I don't get why the image has to be from a particular provider. Why can't you just enter a URL of an image anywhere and have it embedded? Is there something I'm missing here?

Comments

vm’s picture

vm commented
Category: feature » support
Status: Active » Fixed

because the providers listed allow you to hot link their images whereby other places may not.

if you just want to use any image you can use the img html tag and hotlink

dejbar’s picture

dejbar commented
Status: Fixed » Postponed (maintainer needs more info)

Yes I know you can use an html image tag but this module seems to offer additional functionality and convenience. Also I don't believe there is any other CCK Module suitable for an image tag.

I wouldn't have really thought it was the module developers role to enforce IP by deliberately restricting usage to only a few providers. Almost seems like censorship.

I hope you don't mind me changing the status. If you aren't going to change this I would have thought that a final status of "by design" or "won't fix" would be more suitable.

vm’s picture

vm commented

The providers in this module are providers that specifically allow the sharing of images. Which by the way, uses that providers bandwidth. That said, I spend quite a bit of time on my own sites, insuring that my images aren't being hotlinked and used on sites other then my own. Afterall, I don't want any one using my bandwidth. I view this practice as bandwidth theft and I believe the ultimate idea is to drive traffic to my own site, not have someone post my pictures on their site using my bandwifth while driving traffic to their own site. Therefore rather then the censorship you see, I see the module developer/s as being responsible in this case.

Ultimatley I am of the opinion that it isn't fair to allow people to arbitriaily pull images from "any" site they want, nor provide them with the method to do so and I'm sure my comments are tilted in that direction.

If you have a specific provider that you want added and that allows their images to be used on "any" site that can be added as a feature request of course.

Understand though that I am not the developer of this module.

vm’s picture

vm commented
Category: support » feature

switched back to a feaure request to allow the developer to comment if necessary.

dejbar’s picture

dejbar commented

Bandwidth is so cheap these days I don't see how 'bandwidth theft' would be significant issue. If it was a significant problem (i.e. >100K views ) then you could just alter the image for referers which are not 'allowed', to be an advertisement for your site or even a paid advertisement. Attention theft is the real risk and it is for the linker.

There are many legitimate reasons why one would want to link to images from other sites. They include

1. I'm sure there are many image sites that are not included in your list and new ones spring up all the time.
2. There may be third parties who would prefer you link to there images instead of copying. you could run into copyright problems for copying their images.
3. You might want to allow the image holder to have the ability to change the image independantly of what you are doing.
4. You might want to give the image holder the ability to track the users that view the image.

In our case we have we are a software directory site that allows software authors to specifiy a screenshot image.

Just one question to be perfectly clear I am understanding things correctly.

Is there no technical differrence between using images from say photobucket to any other site? No special features of the allowed sites that make it possible/better? This is totally a deliberate restriction with no other technical basis? So I could just go into the code and take out the restriction and make it available for others to use? Surely this would have happened already if that was the case.

I can only image what the internet would've been like if it was designed like this. Your browser would only be allowed to go to a list of 'approved' sites.

vm’s picture

vm commented

you are obviously entitled to your opinion as I am mine. I remind you again that I am not the developer of this module.

Feel free to hack the module and produce a patch if this feature is that important to you and maybe the developers would consider putting it in the next release.

One can also take a look at the code and replicate the function to scratch your itch.

Good luck.

aaron’s picture

aaron commented
Status: Postponed (maintainer needs more info) » Active

I didn't support that because I didn't get around to it, and because the code I have in place for video is imperfect at best, and needs polishing. And I actually created the Video version as a step towards embedding local media, and it just turned out that it was convenient to allow remote media at the same time.

I agree with VeryMisunderstood that hotlinking is a serious issue, and I don't want to enable someone doing that. At the same time, as a module developer, I also have no control over what someone does with the code I create.

However, I also have personally no interest in adding this feature, and I strongly doubt that any of the clients I work with have an interest either, so I have no plans to work on it any time soon, with dozens of other projects I'm working on. At the same time, dejbar, you did bring up some legitimate uses, and we could probably come up with another dozen with some thought. If you (or someone) is able and willing to come up with the code, I'd be happy to consider it.

And actually, I have been thinking about a version that would wget an image, for image & video thumbnails, which could also easily be tweaked to do this. I'd be far more interested in supporting that, as even though it would still enable copyright infringement, it would not be stealing bandwidth. And I leave it to the lawyers to argue over that one.

