Any help here,

http://html.com/attributes/img-src/

Mikie, I am still a little green at this and not exactly sure what you are asking. The photo is supposed to be used by the index file (appear on the main webpage). I have tried both with and without the forward slash. Get the same results (no picture) both ways (and I did refresh the browser and cache, BTW).

I am not sure what "full www path" to use. The file is on the server, so I think it's path would be the ftp address?

"I was moving the pictures from another site and posting them on my own website's host, but the images no longer show up."

If you didn't take ownership of these pictures...as in saving them to your own file with a new name/title...or didn't get the owner's permission to use the photos...and the photos are being linked at the original owner's location...the owner could have blocked or restricted use of these photos. Some original owners have embedded scripts that prevent use of or hijacking of their photos/art. You can write all the HTML you want...and if the above is the case...the photos will never show up on your page.

"Can you view the image in your browser?"

Not from the server, because I'm not sure what their full URL is. I can view these pictures with my browser if I point it to their location on my harddrive (same file, different location).

"If you didn't take ownership of these pictures..."

These are my personal pictures. They were on Photobucket, but Photobucket has decided they want to be paid for me to use them. That's why I am moving them to my own website. I placed the .jpg files onto the server in the same directory as the index.htm file of my website.

"They were on Photobucket,..."

Oh woe, Brandon. :-( I'm sorry to read that. You would be one among many who have lost their photos since this photo storage site changed their policies. If you never backed up these photos to a removable disk or a secondary storage area, they may be lost forever. All I can suggest is that you notify Photobucket and see if they will help you retrieve and relocate the photos.

Good luck.

Assuming the index.htm file is in the root of the public web folder on the server, then the URL to view it is http://www.mysitename.com/index.htm

If that doesn't display the index.htm page, then call it up as you normally do and note what is the URL in the browser address bar --
http://yadayadayada

It may not have /index.htm on the end but adding /index.htm should also display the page.

The picture should be at the same http://yadayadayada but with /mypicture.jpg at the end instead of /index.htm

If it doesn't display in the browser that way then it may be in a subfolder, not the root folder with index.htm

The <img src> tag shouldn't need a path if the photo and the index.htm page are in the same folder on the server. It needs a path reference if index.htm and mypicture.jpg are not in the same (root) folder.

Either way, you can specify the full path even if it shouldn't be needed --
<img src="http:/www.yadayadayada.xxx/mypicture.jpg>"; (or whatever is the path that by itself in the browser displays the picture).

You said you can view the picture in your browser if you point it to the location on your local hard drive. Are you sure you uploaded said picture(s) to your web server?

Uploading a photo file to a website usually doesn't mean it was erased from your PC. Was this step included (which would have required user permission) for uploads to this site? That would be unusual. Is the image still on the PC or the device (phone or camera) used to take it?

I'm confused about the reference to "ownership". For any image, if it was possible to place a copy on a PC, it can be accessed, viewed, used or whatever you chose to do with it in a PC sense, irrespective of whether doing so violates someone's rights to it or not.

"I'm confused about the reference to "ownership". For any image, if it
was possible to place a copy on a PC, it can be accessed, viewed, used
or whatever you chose to do with it in a PC sense, irrespective of
whether doing so violates someone's rights to it or not."

Not true in all instances, Fudd. If you've personally found this to be true than you've been lucky. Many photo owners insert code or scripts into their photos to prevent linking and/or stealing of their photos. It's a common practice among photo professionals and/or photo journalists whose work is displayed on the internet.

Otherwise...to take "ownership" of a photo found on line that's not protected with a script or code...rather than linking to the owner's website...which is generally not appreciated by the owner of the site...it's common and acceptable practice to "save as" the photo with a new title/name so it's not linked....transferring "ownership" to your own file...making it yours so you're not using up the original owners bandwidth.

Another hazard of linking a photo is that the original site may drop or move the linked photo. If that happens...your link is broken and the photo will disappear from your file.

The question of ownership has no bearing on the HTML coding question.

However, perhaps Brandon7 should clarify whether he created the picture of question ... a photograph taken via his camera, or an image created with Photoshop or other software ... or whether he obtained it by "save as" from someone else's web site.

