Pellegrini

January 2013

S M T W T F S
  1234 5
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27 28293031  

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 08:45 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios