DG Member Names gone from file names of PF photos?

I've been away for a while and just noticed that when I right-click on a photo to save it to my hard drive (for personal reference only), that the name of the DG member who put the photo up on this website no longer appears.

For example, when I right click, to "save image", on my own photo here - http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/224671/ - the only identifying information that appears on the file name is: 35b895 .

I realize that our DG names still appear on the face of the image in the copyright language up in the left corner, and that we have the option of putting in the DG members' name in the file name when we store it to a file on our hard drive.

But - eegads - this is awful! I strongly protest that the DG member's name does not stay with the file name of his/her photo that she/he put so much effort into sharing with the DG community.

Karen

I guess I haven't downloaded anyone's photo from PlantFiles to my hard drive in a very long while...maybe never?

Did it used to provide their name? Do you know how long ago that was? I know over the years we've changed some things about the way the site records stuff, displays URLs, etc.

Hi Terry, thanks for responding. Yes, before IB bought DG, DG members' names used to appear as part of the file name when downloading images.

I couldn't tell you exact dates, as I only discovered this today.

Before IB bought DG, I always appreciated that DG members' names were part of the file names of the photos that they uploaded to DG the same way I like to keep the name of a DG member with plants I grow from their seeds. I strongly suspect this change occurred after IB bought DG.

I know some people don't want anyone downloading their images at all, but if copyright is respected and the image not shared without permission, I think the ability to save each others' images not only makes a great learning/resource tool, but also shows appreciation and can be helpful when hard drives crash (especially since some images uploaded to DG have been reduced in size since IB bought DG).

edited to clarify muddled grammar

This message was edited Apr 13, 2010 11:28 PM

yes, the file name did indeed include the DG members name. I found this very useful when I was downloading photos for an article. The file name reminded me who to give credit for the photo to.
This changed when DG was sold this last time.

I guess uploading images to DG is not very helpful for those who lose images to a 'pooter crash. Just noticed that the size of my above referred-to image - http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/224671/ - has been reduced from 2816 x 2112 to 800 x 600. I don't post many of my pics because I'm a terrible photographer; but this one was a once-in-a-lifetime exception that not only produced an identifiable image but what to me was a work of art. If we don't garden for beauty, then why are we here?

I understand the practicality for saving money by reducing images on DG, but substituting poorer scans, to me, is a huge loss to those who see their flowers and gardens as both art and functional producers of food, bird attractors, real-estate sales, etc.

This message was edited Apr 14, 2010 1:22 PM

threegardeners, thanks for noticing and caring - looks like we crossed in cyberspace

I will bring this up today when we talk to the tech team and Michael and Talia.

Terry, I have discovered another problem that results from DG members' monikers being deleted from (or not presently included in) the file names of their photos.

There is a DG member who I greatly admire and to whom I will always be indebted for the way he has enriched my experiences in growing morning glories on so many levels - horticulturally, scientifically, aesthetically, etc. If not for him, the family Convolvulaceae in PlantFiles would not have become the international reference it was.

Many DG members have worked with him so that a number of rare morning glory species could be grown out and seeds returned to him so that he can continue the work of preserving those species and disseminating their seeds to those who have demonstrated sufficient horticultural levels and understanding of what he has been trying to do. (They did keep a few seeds and thus acquired an unusual plant they might not otherwise have had the pleasure of growing.)

And they shared photos with him, which he uploaded to PlantFiles. The thing is, their names are no longer on the file name of the images he posted on DG PlantFiles.

I really think these people deserve credit for what they did and very much hope that this can be made right. Let's put the names of DG members who have shared their photos with DG back into the file names of their images.

Karen

Thank you Terry - we crossed in cyberspace

Terry, of the images I looked at in the past, Ron's name never appeared on the file name of the image - I always saw the name of the DG member on the file name who took the pic. So, in these cases of which I'm aware, Ron did not post under anyone else's username.

For more recent pictures, all I see is that number minus any DG moniker on the file name. As an example of current practice, Ron does say in the caption, though, that the picture was produced in collaboration with the other DG member - http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/274411/ .

