Using Google images commercially

8 years ago

Originally Posted by leo1

In other words, can I also commercially reuse those in the "related images" section without attribution?

It isn't safe to use images obtained via a Google search for commercial purposes. Here's what Google says: "Google can't tell if the license label is legitimate, so we don't know if the content is lawfully licensed."

If the content is not legitimate, you are liable, not Google. Either obtain your images from a reputable image bank/stock photo site, or commission/create them yourself. It's the only way to be sure.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10793533].message }}

shaunybb

8 years ago

Hey I would stay far away from any of this.

My friend did this and he got a huge fine, don't do it!

Get images from photo dune, shutterstock etc

Thanks

Signature

====>READY To Be Successful Online? FIND OUT more!?<====

You FAIL online because you have the WRONG information.....

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10793561].message }}

Regional Warrior

8 years ago

Leo

there is a search function up the top of the page !!

here is the last thread from last month when someone wanted the same info

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...rical-use.html

Jason

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10793589].message }}

leo1

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Regional Warrior

Leo

there is a search function up the top of the page !!

here is the last thread from last month when someone wanted the same info

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...rical-use.html

Jason

Jason,

That thread does not quite address my concern. Do you guys think it is OK for Google to provide the "free to use, share or modify, even commercially" option in the "usage rights" section when that is simply not true? Do you think it is OK for Google to mislead people? Why would they do that? I'm just trying to understand what is going on here.

I would love to buy images from stock photo sites, but I am looking for memes and I don't think those sites are the right place to find them (that thread doesn't address this point either, that's why I started a new conversation). I searched in sites like Pixapay, Fotolia, Pexels and others and found nothing.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10794643].message }}

Sid Hale

8 years ago

Originally Posted by leo1

That thread does not quite address my concern. Do you guys think it is OK for Google to provide the "free to use, share or modify, even commercially" option in the "usage rights" section when that is simply not true? Do you think it is OK for Google to mislead people? Why would they do that? I'm just trying to understand what is going on here.

No... it's not OK - but it's legal for them to do so.

Google is NOT misleading people (they have a disclaimer indicating that the terms posted may/may not be accurate).

Google is NOT the internet!!!
Nor do they own it.

They don't make the copyright laws.
Nor is it their obligation to enforce those laws.

Google simply "aggregates" information from other web sites and/or persons who have submitted information to them (images, for instance) and displays the information they have aggregated in the form of "search results". If an individual (or web site) has indicated to Google (when submitting the asset) that an image is "free to use", then Google simply categorizes the image that way when presenting it in their search results.

Google is just a tool, and an imperfect one at that. It is the responsibility of the end user of any information to verify that they have the right to use that information in the way that they are using it.

Google does NOT assign those rights!

They simply "report" information that they have gathered from many other sources across the web.

[ 4 ] Thanks

Signature

Sid Hale
Coming Soon... Rapid Action Profits (Pro)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10794665].message }}

Omarkenawy

8 years ago

I think that it may broke the law of Google. You should make sure that the images are free to use, share or modify, even commercially.

Thanks

Signature

100% Free Download
Cheat Sheet Reveals: The Three Simple Steps to Make $5k Every Single Month

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10793607].message }}

krbshg

8 years ago

Well stay away from all these , Even I am one of the victim . Few years back even I did the same but later I paid huge amout as fine to come out of it .

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10793895].message }}

EPoltrack77

8 years ago

Iv'e been doing that exact same advance search feature for some time and I make good income and I have never had a problem but thans for the insight. Maybe I'll use a photo stock site or someplace

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Working to achieve higher results...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10794647].message }}

DABK

8 years ago

You're lucky. Hope you don't use a photo owned by someone who minds. Or, worse, one of those sites that look for people like you, to sue... for $7,000.

Originally Posted by EPoltrack77

Iv'e been doing that exact same advance search feature for some time and I make good income and I have never had a problem but thans for the insight. Maybe I'll use a photo stock site or someplace

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10794654].message }}

Steve B

8 years ago

Leo,

You can use Google images at your own risk. If you pick the right images, the ones that truly are free to use as you like, then you should be fine.

