• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Implemented Change copy & paste picture functionality in 1.2

Martok

Well-known member
#1
In Xenforo 1.2, the functionality for copying and pasting pictures differs from previous versions. In 1.2, when copying and pasting a picture, it is uploaded as an attachment into a forum post. In earlier versions, if the image was copied from another website, the pasted picture was inserted as an image linked from that site. Images copied from a computer weren't inserted and they had to be uploaded as a file before inserting into a post.

Proposal
A function in the ACP is added to enable/disable this new functionality. Disabling it would revert the functionality to that in 1.1.5 and earlier. If this isn't possible to implement, then I would propose that this new functionality is removed altogether and is reverted to that in 1.15.

Why?
Discussion on this new functionality started here:

http://xenforo.com/community/threads/a-new-editor-and-much-much-more.50519/page-35#post-577041

The issue with this new functionality is that many users will continue to use the copy and pasting pictures as they have done before with the consequence that forums will end up hosting the images instead of simply linking to them. This has consequences for server space (especially for large forums) as well as copyright - some websites take a very hard line on other sites, including forums, taking and hosting their images, and ultimately it's the forum owners' responsibility not to breach copyright.

Although we can try and educate our users, we won't succeed in at least some cases, especially with the less tech-savvy. Setting permissions to prevent using attachments doesn't solve the issue either as there will be users who do want to upload images that they have on the computer.

Don't get me wrong, I think this new functionality is great. However, I think it's going to cause more problems for forum admins, hence my suggestion of either a control in the ACP to enable/disable this feature or to revert the functionality to what we currently have in 1.1.5.
 
#3
+1 but this is not as much about server space on hosting as copyright of images copy/pasting from other sites. it'll be just great to have an option in CP to on/off this feature.
 

DFI

Active member
#4
New functionality is complicating this also. Earlier features are simple and best. So I too feel that we should amend or revert.
 

DRE

Well-known member
#6
Only bad thing about this is the amount of DMCA takedown notices going up due to forum hosted images.
Most images are already copyrighted. When they are posted without permission from the copyright owner and that copyright owner finds out, usually they request the photos to be removed from the site's that is hosting the images (ex: tinypic) contact form. If the site is hosting the images itself and they do not comply they will request for that content to either be removed through the DMCA compliance link or they'll report the site to that webmaster's host etc and/or get the content taken out of search engine results (chilling effects). By hosting images directly as an attachment you run the risk of copyright owners reporting your content to google, getting your thread removed from search results or worse, them contacting your host, this even happened to Xenforo btw and then Xenforo got taken offline for awhile.
That won't be any more of a problem than it already is.
Don't assume that. Especially not with Google.

I think there should be an option to turn automatic attachment uploads function off for cut-n-pasted images.
 

Martok

Well-known member
#7
What stops someone from downloading the picture and then uploading it to the forum?
Nothing at all. However, that would be a deliberate act on the user's part to take and upload an image.

The difference here is that the new functionality makes it very easy to upload images inadvertently. This is because the copy and paste process for doing this is identical to what is currently done in 1.1.5 (and editors elsewhere), however in 1.1.5 and elsewhere this puts a linked image into the post, not an uploaded image. This is very useful especially for the less tech-savvy as copying and pasting pictures is natural for them from programs like Word, whereas adding a picture by linking a URL is more complex (and believe me I know this is true, I do a lot of training with teachers and find some still struggle with this!)

So I think that the functionality should either revert to that in 1.1.5 or at least have some sort of switch in the ACP to enable/disable this to avoid the inevitable increase in uploaded pictures on forums and the problems of breaking copyright that forum admins will have to deal with.
 

Biker

Well-known member
#8
What stops someone from downloading the picture and then uploading it to the forum?
Absolutely nothing. However, since the member has done it and not the software (which the Administrator would be responsible for), Safe Harbor now applies. If the software is doing it, it's a whole 'nother can of worms that I'd rather not put up with.

If this function were to go "gold" in its present form, I would have to do some edits to disable drag and drop completely. It's not something I want to deal with as the Admin and site owner.
 

AndyB

Well-known member
#9
One thing to consider is that the current functionality is preferable to some admin like myself. So I hope Mike will make a switch in the Admin CP to enable or disable this feature so it will satisfy the needs for most forum owners.
 
Last edited:

Biker

Well-known member
#11
As long as the drag and drop slaps an img tag on it, more power to it. But to physically upload it automatically to the server? No thank you. I don't want that headache.
 

caoanh204

Active member
#13
I agree. With this feature, our forum could be can be sued for copyright infringement pictures. Please add an option on 1.2 B6 or Final. Thanks.
 

rellek

Well-known member
#15
Well, here in Germany you can be sued either way. If you embed an image, people argue that you (as the administrator who didn't even posted it) claim copyrights on your side (wherever they have that from) and if you upload it to your server, they say the same.

So basically the best solution is upload and prevent guests from downloading it. If it's on your server, you don't steal traffic and the real owner doesn't even know you have that image embedded. So at least for German customers, that would be a big plus.
And, I do not depend on if the other server is available or not. So if a thread depends on images posted, you can still read it after 10 years. Plus, it decreases the loading time for Google and the connections to different servers. So there are many advantages, I think.

I would like the option what to do with a linked image: Just embed or re-upload to my own server.
 

caoanh204

Active member
#16
Yes, this feature is useful with someone and unfavorable for someone, too.
So xenForo should be add an option allow to user enable/disable this feature.
 

DBA

Well-known member
#17
For copyright issues it doesn't matter if you have it stored on your server (attachment) or it's an embedded image, it's still being shown on your site and therefore in violation. So changing this functionality for image copyright reasons would be pointless. The only way to prevent copyright issues is by posting only a link to the original image.
 

Martok

Well-known member
#18
For copyright issues it doesn't matter if you have it stored on your server (attachment) or it's an embedded image, it's still being shown on your site and therefore in violation. So changing this functionality for image copyright reasons would be pointless. The only way to prevent copyright issues is by posting only a link to the original image.
There's still a big difference between hotlinking an image and taking the image and uploading it on your forum. Sites that are particularly bothered about hotlinking will put code in place to prevent it. Others use it to their advantage as it can draw in new visitors. I'm sure sites take a dimmer view of other sites that take their images over those that just hotlink to them.

This suggestion is still valid anyway as admins may not want an increasing amount of their web space taken up by uploaded images.
 

Mike

XenForo developer
Staff member
#19
Not to say there isn't an issue here, but I feel like it's being blown out of proportion a bit - there's actually only one situation where the behavior changed between 1.1 and 1.2 where it actually worked correctly in 1.1: in Chrome (only), right click an image on a page, select "copy image", paste in the editor. That would upload in 1.2 where it would link in 1.1. I've changed it to detect this case.

Every other situation that I know of would either have appeared to embed the image in the editor but upon submission, it would have disappeared; or, it simply wouldn't have been embedded and the user would have had to manually click the upload file button. The rest of the situations simply make the actual upload intention simpler to use (drag and drop, paste an image from the clipboard that doesn't have a URL, etc).

Or is there another situation that I've missed?
 

DBA

Well-known member
#20
There's still a big difference between hotlinking an image and taking the image and uploading it on your forum. Sites that are particularly bothered about hotlinking will put code in place to prevent it. Others use it to their advantage as it can draw in new visitors. I'm sure sites take a dimmer view of other sites that take their images over those that just hotlink to them.
It doesn't matter if the image is on your server or hotlinked, it's still being shown/used on your site which is a copyright violation. Since there's visually no difference between a hotlinked (embedded) image and an attached one, I'd prefer that the offender just upload it to his own server so that he isn't using my server resources.
Others use it to their advantage as it can draw in new visitors.
I'm curious, how does a hotlinked image that doesn't have any other credit/attribution links drive traffic to the authors site?
This suggestion is still valid anyway as admins may not want an increasing amount of their web space taken up by uploaded images.
Correct, this is still a valid reason, which is why in my first post I stated that doing this for copyright reasons is pointless.


BTW I'm a photographer that covers professional and amateur motocross/supercross (dirt bike) events and I've lost track of the amount of times that my work has been taken. I no longer concern myself with copyright violations unless it's for commercial useage. Didn't take me that long to realize that going after individual people was a waste of time and money.