When you see a picture in a blog post.....

[nancylebov]

do you assume it was taken by the poster unless there's other evidence, or that it wasn't taken by the poster?

Comments

[madfilkentist]

Unless it really matters, I usually don't think about that.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

I usually default to "not", unless the photo contains the poster or known friends of the poster.

-- Steve has been unsure many times when the subject was merely personal, or a landscape that the poster is known to have visited... but the default is that it's a rehosting/linking.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

In the absence of any indication at all (including textual context), I assume it was taken by the poster.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I default to "not taken by the poster", unless they say it is. There are a couple of posters on my list who are professional photographers and who post their own work regularly, so they're an exception.

[milimod.livejournal.com]

Initial knee-jerk reaction is that the picture was taken by the poster, especially if it's of a child, or a pet, or a landscape. After reading the post, I'll change to "not" if the poster doesn't specifically refer to the photo ("To the left is a great shot of Pike's Peak that we got while on vacation. The Peak was awesome...," etc.). If the photo is something ridiculous, like a studio-style close-up of a grinning guy with a green mohawk, I will automatically assume it was pulled from the web, unless, of course, the poster says "Can you believe I took this photo of my son Anton with a phone camera? I'm sending it in to the newspaper to see if they'll use it...," etc.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

It totally depends on context, but no, I don't just assume that. Usually I can tell from the way the entry is written and from knowing something about the poster. A lot of people will indicate--they'll either say where they got the photo (or other image) from or they'll say something that implies they created it themselves. Sometimes I can't tell, though. If I'm curious, I ask.

Myself, if I post photos or other images that I didn't make myself, I try to credit the source or at least to say something like "image from Google images." (Images I don't credit are ones I took or made myself.)

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

Yes, though the "other evidence" need not be strong or explicit.

[cellio]

It depends on context. For instance, if the post is about a trip and there are pictures of the locations talked about, I assume the poster took them. I assume the poster took pictures of family, pets, etc.

Most of the time I don't care, and if I do I'll look to see where the image is hosted.

[avram]

Yeah, generally I assume it was taken by the poster, unless I've got some reason to think it wasn't.

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

Absent other evidence I tend to assume the poster took it, but in my own observations said other evidence is rarely absent.

[crystalpyramid]

Taken by the poster, unless it's clearly a weird and nifty thing in a place they've never been. (E.g. shop signs in Japan with bad English.)

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

It's all about context.