If you don't pick the right images, you could be held personally responsible for infringement and forced to pay a very hefty fine.

The problem is . . . as Google states . . . they don't know which images are copyright protected and which aren't. So neither do you.

That risk is too high for me . . . maybe it's not for you. But you have been warned.

Why can't you use the memes that you find at Google Images and either create similar graphics yourself with free tools (very easy to do) or have them made for you at Fiverr or similar?

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
SteveBrowneDirect

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10794679].message }}

leo1

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Steve B

Leo,

Why can't you use the memes that you find at Google Images and either create similar graphics yourself with free tools (very easy to do) or have them made for you at Fiverr or similar?

Steve

That is a great idea, Steve. I thought about using freelancers on Fiverr and elsewhere, but I think the cost would be high since I'd need them to make graphics for me on a daily basis.

Creating the graphics myself sounds a better option I believe. You said there are free, easy to use tools out there. Could you please elaborate more on that?

I have one concern though. Wouldn't it still be considered an infringement if I create "similar" images to someone else's? How similar can they be?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10797909].message }}

pdishman

8 years ago

Pixabay.com is a good place to get free images

Thanks

Signature

Social Networking and Growth Platform for Women Warriors - Join Now for Free!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10796720].message }}

ramblinman

8 years ago

try Pexels or Pixabay for free pictures. Using Google is a huge risk, just think of any search you have done in the past, how many things not really related to your search have still come up? Only go for images from a site stating free, or where an image itself is confirmed by the owner as free to use.

Thanks

Signature

http://philipmasononline.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10797925].message }}

rick98media

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10798396].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 8 years ago

TrickyRickyMedia not only wants you to get into monetary trouble by infringing...he wants you to pay the piper criminally as well. Might as well violate as many laws and statutes you can when you pirate... NOT

17 U.S.C. § 501 : US Code - Section 501: Infringement of copyright

17 U.S. Code § 506 - Criminal offenses

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 5

Straight from Google's FAQ page ---> Get Permission from the Image Owner, which is typically first person that posted the image to the web!

https://www.google.com/permissions/faq.html

Cheers

-don

Edit: TrickyRickyMedia's post has been deleted.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10798472].message }}

MarkAse

8 years ago

Skip this. Seriously, don't do it.

So a blogger can download an image and you then find it, looks fine, approved for reuse etc.

But, if the image belongs to Getty they WILL sue you when they find it on your site. Doesn't matter where you found it.

If you need some basic images at times, use: https://pixabay.com/ or better yet, take images yourself for your niche.

I've found some of my wine images floating around online on different sites and been able to get links from sites because they were using them without permission.

Thanks

Signature

My current project, the Uncorked Ventures Wine Club. More coming soon, here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10798501].message }}

riponhossainbd143

8 years ago

Originally Posted by leo1

I want to use some images from Google for commercial purposes.
When I perform an advanced Google image search and I choose the "free to use or share, even commercially" option in the "usage rights" section, does this mean only the images that appear on the main view of the image search results or does it also include those that appear under the "related images" section?

In other words, can I also commercially reuse those in the "related images" section without attribution?

Thank you!

Actually Google show the Image link location only. So you need to see the terms & conditions of the Hosting site of the picture. It would better for you.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10798586].message }}

vovido

8 years ago

Not a good idea, I learned the hard way. It was years ago, I used an image from Google search for my blog, shortly after that my blog was banned along with my adwords account after the owner reported it to Google, I didn't have to pay a fine but I lost a blog and more than $1000 from my adwords account. Lesson learned, I would never ever do that again, not worth the risk.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Professional Whiteboard / 2D Animation Service
Starting at Only $5

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10798747].message }}

George Schwab

8 years ago

Originally Posted by vovido

Not a good idea, I learned the hard way. It was years ago, I used an image from Google search for my blog, shortly after that my blog was banned along with my adwords account after the owner reported it to Google, I didn't have to pay a fine but I lost a blog and more than $1000 from my adwords account. Lesson learned, I would never ever do that again, not worth the risk.

you're very generous to these guys

one day, when you get older, you played the game long enough

you say to these guys, take a hike, nobody really needs you

well, your shares are a.ok. but your service sucks

so basically these guys beg for their replacement

DONE!