When images (or text) are on web pages that decline the copy function when being viewed in a browser, then they can't easily be copied and placed on a third party PC. That's why I said what I did in the second paragraph. Once on someone's PC, then as far as the PC is concerned, a copied and saved image file is an image file like any other, as dadoes said. If an image appears on a web page with a partially obliterating watermark, then that's what's there is to copy or use. The watermark text is there to limit usefulness of copies but indeed it is part of the image. This isn't complicated.

Having a copy of a copyright protected item, whether text or image, doesn't convey ownership of the copyright itself. It's possession of a copy, usually limited to explicit rights granted by law and or contract, if applicable, to the holder of the copy. There's a Fair Use doctrine that permits certain non-commercial uses of copies of copyright protected material without the owner's permission. Ownership of a copyright and possession of a copy of something protected by copyright law are very two different things.

I wouldn't give a second thought to non-commercial, personal use (even on a personal webpage or blog) of an image snatched from the internet.

"The question of ownership has no bearing on the HTML coding question." Dadoes

I don't believe that I said it did. I was offering another reason why his photo was not displaying or transferring. I'm more than aware of HTML coding. Perhaps, as you suggest, Brandon7 should better clarify the ownership issue of the photos in question.

"I wouldn't give a second thought to non-commercial, personal use (even
on a personal webpage or blog) of an image snatched from the internet." Fudd

Why doesn't that surprise me!

I have no interest in...or desire to...discuss that statement/question that I directed to Fudd with you, Richard. So just scroll on by.

Thanks, chuggerguy. I didn't understand the comment either and I was going to ignore it. No need to repeat but since I'm typing, I will. Ownership of an image has no bearing on the question and even items "owned" by others can be used publicly for certain non-commercial purposes without requesting permission.

This is one of hundreds of such sites on the internet. Read it all and read it carefully, Fudd. And if you don't like this particularly thorough site...do a search of your own.

https://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/

Good grief this thread is really getting off track! The pictures are not lost! I placed a copy on Photobucket so they could be accessed by the public. The Photobucket copies are still there (in addition to being on my camera and on my harddrive) but are not eligible to be linked to (on Photobucket) by an outside website (without me paying them). Again, they are my photos!

I will try to review the other comments and respond shortly. I just thought I would try to stop the bizarre way this thread was getting so far from being useful.

My guess would be you've put the index file on your private side of public_html

Your ftp path on most servers is different so maybe its not really displaying as an html web page. Http://www.gardensite.com/USERNAME might use ftp address of ftp://www.gardensite.com/usr/home/USERNAME/public_html/ << that's where your main index.htm typically is located. Different servers have different paths sometimes, but this is typical.

Some things to review,

http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/how-to-fix-a-broken-image

WOW, I figured it out!!!!!!!!!

Something Andi said above, which I thought was completely off topic, got me to thinking....what if Photobucket had changed my file. I did recopy the picture from Photobucket instead of going back to the original files (to save me from having to dig though stuff). After all, it was my file (or so I thought) to start with.

When I use another .jpg (not received back from Photobucket), everything works just fine. Those Photobucket people are a horrid bunch of idiots, IMO. They get you to post all your stuff on their site and then they do a switcheroo.

So, mystery solved.....Photobucket altered their copy of my files making them unusable.

Their action in that regard is inconsistent. I checked my account earlier this morn. I used it to add pics to GardenWeb posts pre-Houzz when there wasn't an upload function, and some linked elsewhere. Some of my pics that were linked in long-ago GW posts are changed, others that I know were linked are not (yet) changed.

When you say "website" I'm assuming you have a domain and some company hosting that domain. The hosting comes with storage space, why put your photos on another site? Then you don't have to worry about someone else changing something.

There's a number or reasons, Mike. One is that you can provide very easy access to multiple people for changing the pictures. Another is that the photos might serve multiple sites or multiple other applications (including public photo album access). A third is that the pictures may have been chosen from a large photo album with many pictures and the programmer didn't want to take the time to copy all the pictures over to the site.

In general though, it probably is better practice to have the pictures stored in your hosting account. Part of my excuse might be laziness.