Links to other websites in your signatures. Your opinions invited

[Stuart Wright]

Ok, I would like to get your thoughts on the issue of linking to external photo sharing websites in your signatures.
First of all I want to stress that
a) we want to apply the rules fairly and there is to be no singling out of either people or websites. It's is a simple application of our rules.
b) the moderators are only following my instructions so if anyone is to be given a hard time, it is not the moderators, it is me.

Ok, so the question is 'should we allow links to Flickr, Smugmug and other photo sharing websites in signatures?'

Now I appreciate why some members would want links to those sites in their signatures. You have chosen a photo hosting website and want to show your photos to people. That's fine and of course there is no reason to object to that at all.

So why might we have a problem with those sites?

First of all do the sites contain inappropriate photos? I have had a look through Flickr and while I can't find any photos which are personally offensive, I have no doubt that if they were posted here we would get complaints. So is it ok to link to such a website which has inappropriate material on it? Without checking each one (which is obviously not practical), how do we know that the link in your signature contains pictures which are appropriate?

Secondly we, for valid reasons do not allow people to promote (emphasis on promoting in signatures, which is different to plain linking to in posts) commercial websites. We believe that if someone wants to promote a website which makes them money they should pay for that privilege like all the other advertisers on AVForums. We don't begrudge you a few quid for your awesome photos, but the rules need to be fair and applied fairly.
Do you guys make significant money from selling prints on those websites? Very few do, I would expect. But where do we draw the line?

I'm inviting your feedback so we can get the rules right. Should we allow links to sites like Flickr and Smugmug?
Please consider our position before you reply. Thanks.

[dave_bass5]

Well i think you know my view.
Personally i cant see the problem with doing what i and a lot of others are and have been doing for a few years now.
We aren't promoting any competition, mealy linking to our photo galleries.

This has been going on for ages now and i haven't seen any mention of it harming this website before. The mods have been happy to let us do it (well, certainly in this forum) so i think you already know if its going to harm this sites revenue or not.

I'd like to thanks the mods for allowing me and the others to put our smugmug links back in our sigs.
It was an interesting day yesterday

[julian_fraser]

I suppose it's a case of making the distinction between those sites being used for commercial purposes where they would come under the "promotion" area, and those being used for sharing purposes. It's difficult because by displaying a link to my Flickr account I suppose I'm "promoting" my photographs - although in my case (and I'd have thought everyone who has a Flickr link) there is no facility to purchase images so no commercial benefit to me by it being on there.

I can understand your point about unsuitable material but I think in the main there are filters imposed by the posters of pictures of violence, nudity etc which stops Joe Average being able to see them.

While it's possible to order prints via Flickr I think this may only be for your own photos and am not aware of any facility to "sell" your images - maybe someone else can clarify that? And while it IS possible to sell prints on Smugmug it is also just a photo-sharing site like Flickr too.

Should the onus be on individual members (and the wider membership) to self-regulate their signatures? Maybe that's a way forward as it would be a lot of work for the admins to check ALL signatures for suitability. IMHO if a member uses Smugmug as an alternative to Flickr, and Flickr is ultimately deemed acceptable then in the interests of fairness then Smugmug should also be allowed when used in the same way.

[pixelpixel]

I have a link to flickr as its a way for people to find my images. Yes I could use the gallery section on the forums......but its not the same.

You can find inappropriate images if you wanted. Thats just the same way that I can do it with google, youtube or even the BBC website. I could also find something on these forums that might be inappropriate to me. If you look for something you can and will find it.

I have never sold 1 image and I don't make any money from it. I don't ever plan to make any money from it either.

Now on the other hand, If I post an image from Flickr I have to by the rules link back to the site. So not only would my signature have a link but ALL images would have to link back.

This forum has been very helpful to me over the years. I would hate to find another just so I could talk to the many 'friends' I have made.

[Boynielaad]

I certainly make no money from my photos. Whether that changes one day remains to be seen!

I very much enjoy being able to simply click on a link which takes me straight to a gallery of other peoples' photos for me to enjoy and learn from. The obvious contender on this site is Flickr.

As for where to draw the line?

I suggest that if the link goes straight to a site with prices under photos and adverts all over it (ie; a site which looks to all intents and purposes commercial) then that is going too far.

After yesterday's discussion the fact that the link to Smugmug is now being allowed and that you are willing to discuss this further in open forum is very gratifying - well done.

