Subject:
|
Re: backgrounds logo image (was: Re: [ldraw.org] Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Aug 1999 06:39:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
567 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> I KNEW I should not have gotten into this.
>
> The outcome I desired was that you'd agree that you should host banner
> ads/logos/whatevers used by others to promote your sites, just as
> everyone else does. In fact many people actually REQUIRE it, they
> DISALLOW taking their logo and copying it for local hosting.
Hmm, I don't think I've actually ever seen that before your mentioning it.
Upon looking around a bit, I do see a -bit- of that now. Here are some
sites that I'm aware of which distribute promotional images... Note that
among this particular set of sites (which may or many not be representative
of the Web in general), there seems to be no standard requirement one way or
the other:
1. User makes a copy:
http://www.msnbc.com/global/cpyrightlogo.asp
http://cgi.netscape.com/comprod/mirror/netscape_now_download.html
http://www.talkingwithkids.org/banners.html
http://www.ldraw.org/memorial/images/
2. User links directly:
http://www.toocool.com/icons/
3. Not immediately clear which way:
http://pages.ebay.com/aw/link-buttons.html
http://www.coolsiteoftheday.com/trophy.html
http://slashdot.org/prettypictures.shtml
http://www.ldraw.org/linking.html
> The outcome I got was that you've taken away permission for others to
> post your banner ads of one site (fibblesnork) rather than addressing my
> point.
No, I haven't taken away permissions to anything, nor was that image ever a
banner ad -- it was a specific-sized logo specifically designed for that
splash page. It wasn't an image designed for general use outside of that
page.
What I did today was corrected a poorly worded sentence I'd written in order
to clear up an ambiguity: It was never my intention to give out permission
for others to display the flg-logo-small.gif image on their web pages --
only the brick images. So I changed point #1 in the Terms of Use here
http://www.fibblesnork.com/lego/backgrounds/
from "these graphic images" to "these graphic background images" to
reemphasize that. I also said you could consider yourself grandfathered
since it could be argued that the original text implied that the logo image
was fair game, though unintentionally so.
I also removed the flg-logo-small.gif from the splash page after removing
the red 2x2 brick, since all that remained was text, and the page in the
left frame already has enough images on it.
And I thought I did address all your points. :-(
> Let's try again. You recently revised your LUGNET(TM) logo.
The logo is actually the same. What got revised was the buttons on this
page:
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/logo/buttons/
(which happen to contain the logo).
> Would you agree that putting that logo on my (or any other) page does
> promote LUGNET, that is, your site?
I would agree with that, sure.
> Would you agree that it is desirable that you have control of your logo,
> to the extent of being able to effect changes in it to make it look
> different or correct errors?
Not really. Not practically speaking. All things being equal, then yah,
sure; with off-site deep linking to GIF or JPEG images, you can alter the
bits in the image as well as the file size (but not the pixel size) of the
image after someone has linked to it from their page.
However, requiring deep linking causes more problems than it solves, IMHO:
1. People can't view and develop local copies of their own personal web
pages offline (for instance, at home and disconnected from the modem)
unless they take local copies of the images you supply.
2. It increases the chances that people will try similar things for other
images (big images). Maybe that's less of an issue now with the new
stuff to combat that.
3. Pages load more slowly the more servers that a client has to connect to.
When all a page's resources are served from a single server, pages come
up noticably faster on slow Internet connections.
4. You have to maintain obsoletely URLs on your server for all the deep-
linkable images you've ever served. If you change the filename or
location, it'll show as broken links on people's pages.
So it's not a bunch of bandwidth issues; it's actually a bunch of practical
issues. After all, even several thousand accesses per day of a little 1K or
2K image still only adds up to peanuts in bandwidth.
> Would you agree that it is not reasonable to ask everyone to obtain new
> copies whenever you decide to make a change?
I would agree with that. And because of that, I haven't asked anyone to
obtain new copies of any of the new images.
> If you agree with these points, it is reasonable for you to allow others
> to use banner ads or logos *promoting your site* that are hosted on your
> site rather than asking people to host them on their own site.
I agree with those points, and while I agree that it would indeed be
reasonable to allow direct linking in those cases, I also feel that it's
not unreasonable not to.
> While the recent flap about pause images was very justified, in that
> there was no benefit to you from providing the bandwidth, so why should
> you provide it, this is different, don't you agree? If not, why not?
This is different, yes. In this case, if someone links directly to the
images, it's not something worth policing because the images are small and
they promote the site they are linked to.
> Note that in the case of Fibblesnork, you explicitly require a link
> back, but under your current interpretation, it has to be a text link.
> Yawn. Rather early 90s. :-)
Uf-da. Now where does it state *that*?
Why do I feel like I'm being trolled again?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: backgrounds logo image (was: Re: [ldraw.org] Update)
|
| Todd Lehman wrote: <snip a bunch of technical stuff> OK, OK. I still think I'm right though, just too lazy to compose as long a reply as you did. I'm arguing about something which I think is to YOUR benefit, so I'll stop. I may be trying to teach (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: backgrounds logo image (was: Re: [ldraw.org] Update)
|
| I KNEW I should not have gotten into this. The outcome I desired was that you'd agree that you should host banner ads/logos/whatevers used by others to promote your sites, just as everyone else does. In fact many people actually REQUIRE it, they (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