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10800060].message }}

Xian lee

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10800407].message }}

Steve B

8 years ago

Please don't listen to this advice to apply "tricks" to images so they are edited to look a little different than the original. Such images are still covered by the copyright of the owner.

Can you steal someone's iPhone, put a new cover on it, and then claim you're not stealing? Ridiculous.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
SteveBrowneDirect

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10800798].message }}

JohnMcCabe

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Steve B

Please don't listen to this advice to apply "tricks" to images so they are edited to look a little different than the original. Such images are still covered by the copyright of the owner.

Can you steal someone's iPhone, put a new cover on it, and then claim you're not stealing? Ridiculous.

Steve

Thanks for a much more recent metaphor. I'm stealing it. (j/k)

I used to say that painting a stolen car doesn't make it anything but a stolen car with a new paint job. I like yours better.

Edit: Leo, even if you could rely on Google's filter, and you can't, repeat, can't it would only apply to the image shown. You would still need to license any other images on that site separately.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10800826].message }}

writeaway

8 years ago

I wouldn't put too much stock on the 'rights' you get through a simple Google Image search.

Remember, it is YOU who stands to POSSIBLY lose THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS if you use the wrong image... NOT Google Images.

Instead, I would use Flickr's Creative Commons system.

See the graphic below. It is pretty self-explanatory.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Custom-built Amazon Affiliate Sites - 100% Original - DIRT CHEAP

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10800422].message }}

Steve B

8 years ago

Originally Posted by writeaway

I wouldn't put too much stock on the 'rights' you get through a simple Google Image search. . . Instead, I would use Flickr's Creative Commons system.

Writeaway,

Flickr's ability to control what others upload is no different than Google's.

As you know, Flickr is owned by Yahoo.

Their Terms of Service, if you read the fine print, offers the end user no protection. This is right from their web site:

"Yahoo does not control the Content posted via the Yahoo Services and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content ... Under no circumstances will Yahoo be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any Content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Yahoo Services.

You agree to not use the Yahoo Services to:

f. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;

You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by Yahoo or submitted to Yahoo, including without limitation information in Yahoo Message Boards and in all other parts of the Yahoo Services." (emphasis is my own)

Just as Google does, Flickr relies on end users to upload images that they own and have rights to. Flickr has no way of knowing what rights their users have and they are saying that they will not be held liable for content posted that shouldn't be. As they state: "You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content ..."

Flickr is no different than Google in this regard.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
SteveBrowneDirect

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10800788].message }}

Sven300

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Steve B

Writeaway,

Flickr's ability to control what others upload is no different than Google's.

As you know, Flickr is owned by Yahoo.

Their Terms of Service, if you read the fine print, offers the end user no protection.

But if the image is taken from Flickr with a CC BY 2.0 or 3.0 licence for instance and is on the Wikipedia website (uploaded to Commons Wikipédia) for several years... I think we can conclude that if the Flick license was not valid, Wikipedia would have removed the photo, right? Because the image owner would have noticed and would have sued Wikipédia, right? What do you think?

To put the question differently, if a photo is on Wikipedia, do you think that it is OK to reuse?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it. Thomas Jefferson

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10800863].message }}

JohnMcCabe

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Sven300

But if the image is taken from Flickr with a CC BY 2.0 or 3.0 licence for instance and is on the Wikipedia website (uploaded to Commons Wikipédia) for several years... I think we can conclude that if the Flick license was not valid, Wikipedia would have removed the photo, right? Because the image owner would have noticed and would have sued Wikipédia, right? What do you think?

To put the question differently, if a photo is on Wikipedia, do you think that it is OK to reuse?

I think that you can conclude that no one has issued a takedown notice or complaint.