[jmbrailsford]

Hi Stuart,

easy solution is no links allowed in signatures at all, unless paid for and stated as such in the said signature.

Both Smug AND Flickr are in breach of your rules ie: Rule 4. My Smug link was removed ( quite correctly once I worked out why, not that any of the mods explained it very well but I eventually sussed it)

I have removed Flickr from my signature through choice as I am of the opinion that it is in breach of the rule 4, if you want to know why then PM me and I will show you, but as a clue I'll quote this from your post above " First of all do the sites contain inappropriate photos?"

Mike.

[pixelpixel]

Have you looked at this ? phpFlickr

[tontoshorse]

Any link to any site could contain explicit/distressing images.

Is that a problem as I've never seen anything offensive posted here? There is a report post option should someone attempt the above so it wouldn't stay here long.

One of the reasons I've stayed here is the relaxed atmosphere and the general goodwill therefore the smugmug furore was a suprise although its been quickly sorted.

I don't see a problem in linking to a site which hold examples of your pics and I enjoy viewing others - something I wouldn't do if the link wasn't there.

I hope it stays but is it a deal breaker? Nah.

[dave_bass5]

This is what happens when you wander outside of our safe, friendly forum

[jradley]

I'm a relative newbie to this forum and DSLRs, but wanted to add my 2p's worth as this topic is important to me.

Apart from technical advice I like to come to this forum to get inspiration for my own photography. If I see some examples of peoples work that I like and they have a gallery link in their signature then I will often follow the link to see more of their work to try and learn more about that type photography. The same also works for equipment, if I see someone is using model XYZ of a lens say I may follow their gallery link ot see what else they have done with that lens (though I appreciate I can search directly on the gallery site too). Allowing such links is useful to me and I fail to see how it breaks any of the rules, providing as already mentioned it is not a commercial tog selling their wares.

I agree that links should not directly link to inappropriate material whatsoever and I would expect members to report such links to admins, but just because a gallery site may contain such material somewhere on it should not be cause to ban links to that site altogether.

Thanks for listening.

John

[dazza74]

I think it's a simple case that if your linking to a site showing pictures where there is no retail aspect then I think that is personally fine going by the current rules. I just don't get the rules on this self promotion personally, seems to me you can't link to a site selling anything in your signature yet it's fine to have it embedded in watermarks

I haven't seen anything posted on here that I would class as pornographic an artistic nude at best but then nothing more than anyone could see paying 20p for a copy of the Daily Star lets face it.

[sleaver]

As PixelPixel said you can find inappropriate content on any side if you want to. Would it therefore not be an idea to state what this forum classes as inappropriate and then inforce a site wide rule?

I can't see this being easy though because an appropriate to one person maybe inappropriate to another due to personal preference, race, religion etc.

Also, just as an example, take a nude photo. Is it inappropriate if done tastefully?

[jmbrailsford]

Originally Posted by sleaver

As PixelPixel said you can find inappropriate content on any side if you want to. Would it therefore not be an idea to state what this forum classes as inappropriate and then inforce a site wide rule?

I can't see this being easy though because an appropriate to one person maybe inappropriate to another due to personal preference, race, religion etc.

Also, just as an example, take a nude photo. Is it inappropriate if done tastefully?

Hi,

my reference wasn't to art nudes or glamour portraits but rather to eh, lets say .... erect members and open leg shots that clearly aren't there for the art

Which was why I suggested no links in sig allowed at all, problem solved.

Mike.

[Mike.P®]

I think everything has been said already in the thread so Im not going to bother repeating it.
Personally I am in favour of having a link and as long as it is not obviously money making then I see no reason to disallow them.

Saying that I think maybe everyone should be limited to one or two at the most.

[allymac123]

It could be argued that a link to flickr/smugsmug can have a commercial gain. Say someone followed that link and loved your shots and decided they wanted you to do a photo shoot of their car or something like that. However this would be very rare in the first instance and secondly is it unacceptable? I'm able to post my photos straight onto the forums themselves and that is perfectly acceptable. Now by linking to flickr all I'm doing is allowing to people to look at the photo's in one place that they also find by trawling through my posts. So I don't believe it is attracting more commercial gain than just posting images in the first instance.

As for there being inappropriate photo's you won't find any by clicking my link. If you then search a dodgy word and turn off the safe search then you may find inappropriate photos. But that's the same as google...