I'll leave the issue open in case it comes up again, but feel free to close it or whatever.

Thanks,
Aaron

dejbar’s picture

dejbar commented

The wget thing you suggested would be sweet. Much better than linking to other external images which is unfortunately the way our current site works. You never know when the images will disappear of be changed (although for some uses that might be the point).

I understand that you don't want to go to extra effort just to incorporate a feature that you think could lead to misuse. Although if you actually put extra work into the original implementation to restrict it then I think that's a pity. I believe more good comes from enabling people than restricting them. I kind of think that is what open source is all about but that's just my opinion.

But anyway it certainly looks like a great module you've made and I'm sure we'll end up putting it to good use.

If I get the chance to look at the code and make it work with other sites then I'll let you know.

aaron’s picture

aaron commented
Status: Active » Postponed

No, I would never put in extra work just to restrict something. I'm not really interested in being some kind of enforcer. It's extra work to provide this feature. The module wasn't originally written to support it, but it does have a framework allowing for relatively easy additions. It would take me maybe an hour to implement it. It's just that that's an hour I don't really have right now.

And it's not even that it leads to misuse -- it's just a feature I have no real interest in right now. I created this module as a hobby, and except when a client requests a specific feature, that's what it continues to be for me.

The wget solution will probably take me a day or so to implement, and though it's an exciting idea, I simply have to put it on the back-burner for now.

Aaron

alex ua’s picture

alex ua commented

dejbar-

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Open Source Software and an open source community constitute. You are using software that people make in their spare time, for clients, etc. and that they provide to you free of charge. These developers do not owe you anything, and they (we) are, in fact, doing you a great service by providing you with these tools. I'm not saying that you should prostrate yourself in front of those who provide you with these empowering tools, but I would suggest you tone down your demands and accusations, and respect the fact that you are benefiting from the hard work of thousands of people (as are we all). It's like someone inviting you over for dinner, and when you're arrive and find out that they've cooked the food in a style you don't like you get upset and demand that they recook the food to your liking.

This is a "do-ocracy", and if you don't like something, you should feel free to go ahead and change it. If you don't know how to do it, then try and learn (and I can tell you for a fact that you can get a lot of help learning how to do it). If you can't do it and won't learn in, and you really need something done, then I suggest you get together some money and pay someone to do it for you. And if you can't do any of those, please refrain from demanding others do things for you that you aren't willing to take responsibility for yourself.

dejbar’s picture

dejbar commented

Alex UA - I think you have misunderstood my position and misread the thread. What specifically do you see as my demands and accusations? I demanded nothing. I think in your meal analogy I just asked if there was any tomato sauce (ketchup) and ended up in a argument about whether tomato sauce was evil and should be allowed at the table. And yes if this did actually happen I would probably end up defending 'freedom of condiments'.

Anyhow I'm interested in adding this functionality and now the I know that the module creater isn't morally opposed to it it seems like it might be worth doing. It will probably take me a lot longer than an hour (mostly to figure out how things work) but it doesn't look too hard. I don't think it would qualify the module for the 'Drupal for Evil' group's interest ( http://groups.drupal.org/drupal-for-evil ).

Of course the whole reason I posted in the first place is that this is a really cool module and I am very keen to be able to use it. Thanks aaron for creating it.

alex ua’s picture

alex ua commented

dejbar-

I'm sorry if I misread your posts, and I'm glad to read that you are interested in helping to add this functionality. You can definitely count on help from myself, and most likely aaron, if you run into problems or need any questions answered.

chrisroditis’s picture

chrisroditis commented

That would be a great feature for people doing affiliate marketing and wish to hotlink product images directly from the merchant's website. Of course the wget idea seems vastly better, I guess it would allow for image manipulations with imagecache.

HansBKK’s picture

HansBKK commented

+1 on wget functionality

Personally I don't like depending on the provider's site being up, more looking for a way to help users automate the selective importing of their already-posted-elsewhere files.

Ideally this functionality would be able to be enabled/disabled by the admin for not only filesize but type.

Archnemysis’s picture

Archnemysis commented
Status: Postponed » Fixed

Since the original request on this thread was for allowing embed of custom URL photo's, am marking this as fixed since that functionality is now available. Hopefully this is the right way to clean up an old issue.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.