none
Why should I embed the images? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have some images stored in a free online server. So, when I want to insert an image in a page I use everytime the same way:

    1. Find the image I want to insert, and copy its URL.
    2. Click Insert image from file button in EW
    3. Paste the URL in the File name field of Image dialog box

    Well, when I try to save the page, EW occasionally brings up a dialog box asking me to rename, embed, or make some other choices, I can't recall right now.

    While I always use the same identical steps, why does the dialog box appear whenever it likes?
    How to make it stop appearing especially when I perform that procedure?
    Is there another way to insert an image? I can try it, to see if the problem persists...

    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 6:31 PM

All replies

  • Import any images you are using into a folder (named Images or whatever) in your web.  Reference them from that folder, and when you publish, make sure you publish the images from the folder to your host.

    An advantage of doing it that way is you are not dependent on some distant site to serve up your images.



    ClarkNK, A.K.A. HomePage Doctor
    HomePageDoctor.com -- Expression Web database tutorials
    Ownertrades.com -- Created with FP, Access, Bots and Wizards
    MyNumbersTracker.com -- Created with Expression, VWDExress, SQL Express, and ASP.NET.
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:01 PM
  • Yes, there is another way to embed an image.

    In code view, at the location in the page you want the image, type:

    <img src="your_copied_url" alt="description_of_photo" />

    If you do that, you will not get the request to embed. Also, when you do it this way, you learn how to add images to this message board which can only be done in code.


    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:01 PM
  • Import any images you are using into a folder (named Images or whatever) in your web.  Reference them from that folder, and when you publish, make sure you publish the images from the folder to your host.

    An advantage of doing it that way is you are not dependent on some distant site to serve up your images.

    You might want to have the other site server those images because the other site has more bandwidth and more storage. Also, the OP may not have the copyright that allows him to store and serve the image.
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:10 PM
  • While that may address the issue at hand, it does not cover the increasing, and logical, use of CDNs (Content Delivery Networks) to enable referencing hosted assets for use in one's site.

    I do understand the EW focus on "if it's in the site, it should be in the site" for local assets. However, I hope that the next version will provide a "Don't ask me again" checkbox in the save dialog for those who wish to use remotely hosted resources in their Web design and evelopment.

    cheers,
    scott


    C'mon, folks. This isn't rocket science, nor neurosurgery. It's "Expression" (singular) "Web" (singular), in that order, followed by a version numeral if you wish to be specific. It is often abbreviated "EW." It is not "Web Expression," "Expressions Web," "Web Expressions," or plain "Expression" or "Expressions." Not using the correct name indicates either ignorance or laziness. Most folks would rather avoid the appearance of either.
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:20 PM
  • Good points.

    Regarding the copyright thing -- if you do not have license for an image, and so bring up the image on your page using a link to it from that server that has a right to store the image, the result is indistinguishable (to the site visitor) from you storing the image yourself.

    I guess then the copyright thing must have to be satisfied by that server having a right to share the image?  So your use of it may be legal (or not) depending on whether someone else is legit ---

    I'm just thinkin' ---- 



    ClarkNK, A.K.A. HomePage Doctor
    HomePageDoctor.com -- Expression Web database tutorials
    Ownertrades.com -- Created with FP, Access, Bots and Wizards
    MyNumbersTracker.com -- Created with Expression, VWDExress, SQL Express, and ASP.NET.
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 8:19 PM
  • I am no expert on this Clark, but it seems to me that the copyright law is about making copies. If the only thing I send from my server is the address of content on someone else's server it would seem to me that I am in a better position legally than if there were an actual copy on my server and it was sending the actual content. That is how Google Image works.