Ron has always provided credit to those who shared pics with him so he could post them in PF. I just wish that the DG name of the one who took the pic would still be a part of the file name of the photo - it would save a lot of confusion, not to mention credit to whom it is due.

edited paragraph 1 for clarity

This message was edited Apr 14, 2010 2:43 PM

Karen, I do see that Ron did not put his own watermark on the images and he gave credit in the caption - that is the appropriate way for any of us to handle uploading any images that are not ours, after getting permission or making sure they are in the public domain.

But you could not have then saved those photos to your hard drive, and have the system automatically insert the photographer's username - it would have embedded Ron's username, if anything.

The system would not know to include any other username, other than the person who uploaded it.

As to your general question.

We have never encouraged the practice of downloading/saving other people's images to your hard drive. (Yes, the DG writers may occasionally do so in order to include a photo in their article, and they have to look at the watermark or otherwise make note of where they obtained the image in order to give proper credit within their article.)

The practice of copying someone's photos for your own use is not encouraged, and for that reason (along with some technical reasons regarding the volume of photos we host), we also can't support the process from a technical standpoint and provide the photographer's username in the file name suggested by the system.

The file names you see now are the only names the system provides if you right-click and choose "save as" to copy a photo to your hard drive. You can always change that file name before you save it (but please keep in mind, the entire process is not encouraged.)

The watermarks will - of course - remain on the image of if you download it. And we will continue to do everything within our power to stop any unauthorized use of photos submitted to PlantFiles.

Terry, I agree with you and appreciate this website's dedication to safeguarding everyone's copyrights to their photos.

I just wish that the practice still continued, previous to IB's purchase of DG, where a username occurred in the file name of images that the user took.

I hear ya. The tech team said this was probably something that had to be modified when the files were migrated, due to the massive volume of photos we have residing on the site. And they also pointed out (gently) that we shouldn't be even inadvertently encouraging any copying or downloading of photos ;o)

For the record, I welcome everyone who wants to, to save my images to their hard drive and to use them as they wish.

Terry, would you consider doing a poll on DG that asks members whether they would prefer to have the ability to download images on their hard drive, or not?

Unfortunately I don't think we can put this up for debate, since a lot of it is based on the technical issues that caused them to change to this process.

For what it's worth, I'm a software developer, and I can tell you that the action taken by IB to change the file names makes perfect sense to me from a technical perspective as does the fact that it's probably not feasible for them to change the names back. In many cases the naming scheme may be used in processing the files within the software. It may be used to sort the files and/or locate them in the database, for instance. As a result, the new file names may be necessary to proper operation of the site.

As to when the names were changed, I thought that Dave actually participated in that process, either changing the names themselves or adjusting the existing code to accommodate the name change (something he did for IB before he left). Remember that brief period when photos all over the site but particularly in PF were showing up as names/words instead of thumbnails? That, as I understood it, was when he was making the changes (for IB) to rename all of the photo files. That (again, as I understood it) had to be completed before the code could be moved from the 'old' servers to the IB servers, so I suspect that the basic IB system expects/requires that file names be in the new scheme.

I apologize for butting in. I just wanted to explain from the developer perspective that it is probably necessary that the files names be as they are now and that it probably has nothing to do with any kind of attempt to devalue the names of the photographers in any way.

That's all right, DreamofSpring - hopefully this will be a learning experience for us all. As for names of photographers being 'devalued' - I still think it's disrespectful, albeit efficient. Isn't this the story of Modern Times?

I don't see how it's disrespectful--their copyright is still on the image and that's the real way they get credit for (and legal rights to) their image.

ecrane, keeping track of an image's or seed's source, to me, is a form of respect. If all PF images had that copyright watermark on them and if that watermark were always legible (as opposed to being too tiny or fading into the background when both were the same color, etc.), then I would concede that keeping the username on the file name was redundant. But that isn't always the case.

