Using Images on your website? Copyright Issues

[mince001]

Everyone is using images on their websites. This is where issues regarding copyright come into place. what I do to find images that I can use is do an advanced google image search and select "labeled for commerical reuse with modification".

However, this does not give me enough results in some cases.

How can you use pictures and not get in trouble?
For example if I want to use celebrity pics for my website, how could I do this ?

[paulgl]

stock.xchng - the leading free stock photography site

has a ton of free photos and images to use.
Go there, do an advanced search, choose restricted "no."

It will then give premium and free images. If you want to
use the large versions, you have to join. It is free.

You should check the license agreement for even the free pics.
Sometimes, rarely, an author will allow free us with limitations.

I've seen paid places offer the same images as that site.
They seem to have the same things on all the image sites.

Another trick I have used is to see if wikipedia is using any
images you like. Click the image and it gives you the reason
they are using it.

It's not really against the law to use copyrighted images.
(US law, that is.) You just have to use them correctly.

This may not pertain to you, but for many sites that I
want name brand stuff or celebrities, I use amazon affiliate
links. Amazon even tells you to put the images on your server.
Very cool if you are building a fan site of something.

I have a politician site and it is plastered with pics supplied by
amazon, of course all linked discretely to products. That is,
they don't look like linked photos to the visitor.

Paul

[jerytohn]

You can link to an image using the html "img src" code. It is totally legal to do so.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by jerytohn

You can link to an image using the html "img src" code. It is totally legal to do so.

That's absolutely not true. If it's copyrighted, you need permission to use
it on your site or use it legally. Legally would be for a news site, research,
etc.

You can't just stick an image on your site just because you know how
to add an image using html. That's crazy.

Some site give you ways of linking to their sites using their code.
Completely different than stealing an image.

Paul

[mince001]

I use the website you mentioned as well.Only the mid section images are for use really.

I am not sure....you said that it is fine to copy images and put them on your site...for example ...if you want to make a post about russell brand ....would you just take the picture off google images? or....

[jerytohn]

Originally Posted by paulgl

That's absolutely not true. If it's copyrighted, you need permission to use
it on your site or use it legally. Legally would be for a news site, research,
etc.

You can't just stick an image on your site just because you know how
to add an image using html. That's crazy.

Some site give you ways of linking to their sites using their code.
Completely different than stealing an image.

Paul

I was talking about linking to an image on other sites ....

[paulgl]

I think you need to do actual research.

You can only use it if you have a "fair use" reason to use it.

Again, that's news, research, etc., or in google's case, search results.

I have no idea why you think it's okay to use any image just because you
link to it. Absolutely crazy.

If that were the case, you could host music, videos, etc., and just give
a shout out to the actual copyright holder.

But, if you have adsense on your site, you best not have any copyrighted
images, content, etc. that you do not have permission to use.

Again, if you have a "fair use" reason, that's another matter.

But, go ahead. Steal images and then claim, well, I linked to em!

I should also point out that I know that you can basically republish anything
found on a .gov site, provided it does not say you can't. That stuff is owned by
the American people and cannot be copyrighted in most cases.

Paul

[jerytohn]

Originally Posted by paulgl

I think you need to do actual research.

You can only use it if you have a "fair use" reason to use it.

Again, that's news, research, etc., or in google's case, search results.

I have no idea why you think it's okay to use any image just because you
link to it. Absolutely crazy.

If that were the case, you could host music, videos, etc., and just give
a shout out to the actual copyright holder.

But, if you have adsense on your site, you best not have any copyrighted
images, content, etc. that you do not have permission to use.

Again, if you have a "fair use" reason, that's another matter.

But, go ahead. Steal images and then claim, well, I linked to em!

I should also point out that I know that you can basically republish anything
found on a .gov site, provided it does not say you can't. That stuff is owned by
the American people and cannot be copyrighted in most cases.

Paul

Not sure why you would think that? Maybe you should read this: Inline linking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[paulgl]

You keep saying the same thing over and over....
Like you just don't care to know the truth...

You can't use copyrighted images anytime you wish,
just because you link to them!

It's really quite simple...so simple....really, really simple...