     

     

    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 8:59 PM
  • Pulling an image from someone's site and displaying on yours without permission is a violation of copyright and is also "deep linking" which is another issue of bandwidth theft.
    MS MVP Expression Tutorials & Help http://by-expression.com
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 9:54 PM
  • Pulling an image from someone's site and displaying on yours without permission is a violation of copyright and is also "deep linking" which is another issue of bandwidth theft.
    MS MVP Expression Tutorials & Help http://by-expression.com
    From Wikipedia:

    Sometimes, deep linking has led to legal action such as in the 1997 case of Ticketmaster versus Microsoft , where Microsoft deep-linked to Ticketmaster's site from its Sidewalk service. This case was settled when Microsoft and Ticketmaster arranged a licensing agreement.

    Ticketmaster later filed a similar case against Tickets.com, and the judge in this case ruled that such linking was legal as long as it was clear to whom the linked pages belonged . The court also concluded that URLs themselves were not copyrightable , writing: "A URL is simply an address, open to the public, like the street address of a building, which, if known, can enable the user to reach the building. There is nothing sufficiently original to make the URL a copyrightable item, especially the way it is used. There appear to be no cases holding the URLs to be subject to copyright. On principle, they should not be."

    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:07 PM
  • Time Bandit - definitely wrong, there.  Linking to a picture from another site without permission from the copyright owner is the same breach of law as copying it to your site.  Do NOT do it.  It is considered republishing it without permission.

    The OP was speaking, I hope, about his own pictures stored elsewhere.

    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:09 PM
  • Time Bandit - definitely wrong, there.  Linking to a picture from another site without permission from the copyright owner is the same breach of law as copying it to your site.  Do NOT do it.  It is considered republishing it without permission.

    The OP was speaking, I hope, about his own pictures stored elsewhere.


    I happen to know that Google Image does exactly what you are saying is illegal. They have thumb nails of my images referenced from my sites and they have not asked permission. So what legal basis is Google relying on?
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:15 PM
  • You might want to have the other site server those images because the other site has more bandwidth and more storage. Also, the OP may not have the copyright that allows him to store and serve the image.

    You've just answered for me in that part of my post!
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:17 PM
  • Ask Google, not me, for details.  But search engines exist to display results (text, not just images) that point you to the source and owner of that information. They don't pretend it's their own content.   And you agree to it for your content - if you tell them not to search your content, they won't.  You'd need to talk to lawyers about the details there (and some online newspapers have challenged it, actually), but I assure you, a hot linking to an image for your site, without explicit permission, does not qualify for whatever fair use concept they are using.
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:21 PM
  • If you link to the image so that it shows up in your site you are not making it clear thatyou do not own the copyright. Instead you are giving the appearance that it is your content and not clearly identifying the content owner which is what the Ticketmaster case was about.  Frames were used to display content deep within Ticketmaster's site while keeping the visitor on their own site.
    MS MVP Expression Tutorials & Help http://by-expression.com
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:25 PM
  • Google is relying on "fair use" since it is just a thumbnail and they will remove your images from their index if you tell them to do so.
    MS MVP Expression Tutorials & Help http://by-expression.com
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:26 PM
  • Ask Google, not me, for details.  But search engines exist to display results (text, not just images) that point you to the source and owner of that information. They don't pretend it's their own content.   And you agree to it for your content - if you tell them not to search your content, they won't.  You'd need to talk to lawyers about the details there (and some online newspapers have challenged it, actually), but I assure you, a hot linking to an image for your site, without explicit permission, does not qualify for whatever fair use concept they are using.

    You have contradicted yourself Kathy in your last two posts. If you read carefully what you responded to you will find the contradiction.

    Here we see Google copying my content - by reference - and they did not ask for permission.

    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:27 PM
  • Yes, there is another way to embed an image.

    <img src="your_copied_url" alt="description_of_photo" />

    I know, I know... But then I'll have more work to do, if I want to include height and width attributes:

    Go to Design mode
    Double click the Image
    Click the Appearance tab
    Check the Specify size check box
    Click OK.