If they don't have the member's name copyrighted on them (e.g., those that Ron uploaded) their name wouldn't appear in the file name either.

Hi Terry,

It often happens that folks ask each other for permission to use each others' photos on DG, so Ron is not unique in that regard. I think it's wonderful that images can play a role in different kinds of dialog and evolution of ideas in this way - whether it's the writers' group or spontaneous thinkers in the forums or folks in PlantFiles setting high standards of taxonomy.

But beyond that, I am hoping we can keep this discussion focused on the general practice once common on DG, when images posted by the originator contained the username of the originator in the file name of the image.

You and others have helped me to understand that this is no longer practical on DG, and I accept that that's the way things have to be. I wish it were not so, but I accept it.

Let me try once more to clarify something, because this seems to be at the crux of your question/concern. I'll use fictitious usernames here.

Let's say "GardenerBob" uploads a photo that belongs to "MaryFlowerChild" (with her permission - she just doesn't feel comfortable uploading it or whatever). He uploads it to PlantFiles.

Then "VeggieLover" copies this photo from PlantFiles for his personal journal (not something we encourage, but....)

In the past, the suggested filename would have contained the username "GardenerBob" - not "MaryFlowerChild."

So the old file naming conventions would not have helped "VeggieLover" keep track of whose photo this was.

In this situation, the new file naming conventions are a moot point; they do not affect this situation one way or the other. And in this scenario, the watermark will also not help identify the photo unless "MaryFlowerChild' added her own watermark before sending it to "GardenerBob" to upload.

Now, if "MaryFlowerChild" uploads her own image to PlantFiles, the photo itself will contain her username imprinted on the image, unless she deliberately suspends it. It is true the filename will not contain her username - that's where this change comes into play.

So if "VeggieLover" downloads an image for personal use, it's up to him to choose a file name if he doesn't like the alpha/numeric file name suggested - if he's being super-conscientious, he may choose to name the file "MaryFlowerChild's flower picture."

And unless he crops out the watermark (definitely a breach of ethics), he will always have a reminder of whose photo it is when he opens it up, if "MaryFlowerChild" watermarked it.

Does that help explain this better? I think DreamsofSpring did a great job of explaining the technical reasonings behind the change - and as mentioned, it had nothing to do with devaluing the contributor...the filenames were really never meant to be seen because we don't encourage or recommend the practice of members or visitors copying those to their own personal files. The only exception to that is when a writer borrows an image to write an article for Dave's Garden; they are ethically bound to keep track of whose image they used, and give proper permission.

peace, everyone

Kind of along the same lines, I received an email from a plant nursery the other day. There was a photo of a plant they are selling, on their site. I thought it was odd that the photo said "courtesy of daves garden" or something similar instead of the photographer. Does that mean the person that submitted the photo gave permission to use it without credit or are photos here allowed to be used by anyone without proper credit?

I didn't think it was worth causing a big stir over it but since the question is similar...For all I know, the DG member didn't care if they used his/her photo.

It actually says "Photo used with permission of Dave's Garden".

Generally speaking, we don't give permission to nurseries. Any commercial use of a photo is supposed to be requested from the photographer. IF they received permission to use the photo, we do ask them to note where it they got it from. So please send us a note with the details and we'll do some discreet research into the specifics.

I love that DG is so supportive of its members when dealing with issues of people using member's photos elsewhere on the web w/o permission. A few years ago when one of my photos was taken from another site (not DG), a site on which I was a paying subscriber BTW, and used elsewhere, both the site from which the photo was taken and the site where it was used w/o permission ignored me. Neither site was at all helpful. I had to handle everything on my own, getting very stern in my correspondence to get the photo removed from the offending site.

By direct comparison, the willingness of the DG Admins to help its members in such matters is the kind of thing that makes DG so special among websites and is greatly appreciated.

Terry, without thinking, I clicked your name and sent the info instead of hitting the appropriate button below. Whoops. Of and running...again....still...

No problem - I sent you a reply and kicked off the review process.