Newsflash: You are not reading correctly! You are ignoring
the caveat, FAIR USE! You cannot use mickey mouse on
your site without Disney's permission, no matter what legal
idiotic reasons you think you can. Even if you link to them!
Unless, you are doing a news story, or anything else that is
"fair use."

So simple....why would you go to wikipedia for legal advice?!?!
(and not read further!)

Paul

[dadamson]

Free: stock.xchng - the leading free stock photography site

Paid: Stock Photography: Search Royalty Free Images & Photos | iStockphoto.com

^ All you will ever need.

Copying images from Google Images search for your own site is wrong. Most of the images will be copyrighted. The Google Images search is just a collection of images that appears on webpages that match your search term, they actually belong to people.

Re-read Pauls posts above 5 times if you need to, he is right.

[jerytohn]

Originally Posted by paulgl

You keep saying the same thing over and over....
Like you just don't care to know the truth...

You can't use copyrighted images anytime you wish,
just because you link to them!

It's really quite simple...so simple....really, really simple...

Newsflash: You are not reading correctly!

Paul

Would you point me to the correct article or something that says so?

[dadamson]

Originally Posted by jerytohn

Would you point me to the correct article or something that says so?

Read this: http://blog.2createawebsite.com/2010...ite-illegally/

Particularly this paragraph:

I love how Google has its “Images” menu item. Whenever I want to see a picture of just about anything, I use Google Images to find what I’m looking for.

But while this may seem obvious to some, believe it or not too many webmasters will grab these images for their own use and republish them without permission. This is copyright infringement whether intentional or not.

If there’s an image you want to republish, you MUST get express permission from the copyright owner before you can legally use it

This means that simply linking to an image you stole is not satisfactory.

It's like stealing a car but puting a note on the side saying "belongs to joe".. well, maybe not, but you get the gist

[timpears]

Originally Posted by jerytohn

You can link to an image using the html "img src" code. It is totally legal to do so.

I don't think so. Try using a Getty image with this and see what happens. They activatly scour the web for people using their images. A friend of mine got caught and ended up paying $6,000 for his error.

Giving people legal advice if you are not a lawyer, is likely to get them in big trouble, so I would advise against this.

[jerytohn]

Originally Posted by timpears

I don't think so. Try using a Getty image with this and see what happens. They activatly scour the web for people using their images. A friend of mine got caught and ended up paying $6,000 for his error.

Giving people legal advice if you are not a lawyer, is likely to get them in big trouble, so I would advise against this.

Thanks ....

[jerytohn]

Originally Posted by dadamson

Read this: http://blog.2createawebsite.com/2010...ite-illegally/

Particularly this paragraph:

I love how Google has its “Images” menu item. Whenever I want to see a picture of just about anything, I use Google Images to find what I’m looking for.

But while this may seem obvious to some, believe it or not too many webmasters will grab these images for their own use and republish them without permission. This is copyright infringement whether intentional or not.

If there’s an image you want to republish, you MUST get express permission from the copyright owner before you can legally use it

This means that simply linking to an image you stole is not satisfactory.

It's like stealing a car but puting a note on the side saying "belongs to joe".. well, maybe not, but you get the gist

Okay ... this seems like the personal opinion of a blogger. And as you know... anybody can start a blog

[markfreedom]

I think it can be as long as there is no water marks.

[dadamson]

Originally Posted by jerytohn

Okay ... this seems like the personal opinion of a blogger. And as you know... anybody can start a blog

That's true. But what he is saying in his blog is correct. What you are saying about linking an image being ok is incorrect.

If you still think your opinion is correct after we are all telling you you're wrong we can't help you.

What happens if you spent a thousand bucks for a marketing and graphic design team to develop a customized image for your business sales page that converts a great percent of your traffic to conversions. Then all of a sudden your biggest competitor just copies your image for their sales page.

Oh but that's ok right, they put a small link in the footer.

Good luck to you buddy

[jerytohn]

Originally Posted by dadamson

That's true. But what he is saying in his blog is correct. What you are saying about linking an image being ok is incorrect.

If you still think your opinion is correct after we are all telling you you're wrong we can't help you.

What happens if you spent a thousand bucks for a marketing and graphic design team to develop a customized image for your business sales page that converts a great percent of your traffic to conversions. Then all of a sudden your biggest competitor just copies your image for their sales page.