Beyond that, you're playing the odds. In the specific circumstances you posit, the odds do favor the image being okay to use. But there is no absolute guarantee.

In your second phrasing, the answer is a definite maybe. The owner of the rights may be okay with the image being on Wikipedia, but not with the image appearing on, say, a tee shirt, book cover or blog post.

To all who claim it's okay because they've never had a problem...

Just because a bee doesn't sting you does not mean it can't.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10801132].message }}

Sven300 8 years ago

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

I think that you can conclude.....

Thank you very much!

Your answer is a little daunting because even if I contact the owner of copyright ... it's not sure he'll want to respond.

(And I'm not even sure if an email reply is good or if we need to obtain a signature?)

But I must say that your logic is perfect ... and your answer is eloquent. Thanks.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it. Thomas Jefferson
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10801156].message }}
- Sid Hale 8 years ago
  
  I can't even believe we're still discussing this after this long.
  
  Copyright law is not at all obtuse. In fact, it's pretty simple.
  If you didn't create it - you don't have any rights beyond those which the creator (copyright holder) might have explicitly extended to you!!!
  
  No web site can legally extend others' intellectual property rights (including, but not limited to, the right to create derivative works) to YOU.
  
  Originally Posted by Sven300
  
  Your answer is a little daunting because even if I contact the owner of copyright ... it's not sure he'll want to respond.
  
  ...in which case you have no right to use his intellectual property.
  (I know you understand this now, Sven... my response is for everyone else)
  
  For everyone...
  If you can't afford a lawyer to advise you on copyright law, at least go to the links provided by ForumGuru in his earlier response, or download the whole shebang to your hard drive in PDF form
  
  caveat... it's 366 pages of legaleze.
  
  For anyone who thinks that a lawsuit for copyright infringement can't be as big an issue as having to read 366 pages of that document, let me give you a clue.
  
  Unbeknownst to me, I once had an employee who infringed a competitor's copyright.
  The competitor discovered the infringement and had his attorney send me a cease and desist letter.
  I apologized for the actions of the employee and immediately complied with the cease and desist demand.
  
  The competitor chose to pursue legal action, regardless.
  I spent 24 months in and out of Federal District Court in a different State (yes, personal appearances were occasionally required), and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney fees in two states. I finally had to fire my attorneys and begin representing myself because I just couldn't afford it.
  
  In the end, the competitor didn't get a single penny from me, but it almost bankrupted me anyway.
  
  I can't say this more stongly... Don't do it
  
  [ 4 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Sid Hale
  Coming Soon... Rapid Action Profits (Pro)
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10801355].message }}
  
  Sven300 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Sid Hale
  
  I can't even believe...
  
  Thanks Sid.
  
  Your story is terrifying...
  
  I know that legal costs can be enormous. That is why I am concerned about all these issues that are new to me.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it. Thomas Jefferson
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10801391].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Sven300

To put the question differently, if a photo is on Wikipedia, do you think that it is OK to reuse?

Not necessarily.

#1 It may depend on what you are using the image for as image or property release may also be required.

#2 The photo may not supposed to be there in the first place.

#3 Your use may require no credit or attribution (for instance in an Ad) and all CC licenses except CC0 require attribution.

#4 The photo may be deemed fair use for it's use on Wikimedia but not on your own use.

From Wikimedia/pedia..

"While images may be deleted for many reasons, a frequent cause of concern is our legal right to display them. If you believe an image should be deleted for reasons related to copyright, licensing, or compliance with non-free content guidelines, please see the "Copyright concerns" section below."

While you addressed CC 2.0 and 3.0....which require attribution, they are often wrongly confused with CC0/Public Domain images

If you find a CC0 image on a bunch of public domain sites, and your research tells you that the first known publication places the image in the public domain by date, you have a pretty darn good idea the image is actually in the public domain, and it won't require attribution.

