[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.

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...

[Janusian]

I am sure on another forum I have used, they had something installed so that everytime you clicked a link, it passed you through a page saying, 'you are now leaving the forum, we are not responsible for external content'.

The Bulletin board software just did this to all links. An idea maybe.

Link - http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=128113

[kBm]

There are no 'free' image hosting sites -it all costs, someone has to pay and the revenue has to be generated by whatever means - subscription or adverts. So all are commerical and there is no getting away from it.

I would be disapointed if no links were allowed at all (to any photo site)

[springtide]

I actually use the links to Smugmug and Flickr often. In many cases when posting photos, people usually post a selection of photos and it's pretty nice just to be able to click on their sig link to take you to their full list.

I think the bottom line is that the majority if not all people on this forum - this is their hobby and even of they sell the odd photo it's far from being any kind of income.

It's not a deal breaker but it does reflect the ethos of the forum IMO. I understand that websites have to pay, but at the same time I think AVForums already has it's far share of adverts compared to other forum websites. Not that I'm against the adverts, everybody has to make money and AVForums is probably one of the more sucessful sites - good on you.

I think there problem here is trying to create rules that apply to everybody. If I'm honest, you are trying to make everybody who uses this site fit into a 'round hole', and I think this is a very hard thing to do and some flexability and common sense needs to be applied. Personally I would prefer that you give the mods more power in making decisions based on common sense, than trying to 'make a square peg fit in a round hole'.

My 2p worth for what it's worth.

[pixelpixel]

The rules of flickr state you should not use if for commercial use.

See this

No different from someone sending you an email on these forums and doing the same thing.

[sleaver]

If a ban an all links is introduced, then how would we post photos? Via the photo galleries in the forum that has been mentioned?

[tontoshorse]

Originally Posted by sleaver

If a ban an all links is introduced, then how would we post photos? Via the photo galleries in the forum that has been mentioned?

I don't think its the actual posting of a link which is the problem, more the permanent pasting in your signature.

Hopefully......

[Valleyman]

I've never had a link in my sig, but I would really miss is if they went.

I often look at others pics and if I like their style I'll click through to their flickr or own website to see some more.

As long as innapropriate pictures arn't posted here or with a direct link to them then I don't see how AVForums can even begin to check an entire website or have a problem with it. Someone would have to actually search flickr to find anything dodgey. It's a bit like not being able to link to google, because it can be used to find porn. Silly? Of course. No-one here posts innapropriate things or links directly to it. If they did I'm sure other members would report them immediately.

As for those who sell photos. Most do it through stock or microstock agencies if they're actually gonna make any money whatsoever. So 99% of them therefore won't be offering those photos on flickr etc because it will be against the stock agencies terms. And no-one links to their galleries at these agencies because that is clearly against the forum rules.

Either way logic would dicate trying to sell your own photos to other photographers is like trying to sell ice to eskimos.

Anyway. I guess my point is that unless someone is linking to a site specific to selling photos it should be allowed. If we remove them then imho it will take alot away that makes this forum so special.

Am glad this has got sorted and initiated a real conversation instead of the palaver of yesterday.

[mucca_D]

Its interesting to watch all the threads and re-org chatter popping up since the link in a members signature was removed.

The bottom line is, a number of members of this little world we love are PRO or have aspirations of such.

We value links and discussion on how to make money out of photography, as highly as the next one with a picture of a swan ( sorry Holo)

We enjoy the threads on commercial photo-shoots and the links to the smug mug or wedding websites. etc etc.

If you make the changes you plan in any form, you may drive away some members that are the very reason this area is such a success.

Your very nature of such moderation is in my humble opinion going against everything you stood for in setting up the website in the first place.

You use links, track-backs and TAGs to promote the website to gain more links, to achieve higher revenue, to maintain the site for all of us to chat and thats all good, but how about if Flickr or smugmug stopped any pictures being linked back to them because of you are trying to get us to use your Gallery.

For instance we are breaking a flickr rule now because of the img code.

I for one think all this is very dangerous, and if you are not careful, we will firstly watch people like, Tobers, Radiohead, bristolPete, Gordan to name only a small few move on, and I have to say I think a huge group of us would follow quickly behind them.

What would I do!! well If I had to, I would look at it like this. We all see the new members post to do nothing but advertise. or join to promote something and I agree this does nothing for the site. Why not block signatures for posters under 200 say.

Then allow Zone to control this area, Zone knows most of us and can spot a blatant promotion easily enough.. This place is way to big to have one rule for all.. square pegs round holes.

Thanks for reading
Doug.

[richard plumb]

posting photos from your flickr account require (as per flickr rules) for the photo to link back to flickr, so when you click on it you go to that photostream. So each photo posted in this area from flickr is effectively a link to an external site.


As far as 'objectionable content' goes - I'd have thought the standard Terms and Conditions would cover that - you aren't allowed to post offensive material so that should cover signatures. If you can find stuff by clicking 20 times on different links once you've gone somewhere, then I don't see how that can be any fault of the original link - thats just the internet.

Simply allow personal sites, but not any site that clearly is offering a commercial service.

[senu]

Originally Posted by mucca_D

Then allow Zone to control this area, Zone knows most of us and can spot a blatant promotion easily enough..

Im not sure what I do here then ..

