Comments on: Dvorak answers

By: mike

mike — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:43:06 +0000

“Calls them as I sees them” – that’s a heck of a handle.

On instance #1, Wave Hub. Count A of HotLinking, Guilty. Hoisted on my own petard. Ouch! It was a mistake and it’s now corrected. On Count B of no Attribution, Not Guilty. There are multiple references and links back to the source material where the image is located. To make things less fuzzy, I’ve added a label. And, if REA has an issue with this and asks me to change/modify/delete the reference(s) I will do so. Thanks for calling the error to my attention so it could be fixed.

On instance #2, Soda Lake Geothermal Plant image, I think you’re mistaken. This is one of a set of photos provided to me by a colleague (of many different geothermal plants in particular.) I have permission to use this photo and am using it in a manner consistent with the wishes of the creator. This person may have also supplied the image in question to other sources, I don’t know. I believe I’m clean on this one.

But back to the core issue, notice, I researched your complaints, acknowledged and fixed them, and will strive not to make the same mistake twice.

By: R Forrest

R Forrest — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:42:23 +0000

Well one thing is for certain, traffic to this blog has increased! So who looses out?

By: calls them as I sees them

calls them as I sees them — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:55:22 +0000

You’re doing the same thing. Or is this a “do as I say, not as I do” sort of deal?

The image your post at http://montaraventures.com/energy/2007/05/01/englands-wave-hub-gets-43m/ is hotlinked from http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/assets/images/story/2007/4/30/1332_OceanFarm_USE.jpg
without attribution.

The picture in your post at http://montaraventures.com/energy/2007/09/07/constellations-publicity-stunt/
taken from http://www.nevadarenewables.org/?section=geothermal&subsection=projects&id=93
cropped and again not attribution.

Being a bit hypocritical aren’t we? Nice.

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:18:13 +0000

“Wow, I really wanted to comment on the Dvorak blog but they shut the comments which is total crap”

John has opened up the comments, so go back and have at it.

“They write an entire blog post to explain how legally they aren’t doing anything wrong.”

Let me get this straight, someone is accused of stealing and they are NOT supposed to use the law to prove their innocence?! They’re just supposed to submit to the accusation?! Wow.

And as I’ve already pointed out above, I did not write the article to show or prove fault, I used this merely to explore the issue of the legality of linking.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:10:32 +0000

Thanks for the comments Sean and Seth, I appreciate your participation and your perspective.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:53:43 +0000

Here is what’s really amusing:

You may have never read the Dvorak blog before, but I’ve been visiting for a couple years. There is a theme that runs through many of their posts, and that is; Most laws are dumb, and people should use a little common sense, morality, and decency to settle situations.

Now that someone has pointed out that what they’re doing is “indecent” and rude by Interweb standards, what is their reaction? They run off to the law. They hide behind it. They write an entire blog post to explain how legally they aren’t doing anything wrong.

By: Seth

Seth — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:43:40 +0000

Wow, I really wanted to comment on the Dvorak blog but they shut the comments which is total crap considering the title of the post is an actual question.

Hot linking does suck. I take images for my blog all the time but I upload them to my server only consuming my bandwidth. I also look for stuff on Flickr with Creative Commons License. Hot linking though, is just unforgivable.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:31:56 +0000

Peace. Thank you. Finished, finito, done.

And, it is an interesting topic.

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:09:20 +0000

“All that’s required of you is to say you guys made a mistake”

We should probably be having this conversation via email. But, we’re not. So let’s move on. If you want me to say I’m sorry, I’ll say it. I’m sorry. It doesn’t really mean anything because I have no control over what the contributing editor did and John’s blog in general. I’m less than a peon, I’m a contributing editor.

In reality I’m just a lawyer who has been mulling over the whole hotlinking thing for a while so this gave me the perfect time to set it to words. I realize you didn’t intend it to be a referendum on hotlinking, but you did provide me the perfect opportunity to make it into one. Thanks!

By: mike

mike — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:03:17 +0000

Thanks Steve for back linking from the original entry on dvorak.org.

This isn’t intended to be a referendum on hot linking, that’s a red herring. What’s missing here is appropriate stewardship of these shared resources. I tend to agree about share and share alike, I wouldn’t have even known you used the image if it hadn’t been hot linked. However, it’s pretty well known and understood that if you’re going to use someone else’s work, you at least give credit and perhaps ask permission.

All that’s required of you is to say you guys made a mistake, I’ll let it go. But you want to defend your actions and make this some “big bad dark spectre” of the end of the internet. That’s horse hockey and you know it.

Man up, say you made a mistake and that you guys will give attribution in the future. How hard is that?