I think, more likely, he saw the blog. The thread was posted shortly after it appeared on the blog.
http://www.myurbanist.com/archives/1836
You are missing the point. The photo is not used here. There are no images posted on the SDMB, only links. No image, no copyright issue. If your website is hosting the photo, it is your responsibility to provide attribution, which you declined to do.
It wasn’t “taken from” anything. It was linked to.
It’s patently absurd to say that something that resides on your own site is in violation of copyright. Can you violate your own copyright? No. Nor can you, in law, prevent crosslinking on the internet, no matter how many lawyers may try to claim the same.
Big fat “Duh!” to you!
Hilarious.
Even more hilarious: what happens if your image shows up on Google Images? You gonna sue Google? They actually have made a copy of it.
Oh come on, everyone. Let’s not insult him.
envirocr, welcome to the SDMB. Please do feel free to stay and participate. You’ll find a wide range of subjects discussed here. Anything you want to chat about, you’ll find people here with similar interests. It’s a great place.
envirocr, I’m a builder with a strong interest in urbanist design and related matters; your site should just the kind of thing I’m interested in. You do have some gorgeous photos there, although I couldn’t find attribution on most of them; aside from the Burton Holmes stuff, did you personally take all the others?
E. Thorp’s linking to one of your images from here was effectively free advertising for you, without which I wouldn’t have found your site, at least not today. Again, you want readers, right?
Whenever I click on the link to google images and then close the window it starts opening new windows of the google image at an alarming rate. The only way I could get it to stop was to go task manager and end process (even end task didn’t work). I’ve never seen anything like it before. Anyone else find that?
(IE6 if it matters)
I’m not insulting him, I’m insulting his assertion of copyright violation, which is patently absurd.
The link to Google Images works fine on my compy, Chrome and IE7.
ETA: on a conciliatory note, the picture is amazing. Better?
:eek:
There’s your problem.
It matters.
Upgrade to IE8:
Upgrade to IE7 if for some reason your computer is too old to run 8 reliably:
Or switch browsers, try Firefox:
Chrome:
Opera:
If you’re using IE6 on your own computer, you should upgrade literally right now because it has more holes than Swiss cheese, regularly crashes, and renders most pages incorrectly. The activity you’re describing could be due to a security problem on your PC but it’s also likely that IE6 saw a line of HTML that it didn’t like and just went on the fritz. Either way your best option right now is to upgrade to IE8 or switch to a different browser.
If you’re using IE6 on your company’s computer, well, God help you. Your IT staff are probably trying to support an archaic internal web app which took advantage of IE6’s mess of functionality in order to run. So really, God help them, because they’re going to need it when they’re forced to upgrade and have to rewrite whatever app is so valuable to them. In the event of IE6 on work computers there’s not much I can recommend you do - ask your IT desk if you can upgrade; if they say no, just don’t use your work PC for any non-work stuff.
I’ve got Firefox at home but am at work at the moment. My workplace uses all sorts of old software and we do indeed have a number of internal apps that use explorer. Probably explains a lot!
ETA: The problem isn’t occurring anymore, but it did happen twice when I tried earlier.
**Mod Note
**
envirocr, I assure you we take copyright violation very seriously around here. (I’m an administrator.) What you cite isn’t an example of it. No one used your photo here; they simply provided a link to it. Visitors must go to your site to view the image. This happens countless times every day all over the Internet. Your complaint presumably is that since the link pulls up only the image, and not the rest of the page, visitors can’t tell the image is on your site. That’s unfortunate, but it’s a function of the way Google Images works (that’s undoubtedly how the image came to the attention of the original poster) and isn’t a copyright violation. That said, we’re always happy to give credit where it’s due; I think everyone is now aware that the photo appeared on www.myurbanist.com. Welcome to the SDMB.
To be exact, the original poster saw the image while reading the blog, not on a Google image search. You can see his comments under the article in question, asking for an identification.
This is correct. I subscribe to the blog, saw the image, was intrigued by it and, since the city being depicted was unidentified, posted a link to the image here to ask about it.
I am a fan of myurbanist and have learned a lot from Chuck Wolfe’s view of things.
I will tell Mr. Wolfe 
Also, with the exception of the recent post on Burton Holmes, all photos on myurbanist are taken by the blog’s founder.
First, and I think most important. This “do you want readers” nonsense is used by every pirate site. People who steal stuff on the Internet always say that they’re doing you a favor.
NO, THEY’RE NOT.
Copyright is controlling the right to copy. The owner decides whether and how to make stuff available. If the owner wants to hide it in the back of a dark closet, then tough on you. You don’t get a say.
The “readers” argument is always wrong, unequivocally, legally and morally.
Now in this case, we do not have a copyright violation. Nobody has claimed it was a violation of copyright, including envirocr. He or she said it was a courtesy violation, a matter of not giving proper attribution. Yes, that was accompanied by a statement that it was a copyrighted image used without permission. That’s what lead to all the confusion, since it was not used but linked to in situ. However, **envirocr **correctly asked for attribution as the remedy. And said please and thank you.
Courtesy is voluntary and what constitutes courtesy online is still up in the air. My take, and this is only my opinion, is that while a specific mention of myurbanist.com would have been nice, the fact that the URL clearly pointed back to the site is sufficient for this use. I wish **envirocr **had said this more politely and clearly. But neither side is wrong here. Only **Spark240 **is.
My apologies, I misunderstood. To head off any further misunderstandings: (1) posting links to images you find on the Internet doesn’t violate copyright and is permissible under SDMB rules; (2) while you’re not required to identify where the image came from, we encourage you to do so as a courtesy to the image’s host or creator.
You might want to go back and read Post #13 more closely.
Emphasis in original.
I agree.
I agree.
The copyright owners did not hide their material away; they published it on a freely-accessible site on the internet, presumably to share their thoughts and advance their views. I take this to mean, in their case as in millions of others, that they want readers. The OP of this thread directed me to their site, thus making me a reader. So… what is the problem?