[dhekir]

The author's blog says:

All site content © Paul Reiffer 2019 and may not be used without permission

And Petapixel's post credits him, and includes in the end:

About the author: (...) This article was also published here [link to author's blog].

So, I assume it has been authorized by the author? Does he prefer to have a link to his own blog directly?

[unicornporn]

It has been authorized. The deal works like this: Petapixel pays nothing and the links in the footnotes hopefully drives some traffic to the photographer's site and social media. In this game Petapixel is the influencer that asks for free ice cream in exchange for an Instagram post. Blog spam 2.0.

I don't see why one wouldn't want to link the source and at the same time support the writer directly instead of hoping a fraction of the readers will find and follow the links in the footnotes on Petapixel.

[jasode]

>Blog spam 2.0. [...] I don't see why one wouldn't want to link the source and at the same time support the writer directly

I wasn't the one who downvoted your comment but in this particular case I disagree. I wouldn't call this "blog spam". The petapixel post is more like the author strategically choosing syndication[1].

As a reader of articles, I find the petalpixel url more relevant than the photographer's own website. After I'm done reading the 1 article, I can see more "trending" articles on the righthand side to read more.

In contrast, the photographer's website is less relevant because I'm not interested in buying prints that cost $1100 to $13000 USD or contacting him to book luxury expeditions.

Just wanted to provide a different perspective and why I think the Petapixel url is more appropriate for the HN audience. In fact, sending a potential "HN hug of death" directly to the author's website with virtually no one "adding to shopping cart" while using up his hosting bandwidth seems to be the opposite of supporting the photographer.

[1] https://indieweb.org/POSSE

[Freak_NL]

> I don't see why one wouldn't want to link the source and at the same time support the writer directly instead of hoping a fraction of the readers will find and follow the links in the footnotes on Petapixel.

Isn't that between the author and Petapixel? The author seems to have granted permission to reproduce his work there.

[CarVac]

I once called out blogspam like this before, and was called out in return by the author themself—Petapixel actually pays authors for their content.