-
Posts
-
… but it’s linking to the wrong agency!
I would like to have an embedding button for my Symbiostocksite. It could be a good thing as long the images links back to us and keeps the watermark.
There is a plugin called Embed Code Generator but it only shows the code directly and you have to set it up for each image individually. I made an example here: http://www.allg.eu/image/grosser-funken-im-allgugrosser-funken-im-allgau/ .For Symbiostock it should be automatically (then enabled) and it should be a button like Getty has.
I know this is very controversial but if embedding is happening it should controlled by us and not Getty, therefore I’m for an optional embedding feature in Symbiostock.
Opinions?I have to admit I have my pictures available on my site so that people can pay for them and I can make a living, I do not create pictures for others to use for free so cannot see any logic in letting anyone embed them. I feel this just encourages people to think images are free for the taking.
http://kerioakimaging.com - trying to reopen
http://nail-art-at.kerioak.com - Art and Nail ArtI agree with Christine. Plus, who’ll go through the steps to embed an image if it has both a watermark and some kind of plug for your site? The only tempting thing about the Getty deal is absence of watermark…even then, it’s not easy to use. I don’t think it’ll be as popular as Getty thinks it will.
Yes I prefer sales too but the genie is already out of the bottle.
I doubt I would make every image available for embedding, but it is actually a great marketing tool if you think longer about it. I just think the marketing tool is in the wrong hands (Getty). The good thing about embedding is that you actually keep control over your images so if you change your mind you can switch it off. You can set the conditions where embedding is allowed and where not.Embedding images could put a huge strain on your web server. I’m not sure that the host companies would appreciate that.
For sure, I won’t be getting into the photo-embedding business.
@shazamimages wrote:
Embedding images could put a huge strain on your web server. I’m not sure that the host companies would appreciate that.
That’s a point agreed. But a controlled embedding could help sites to get the necessary attention in the beginning.
@shelma1 wrote:
I agree with Christine. Plus, who’ll go through the steps to embed an image if it has both a watermark and some kind of plug for your site? The only tempting thing about the Getty deal is absence of watermark…even then, it’s not easy to use. I don’t think it’ll be as popular as Getty thinks it will.
Bloggers seems to be excited about it:
http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/embed-support-getty-images/
Most of the comments are quite positive.Again I wouldn’t start this embedding business on my own (it as a new blow against us artists no doubt about it), but as I said the genie is already out of bottle fighting it is like fighting microstock as a traditional stock photographer….
So I think it’s better we use it for us under our own conditions.My comments would be positive as well if the shops started giving me chocolate for free and just charged advertisers to put ads on the packaging.
http://kerioakimaging.com - trying to reopen
http://nail-art-at.kerioak.com - Art and Nail ArtI’ve done this throughout my non-sym cascoly.com site, but was calling them contact sheets (guess i’ll do some re-writing )
the global search produces minipics with alt tags and links to the sym image page. you can just cut & paste your images
for controlled embedding, I’ll trade with any other sym site with similar content to mine to host these images on non-sym sites.
http://cascoly-images.com/pix/custom-contact-sheets-for-seo/
re the time — a coupla quick tests from my global search:
burma # records = 52
Elapsed time = 0.53125 sec for select
Elapsed time = 3.515625 sec for displaymexican food# records = 207
Elapsed time = 0.109375 sec for select
Elapsed time = 4.113281 sec for displaythese searches require a database lookup, then reading each database record and retrieving the minipic from the host site, so even getting & displaying 200 images isn’t going to put a substantial burden on the hosts
I doubt I would make every image available for embedding, but it is actually a great marketing tool if you think longer about it.
Far from a great marketing tool. I think, it reeks of desperation. Don’t devalue your images.
The good thing about embedding is that you actually keep control over your images so if you change your mind you can switch it off. You can set the conditions where embedding is allowed and where not.
Such tactics are done by disreputable companies and con artists, not by reputable suppliers.
Bloggers seems to be excited about it:
http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2014/03/06 … ty-images/
Most of the comments are quite positive.Maybe some gullible bloggers get excited. Read carefully the acceptance info for those embedded images.
As a blogger myself, I would never rely on such surreptitious elements, and on top of it, pass my blog stats to Getty.@shazamimages wrote:
Embedding images could put a huge strain on your web server. I’m not sure that the host companies would appreciate that.
Good point.
Higher server charges and slowed down server responses could hurt the embedders even more than they saved by using such “free” images.okay I should’t have start this thread, sorry!
Will try other marketing tactics with my site.@lespalenik wrote:
@shazamimages wrote:
Embedding images could put a huge strain on your web server. I’m not sure that the host companies would appreciate that.
Good point.
Higher server charges and slowed down server responses could hurt the embedders even more than they saved by using such “free” images.as I showed with several quick searches, that doesn’t seem to be the case — even when I’ve had several hundred images ’embedded’
folks have mentioned other reasons for not embedding, but server issues don’t seem to be one of them,
The forum ‘Archives’ is closed to new topics and replies.