That said, my own images have been pirated many, many tens of thousands of times or more, and it's basically impossible to notice every instance of piracy...unless you spend your life and/or a lot of money doing it, and even then you still won't find everything.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10802295].message }}

EJ Lear

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Steve B

Writeaway,

Flickr's ability to control what others upload is no different than Google's.

As you know, Flickr is owned by Yahoo.

Their Terms of Service, if you read the fine print, offers the end user no protection. This is right from their web site:

"Yahoo does not control the Content posted via the Yahoo Services and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content ... Under no circumstances will Yahoo be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any Content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Yahoo Services.

You agree to not use the Yahoo Services to:

f. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;

You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by Yahoo or submitted to Yahoo, including without limitation information in Yahoo Message Boards and in all other parts of the Yahoo Services." (emphasis is my own)

Just as Google does, Flickr relies on end users to upload images that they own and have rights to. Flickr has no way of knowing what rights their users have and they are saying that they will not be held liable for content posted that shouldn't be. As they state: "You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content ..."

Flickr is no different than Google in this regard.

Steve

Yeah, the whole problem with the 'image' system online is you have no idea WHO owns the copyright to any image online. In fact it's nearly impossible to find the original publish date of any image.

The safest and LEGAL way to avoid any issues is to hotlink the image OR buy from iStock or Getty. Even purchasing through an image service doesn't guarantee that an image is provided by the original copyright holder, while they may say they are, you simply have no way of proving it.

$.02 added :-)

Peace,
EJ

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Get Sales, Leads, and Traffic to Your Website by Mining Actionable Data With Twitter'sâ„¢ Powerful API AND Post to Unlimited Accounts, Better than Buffer and Hoostsuite, Combined | Get a FREE 3 Day Trial Here

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10801491].message }}

pawandave Banned 8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10801882].message }}
- ForumGuru Banned 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by pawandave
  
  You need to filter it by going to Google setting, where you can filter Image that can be used commercially
  
  You need to read the thread.
  
  http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...##post10798472
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10802056].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by EJ Lear

Yeah, the whole problem with the 'image' system online is you have no idea WHO owns the copyright to any image online.

Sure you do, if you buy from a reputable agency, photographer or stock house etc.

The safest and LEGAL way to avoid any issues is to hotlink the image OR buy from iStock or Getty.

...or any of the other thousands of legit image sources.

Hotlinking is basically bandwidth theft. If I feel like it, often times I can change a hotlinked image from whatever image you thought you hotlinked (say a cat) to an image that says --> Hi, this site steals images and bandwidth...or something worse. Hotlinking images is no sort of absolute protection from legal action, either.

Even purchasing through an image service doesn't guarantee that an image is provided by the original copyright holder, while they may say they are, you simply have no way of proving it.

Purchasing from reputable image sources often times gives you many distinct advantages/guarantees up to and including things like this:

Subject to the terms hereof, and provided that you have not breached the terms of this or any other agreement with Shutterstock, Shutterstock will defend, indemnify, and hold you harmless up to the applicable "Limit of Liability" set forth below. Such indemnification is solely limited to Customer's direct damages arising from a third-party claim directly attributable to Shutterstock's breach of the express warranties and representations made in Part II hereof, together with associated expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees). Indemnification is conditioned upon you notifying Shutterstock, in writing, of any such claim or threatened claim, no later than five (5) business days from the date you know or reasonably should have known of the claim or threatened claim. Such notification must include all details of the claim then known to you (e.g., the use of Visual Content at issue, the name and contact information of the person and/or entity making the claim, copies of any correspondence received and/or sent in connection with the claim). The notification must be emailed or faxed to Shutterstock at counsel@shutterstock.com or 1-646-786-4782, with a hard copy to Shutterstock, 350 5th Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, New York, 10118, Attention: General Counsel, via certified mail, return receipt requested; or ii) overnight courier, recipient's signature required. Shutterstock shall have the right to assume the handling, settlement or defense of any claim or litigation to which this indemnification applies. You agree to cooperate with Shutterstock in the defense of any such claim and shall have the right to participate in any litigation at your own expense. You agree that Shutterstock is not liable for any legal fees and/or other costs incurred by you or on your behalf prior to Shutterstock having a reasonable opportunity to analyze such claim's validity.
Shutterstock shall not be liable for any damages, costs or losses arising as a result of modifications made to the Visual Content or due to the context in which the Visual Content is used by you.
Limits of Liability: Shutterstock's total maximum aggregate obligation and liability (the "Limit of Liability") arising out of each of Customer's:
Standard Image Licenses shall be USD $10,000.
Enhanced Image Licenses shall be USD $250,000.
Footage Use Licenses shall be USD $10,000.

