Images Hosting Solution / Legal Issues ? - WickedFire - Affiliate Marketing Forum

Rasta_Cook · 09-21-2007, 12:07 AM

Ok,

I have an idea for a website that is mostly image based...
I am considering 2 factors...

A - Display images leeched to my site using "hotlinking"
Pros : no imgs files on my server, I think this make me "safe" legally and of course No bandwidth cost ( big + )
Cons : Once the site gets bigger, managing all the hotlinks to the other site who might, move, delete, restrict the files is going to be hell...

B - Host the images I display Myselft...
Pros : I have control over the filenames (Big + for seo ) , I have control over hosting reliability and broken links etc... I also have the ability to use ftp which saves tons of time to upload lots of files quickly.
Cons : Even If i would put a link to the original source, I could still get in trouble ? but how likely is it ? Would an author only ask me remove 1 file form my server, or would he sue or ask for me to shut down the site completely ?

C- Hotlink image to free hosting providers...
Pros : Im not hosting the images, but I can submit them with the filenames i want. No bandwidth cost ( big + )
Cons : Instead of contacting me , person would contact hosting company and i might get my account banned, which would cancel all my other files... I also have to deal with using web interface to upload photos... Size might be limited ...

I think my best option is C or B... But i need some opinions, I am not able to create my own photo content, thus i need to take it from other source... i have no problem with linking to original, but for optimal result i need to have control over broken links ( reliability ) and filename....

thanks for your inputs

briggszilla · 09-21-2007, 05:34 PM

I would stay away from A. Not only do you risk the original sources moving/deleting/switching out images with undesirable results...but if you've got a significant amount of images you're also likely to get plenty of unpleasant e-mails from the original owners.

B is definitely best for SEO, I would think this would be OK legally as long as you provide the original source. The owner could still very well ask you to remove their photos from your site but I don't think there's much more they could do than that. And even if you didn't remove them, since you've linked to their site I think you should still be fine so long as you're not trying to resell the images. Could be wrong though.

C - I just wouldn't even bother with this. You would have preference of your file names and no bandwith usage on your part but you can't link to the source and if a bunch of site owners decide to be douches your account would probably be banned and you'll lose everything.

If you're really nervous, depending on what type of photos you need you might be able to get away with snagging a whole bunch with CC licenses. Try Flickr.

Raccoon · 09-21-2007, 11:11 PM

There's one another option - Amazon S3

Rasta_Cook · 09-22-2007, 01:32 PM

well, amazon s3 is like option C but not free... sooooo i guess you are suggesting C ?

Raccoon · 09-22-2007, 05:18 PM

Man, Amazon S3 is cheap as fuck, there's no need to suffer with any sucky free service. Give it a careful consideration, srsly

09-21-2007, 12:07 AM	#1 (permalink)
Rasta_Cook Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Montreal Posts: 356 iTrader: 7 / 100%	Images Hosting Solution / Legal Issues ? Ok, I have an idea for a website that is mostly image based... I am considering 2 factors... A - Display images leeched to my site using "hotlinking" Pros : no imgs files on my server, I think this make me "safe" legally and of course No bandwidth cost ( big + ) Cons : Once the site gets bigger, managing all the hotlinks to the other site who might, move, delete, restrict the files is going to be hell... B - Host the images I display Myselft... Pros : I have control over the filenames (Big + for seo ) , I have control over hosting reliability and broken links etc... I also have the ability to use ftp which saves tons of time to upload lots of files quickly. Cons : Even If i would put a link to the original source, I could still get in trouble ? but how likely is it ? Would an author only ask me remove 1 file form my server, or would he sue or ask for me to shut down the site completely ? C- Hotlink image to free hosting providers... Pros : Im not hosting the images, but I can submit them with the filenames i want. No bandwidth cost ( big + ) Cons : Instead of contacting me , person would contact hosting company and i might get my account banned, which would cancel all my other files... I also have to deal with using web interface to upload photos... Size might be limited ... I think my best option is C or B... But i need some opinions, I am not able to create my own photo content, thus i need to take it from other source... i have no problem with linking to original, but for optimal result i need to have control over broken links ( reliability ) and filename.... thanks for your inputs Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ louno.com

09-21-2007, 05:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
briggszilla Rachel Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 14 iTrader: 0 / 0%	I would stay away from A. Not only do you risk the original sources moving/deleting/switching out images with undesirable results...but if you've got a significant amount of images you're also likely to get plenty of unpleasant e-mails from the original owners. B is definitely best for SEO, I would think this would be OK legally as long as you provide the original source. The owner could still very well ask you to remove their photos from your site but I don't think there's much more they could do than that. And even if you didn't remove them, since you've linked to their site I think you should still be fine so long as you're not trying to resell the images. Could be wrong though. C - I just wouldn't even bother with this. You would have preference of your file names and no bandwith usage on your part but you can't link to the source and if a bunch of site owners decide to be douches your account would probably be banned and you'll lose everything. If you're really nervous, depending on what type of photos you need you might be able to get away with snagging a whole bunch with CC licenses. Try Flickr. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

09-21-2007, 11:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
Raccoon Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 30 iTrader: 0 / 0%	There's one another option - Amazon S3 Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n...lesGiggles.gif Presents: How to slay a newbie with Negative SEO and victorious weapons

09-22-2007, 01:32 PM	#4 (permalink)
Rasta_Cook Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Montreal Posts: 356 iTrader: 7 / 100%	well, amazon s3 is like option C but not free... sooooo i guess you are suggesting C ? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ louno.com

09-22-2007, 05:18 PM	#5 (permalink)
Raccoon Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 30 iTrader: 0 / 0%	Man, Amazon S3 is cheap as fuck, there's no need to suffer with any sucky free service. Give it a careful consideration, srsly Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n...lesGiggles.gif Presents: How to slay a newbie with Negative SEO and victorious weapons

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode