Hubby and I say that, if it's on the web without a password, you can advertise the URL. Artist friend says, no, it sucks up my bandwidth. Get permission first. All three of us agree that the above does not apply to large sites like CNN. And you should link to the site's intended entry page or at least a page that has the usual entry page info -- disclaimers and credits and whatever the person wants to be seen with the piece in question. And, if the owner of the site or the piece asks that you don't link without permission, or link to a specific page, you respect that. (That's one of the things that might be on the usual entry page for the site.) But if the site doesn't say, is it reasonable to assume that we can safely advertise the link? Discussion? Concensus?

I suppose with bigger companies..like CNN, yahoo MSN and whatnot..it might be ok to advertise the link..Ive seen no probs with it so far.. Yet if that is the case..how come it affects smaller or personal sites? How is the bandwidth different?

Bandwidth is the total bits transferred up or down, usually per month. Host sites usually cap it. I've been to Tripod a few times, and, instead of getting what I wanted, I get a "sorry, bandwidth exceeded. Contact the webmaster of the site or try again next month" type message. So, yes, it's a concern for little guys. But the counter side is that they put stuff up to be seen.

In response to the first part the Artist is completely wrong, putting up their site URL does not suck up bandwidth in any way shape or form. Linking to files or images on their server sucks up bandwidth but as they should be able to prevent cross-linking on their server preferences they have no need to complain about it. Angelfire for instance do not permit anyone linking to images from off site.

Putting up the URL doesn't suck up bandwidth, but everyone heading over to look at it does. Some servers do not allow you to prevent cross-linking -- haven't seen a thing about it on ours yet. Or you have to be a tech wiz to do it -- which means less time spent on art.

Originally posted by CricketBeautiful Putting up the URL doesn't suck up bandwidth, but everyone heading over to look at it does.

Well doesn't that defy the entire point of having a website? You may as well not publish it if you don't want people to see it.

Some servers do not allow you to prevent cross-linking -- haven't seen a thing about it on ours yet. Or you have to be a tech wiz to do it -- which means less time spent on art.

I've never heard of servers not allowing you to stop crosslinking, if your using a free service like lycos or geocities and its not done as standard you can always request it as they are more then happy to save their own bandwidth. As for payed hosting its always in the options but if your not sure just get in touch with your host on how to do it.

I've seen people with graphic intensive sites complain about being charged extra for their bandwidth because of linking from elsewhere. But that was some time ago, when perhaps bandwidth was more expensive and measured in smaller increments. Geocities' free service certainly doesn't permit crosslinking, my site is on there and I haven't found a way around it. Probably if I paid them for their marvellous services they would permit crosslinking

Hmm...band width...is like...rubber band....is like...rubber...is like...rubber room...is like...all things naughty and kinky... VOILA! Okay, so I suck at saying something thoughtful and profound when I'm trying to up my post count. *grin*

GASP!!..you mean something thoughtful and profound has to be said when posting????? NOW you tell me! *rereads the fine print in original joining up contract..*