    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:31 PM
  • I do understand the EW focus on "if it's in the site, it should be in the site" for local assets. However, I hope that the next version will provide a "Don't ask me again" checkbox in the save dialog for those who wish to use remotely hosted resources in their Web design and evelopment.


    I vote for this!

    That was my first thought! A check box would be nice!

    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:34 PM
  • If you don't want google to index your pictures, you can tell them not to.  Their bot behaves.   Yes, I mispoke when I said you gave permission.  What I mean is that the permission they assume (again - you need to talk to a lawyer about their legal justification) can easily be revoked by you.  They aren't trying to steal content from you and present it as their own. None of this changes the legality of you hot linking another person's picture to your site without permission. That's not legal.
    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:42 PM
  • I'm sorry for I don't answer to every one of you about that copyright thing. However there is no such a problem. I only use some snapshots of Word GUI (menus, toolbars, buttons, etc) for a site about "the Word from the view of a simple user". I hope Microsoft won't sue me for this!

    So, could we please focus on my first request? Or should I take paladyn's answer as "there is not answer"?

    Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:48 PM
  • If you don't want google to index your pictures, you can tell them not to.  Their bot behaves.   Yes, I mispoke when I said you gave permission.  What I mean is that the permission they assume (again - you need to talk to a lawyer about their legal justification) can easily be revoked by you.  They aren't trying to steal content from you and present it as their own. None of this changes the legality of you hot linking another person's picture to your site without permission. That's not legal.


    You are wrong about this as far as I am able to tell Kathy:

     

    Copyright law issues that inline linking raises

    The most significant legal fact about inline linking, relative to copyright law considerations, is that the inline linker does not place a copy of the image file on its own Internet server. Rather, the inline linker places a pointer on its Internet server that points to the server on which the proprietor of the image has placed the image file. This pointer causes a user's browser to jump to the proprietor's server and fetch the image file to the user's computer. US courts have considered this a decisive fact in copyright analysis. Thus, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law:

    Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts....

    Wednesday, August 4, 2010 12:06 AM
  • Read the full article quoted at the bottom (I found it by searching) (I have no idea what you are quoting at the top).  There's a lot more to it and it does not discuss hot linking without permission to an image to use to decorate your site.  Fair usage when indexing information is not the same thing.  No one thinks that when they find something on google, that google created or owns the sites/images they find, and, in fact, the court does consider that web owners have given search engines implied permission to do it because it's widely known that they will, and how to instruct their bots not to if you don't want them to.  The same cannot be said about finding someone else's image and hot linking it to your site.  Get three lawyers in a room and you may get three answers, but at least one will say it's not legal, and ethically, anyone can know it's not right.

    I won't discuss this any more simply because it's not in any way related to the question.

    Wednesday, August 4, 2010 12:59 AM
  • From all of that verbiage I get the impression that the key factor is this: If you intend to make the resource appear to be yours (and I think a lack of attribution might be prima facie evidence if push came to shove), and you are not operating in a sphere which has already been determined to enjoy fair use rights (such as small search engine thumbnails linking to the actual image at the owner's site), you may be held to be in violation.

    Even if you managed to afford Google's legal budget, you risk exposing yourself to prolonged, expensive litigation, win or lose. Is it worth it?

    In most cases, IP owners will begin with a cease-and-desist before getting serious about things, so you may feel that it is worth proceeding. Might want to have some backup images ready for the occasion, though, so you don't have a sudden redesign job on your hands in that event.

    cheers,
    scott


    C'mon, folks. This isn't rocket science, nor neurosurgery. It's "Expression" (singular) "Web" (singular), in that order, followed by a version numeral if you wish to be specific. It is often abbreviated "EW." It is not "Web Expression," "Expressions Web," "Web Expressions," or plain "Expression" or "Expressions." Not using the correct name indicates either ignorance or laziness. Most folks would rather avoid the appearance of either.
    Wednesday, August 4, 2010 2:23 AM