Purchasing images from internet marketers can be a crapshoot or worse. Many of the current image packs sold today by the so-called "bug guns" are nothing more than collections of "free" images thought to be in the public domain that were scraped/downloaded by the marketer. Many of those free images are sold as PLR and RR and the vicious cycle of selling free images continues until you (or someone else) has purchased 3 packs of the same images from 3 different affiliate marketers and you realize they are selling you (thought to be) public domain images. Some of those guys buy this pack and buy that pack and they combine them for their own bigger pack...and on and on and on it goes.

It's ugly....

In other words, many of these IM guys are selling you collections of free photos....or photos they thought to be free. They raid sites like PIxabay and then sell you thousands of those free photos in a package for 7, 10 or 15 bucks with basically no information or documentation.

When you purchase an image from a legit company you receive an image license and that is the guarantee that they control the copyright and have licensed the image to you. Often times they also provide you the neccesary model and/or property release information.

If you purchase from an individual or small company you can always ask about seeing a piece of the original, ask to see some metadata, ask to see others in the series or shoot, ask for references, ask for a look at a portfolio and/or published works, back search to see if the image is offered by the same individual/entity on other stock sites, do some background on the source, etc. etc.

Usually, a quick inquiry to the image source vendor you all you need to know about that vendor. If they sound clueless on resolutions, original sources, licensing, or anything else image or image use related, and they can't get you the answers you need, it's best to avoid them like the plague.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10802252].message }}

EJ Lear

8 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Hotlinking is basically bandwidth theft. If I feel like it, often times I can change a hotlinked image from whatever image you thought you hotlinked (say a cat) to an image that says --> Hi, this site steals images and bandwidth...or something worse. Hotlinking images is no sort of absolute protection from legal action, either.

If you don't like people hotlinking your images TURN IT OFF 'bandwidth theft' that's hilarious!

It is protection from legal issues, buy a copy of Kindsvater's products, he's an actual attorney that specializes in this area and this is what he recommends. He's not some random guy on a forum with strong personal opinions, he's actually in court weekly dealing with exactly these issues.

Peace,
EJ Lear

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Get Sales, Leads, and Traffic to Your Website by Mining Actionable Data With Twitter'sâ„¢ Powerful API AND Post to Unlimited Accounts, Better than Buffer and Hoostsuite, Combined | Get a FREE 3 Day Trial Here

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10802391].message }}

ForumGuru Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by EJ Lear

If you don't like people hotlinking your images TURN IT OFF 'bandwidth theft' that's hilarious!

Hello EJ,

LOL

Re: Turn it off. That's just silly as many photographers use a single site or multiple sites to link images from to post on blogs, forums, social media and other websites that we own or control. I've posted thousands of images to websites, blogs, forums, etc. etc. over the years and a blanket kill would replace all of those images with red x's. A tedious one by one whitelist job would take forever. Not cool, not gonna happen.

Secondarily, some peeps brand the hell out of an image and use unauthorized hotlinking as advertising. Personally, I think that approach can be counterproductive.

We don't mind occasional, legit, fair use hotlinking of a few web sized images...it's the scumbags we don't like.

Took offense to the term bandwidth theft, eh? Not a problem..let's talk. You don't have to take it as a legal term...

a) A kid hotlinks to a cat picture on his facebook page to show mommy - not bandwidth theft.

b) Some low life Internet Marketer hotlinks to 12 large large images of mine to display on his blog post selling some scam MLM product and then emails his 5,000 person list the link - bandwidth theft.