Seriuosly though other mods may need to step in if one is on holiday or indisposed , or Zone ( and I ) seem to have a backlog ( as can happen occasionally) so it may be best if there is uniformity from this sort of "discussion" so that any mod can do a reasonalble job

[allymac123]

Originally Posted by senu

Im not sure what I do here then ..

Who are you?

[5to1]

Given the nature of this forum I think you'll severely cripple it by banning links to Flickr/etc in people's signatures.

I'm pretty new to this, but searched through alot of photography forums when choosing a camera, and the most usefull posters in all of these had links to their Gallery.

Unless the linked site is clearly an attempt to bypass your advertising fee's I think you have to be tolerant. For a signature link to garner any real interest the poster has to be providing valuable input to the forum. At which point IMO you have been renumerated enough to allow them to link to their non commercial gallery, even if its hosted by a site that makes its money by advertising.

[Peakoverload]

Someone e-mailed me a link to this thread and I'm very glad that they did!

My 'gripe' with AVF is purely over the way that rules are applied and not neccassairly with the rules themselves and certainly not with any individuals or groups. So since you've asked for opinions I will offer mine.

With no malice inferred I do think that AVF does need to wake up a little and understand not only it's members and what they want and expect but also to understand it's place on the Internet. Just do a search in Google for Photography Forum and you'll get nearly 4 million results. 4 million! Therefore AVF is certainly not unique.

Also you should understand that 'photographers' are quite an incestuous lot in that the vast majority of us are all members of the same websites which will include several very well established photography forums the vast majority of which do not have any such 'restrictions' on what you can link to.

What does this mean to AVF? Two things. 1. If people feel that AVF is becoming too restrictive they will simply post on other forums. 2. AVF potentially becomes a 'black hole' on the Internet. The Internet works by the sharing of information but AVF's rules effectively state that information can be pointed at it but not away from it. Rather than actually benefit AVF due to the way search engines work and the way that everybody else uses the Internet it actually hurts AVF and the only reason this hasn't been felt more is because these rules haven't been evenly inforced. Put it like this. Someone posts a link to a relevant thread on another forum or a commercial site. People from here go there read the article and come back, others will read the article, join that new site and still come back to this one. Those that join the new site may very well post a link in that thread back to the one in AVF which in turn draws more visitors. Everyone is a winner.

Going back to commercial sites. The term "Commercial Site" is as ambiguous as "Professional Photographer" it may seem straight forward but it really isn't. Definititions of Professional Photographer range from:

1. Someone who is paid to take photographs. But does that mean if someone pays you £20 to take a photo you are a pro? What about if someone pays you £2000 to take a photo but you only ever do this once?

2. Someone who is a very good photographer. Who says you are a good photographer, isn't it just personal opinion?

3. Someone who earns a living from photography and nothing else? But what if they don't earn very much and aren't people don't think they are very good, are they still a pro?

Apply that to 'commercial websites' and you have:

1. A site that is a personal website i.e. isn't run by a company or a group but that does display adverts on some or all of it's pages but which only supplement the main content. Is that commercial? What if it only 'earns' the person a few pennies or pounds a month?

2. A personal website where someone offers to sell prints of their work. Ahh this one is clear cut commercial isn't it? What if they only charge a few pounds per photo and what if they only sell one or two a year or ever?

3. A personal website that allows people to buy other items from their site such as t-shirts with a photo on it, scripts to automate programs that photographers use etc. Well this is definitely commercial isn't it? Okay, what if the items are sold for a nominal fee and what if it only earns the website a few pounds a year?

My point is that 'commercial' could be used to define a website that generates 1p a year of income of £1,000,000 a year of income.

With reference to linking to other sites where your photos may already exist like Flickr and SmugMug. In my opinion, these without question should be permitted and it would be utterly foolish of AVF to ban or restrict them in any way as this will just ensure that people will leave these forums and go to one of the 3,959,999 alternatives.

As I have said in other threads on this subject.

If you are going to have a rule it has to be applied fairly and to all. If you can't do that then the rule can't be inforced at all and is itself unfair. So, again in my opinion, you have four options:

1. Do not allow any links in signatures.
Dead easy to apply but how does this affect someone posting a link to their website that might be deemed 'commercial', depending on what definition of commercial is used, in a forum thread - assuming of course that the link is actually relevant to the thread and not just spamming.

2. Allow links to all websites in signatures as long as the link isn't to something obviously dodgy like porn, warez etc. Nice and simple but possibly open to abuse although such abuses would no doubt be reported to moderators in a similar vane to how they are now.

3. Allow links to any personal website regardless of whether a photo or other cheap products are offered for sale. I guess the question remains as to what is cheap and how much do you sell but feel that if website clearly isn't operating as a business then it should be permitted.

4. All signatures must first be approved by a moderator. Potentially a hell of a lot of extra work for unpaid moderators and then open to personal interpretation of the rules.

My own personal preferrence would be to adopt either option 3 as this, in my opinion, is the most fair or option 2 but this is probably beyond what AVF would want to allow.


Just my 2p worth

[senu]

Welcome back.. I hope

[sleaver]

Originally Posted by tontoshorse

I don't think its the actual posting of a link which is the problem, more the permanent pasting in your signature.

Hopefully......

In the signiture you can link to your Photostream. Like an image and your linking to that image in your Photostream. It still gets you to the same site!

Like you though I hope this isn't the case because whats the point in a photography forum with no photos. Unless if cause they say use our gallery which they are asking for input on!