Oh but that's ok right, they put a small link in the footer.

Good luck to you buddy

I would like to see some cases where the courts have passed judgement on the issue. You said that what he is saying is correct ... so how do you know it is right?

[strategic seo services]

Originally Posted by paulgl

stock.xchng - the leading free stock photography site

has a ton of free photos and images to use.
Go there, do an advanced search, choose restricted "no."

It will then give premium and free images. If you want to
use the large versions, you have to join. It is free.

You should check the license agreement for even the free pics.
Sometimes, rarely, an author will allow free us with limitations.

I've seen paid places offer the same images as that site.
They seem to have the same things on all the image sites.

Another trick I have used is to see if wikipedia is using any
images you like. Click the image and it gives you the reason
they are using it.

It's not really against the law to use copyrighted images.
(US law, that is.) You just have to use them correctly.

This may not pertain to you, but for many sites that I
want name brand stuff or celebrities, I use amazon affiliate
links. Amazon even tells you to put the images on your server.
Very cool if you are building a fan site of something.

I have a politician site and it is plastered with pics supplied by
amazon, of course all linked discretely to products. That is,
they don't look like linked photos to the visitor.

Paul

Thanks for sharing this site! It will definitely help me.

[dadamson]

Originally Posted by jerytohn

I would like to see some cases where the courts have passed judgement on the issue. You said that what he is saying is correct ... so how do you know it is right?

You may be interested in reading this: Are Google Images free (to download on website)? If not, how do I determine price and where/who to pay for image(s)? - Web Search Help

And this: Google Image Search – To Steal or Not to Steal | Oneupweb : StraightUpSearch Blog

Trust me, I know I am right on this.

Do you have any resources to share that disprove my point?

Cheers,
Dave

[jerytohn]

Originally Posted by dadamson

You may be interested in reading this: Are Google Images free (to download on website)? If not, how do I determine price and where/who to pay for image(s)? - Web Search Help

And this: Google Image Search – To Steal or Not to Steal | Oneupweb : StraightUpSearch Blog

Trust me, I know I am right on this.

Do you have any resources to share that disprove my point?

Cheers,
Dave

Actually, what I am talking about is not downloading images and putting them on your server. What I would like to know about is hotlinking an image with the html "img src". So, apparently from this case, it says that using the image in such a way is not illegal: Inline linking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[paulgl]

Come on, you were almost there.

Nobody seems to be able to talk you down from the ledge.

Google won the lawsuit because they showed it was "fair use"
to have images show in search results. If you don't want them
to show your images, there is a procedure to get it taken down.
That alone smacks against your only giving a link back bit. In
fact, google hates taking them down and always puts a little bite
at the bottom, "so and so asked us to take some down, so results
have omitted those..." or maybe they are just reiterating.

You keep forgetting the "fair use" bit, why I don't know.

You can't just give a link back to the originating site. it's called
stealing. Look at the images wikipedia uses. Search for anything that
has an image. Click on the image. Wikipedia will tell you why they
are using it and all parameters. They are not using them by only
giving a click back. They are justifying the fair use. Something again,
you keep forgetting.

Originally Posted by markfreedom

I think it can be as long as there is no water marks.

Are you friggin' daft?!?!?!?! Watermarks are just a hindrance to stealing. Funny thing
is, I've see some clowns use images and keep the stupid watermarks!

But hey man! I wish you well! Steal and publish! I can't say I am
revisiting this nauseating thread.

Paul

[yukon]

Originally Posted by paulgl

Are you friggin' daft?!?!?!?! Watermarks are just a hindrance to stealing. Funny thing
is, I've see some clowns use images and keep the stupid watermarks!

But hey man! I wish you well! Steal and publish! I can't say I am
revisiting this nauseating thread.

Paul

BWahahaha!

[timpears]

We have tried to warn people, and if you still don't believe us by trying to justify stealing, then good luck. Don't say you weren't warned.

[AprilCT]

Be extremely careful to read the terms of use on Stock Exchange. Getty Images owns them now.

You have to read each one for each picture you want to use of the free ones. Some of the permissions are very different. I also check the author and the picture page itself to see if there is anything extra on it that you need to do or know before using the pic.