You may not want to call it copyright theft, but the law is still unclear on that. Search engine thumbs are one thing, other uses maybe not so much.

Linking to Copyrighted Materials | Digital Media Law Project

Circumventing Copyright Controls | Digital Media Law Project

For the rest of this discussion we can set copyrights aside.

It is protection from legal issues, buy a copy of Kindsvater's products, he's an actual attorney that specializes in this area and this is what he recommends.

I purchased his image wso 4 years ago and left substantial remarks on the thread...you must have missed them.

He's not some random guy on a forum with strong personal opinions, he's actually in court weekly dealing with exactly these issues.

Personally, I have been in the stock image business professionally for the past 14 years. I have a library of almost a million images of my own and it's my job to know copyright law. Images are what I do on a daily basis. Knowing copyright law is a key component of protecting my own images and the investments of my clients. Secondarily, it's fairly well known around here that I sniff out some serious copyright violators to the benefit of the entire community.

Now back to the copyright aside, legal issue stuff.

Example A:

#1) You run a hate site for whatever group.

#2) You hotlink some images to pretty your site up and accentuate your beliefs... One of those images is of some guy that knows his rights.

#3 Someone contacts that guy letting him know his picture is being associated with some crazy hate beliefs on the net.

#4 The guys sues you for false light and whatever else his lawyers come up with.

#5 You lose.

Moral of the story?

Instead of hotlinking to an image of which you did not have the rights...you could have purchased a stock image (license) that had the proper model release for your end use.

That's just one example of many...

Take it easy.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10802495].message }}

aizaku

8 years ago

man dont do it!!

i used to say the same thing, "hit the gear and filter for images that allow commercial use..."

but even google says "better you ask the image owner.."

who wants to mess around with that, right?

I get my images here, now: https://pixabay.com/

Thanks

Signature

>> 2018 Money Making Method Video Guides [NO OPTIN] <<
80% Of These Proven Guides Are Free... ]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10800594].message }}

mdimamhossainrubel

8 years ago

It would better to read the terms & condition to use of the page. The google works only as search engine. The google will show you the Images hosting site. Though you choose the "free to use or share, even commercially" option in the "usage rights" section, then you must read the terms & Policy of the Images hosting site. Thanks for your advance.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10801051].message }}

Sven300

8 years ago

To add to the discussion...

I found two interesting articles about Creative Commons licenses, and risks associated with their use. They are written by a lawyer specializing in copyright (he is the author of this bookThe Permission Seeker's Guide Through the Legal Jungle - Book Description):

1) Guide Through the Legal Jungle: Proof that Using Creative Commons Material Is Not Risk-Free

2) Guide Through the Legal Jungle: Using Creative Commons Materials

But the lawyer, however, said:

"Creative Commons Materials Are Not Risk-Free. While I view being sued by a Creative License licensor as a rarity..."

Then I feel that the risk exists...

but may not be so great? (At least this seems to be the opinion of this lawyer

)

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it. Thomas Jefferson

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10802768].message }}

EJ Lear

8 years ago

1) Guide Through the Legal Jungle: Proof that Using Creative Commons Material Is Not Risk-Free

This is good, the guy lost his case on all grounds:

Ultimately, the court concluded that Kappa Map's use was indeed within the scope of the Creative Commons license and that the use was not infringing. In reaching that conclusion, the court rejected the following three technical arguments presented by the photographer:

All three of his arguments were smacked down by the court, not sure why that title of the article is worded the way that it is, it's misleading. The map company won and the guy who took them to court lost.

Peace,
EJ

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Get Sales, Leads, and Traffic to Your Website by Mining Actionable Data With Twitter'sâ„¢ Powerful API AND Post to Unlimited Accounts, Better than Buffer and Hoostsuite, Combined | Get a FREE 3 Day Trial Here

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10804165].message }}

Sven300

8 years ago

Originally Posted by EJ Lear

This is good, the guy lost his case on all grounds:

All three of his arguments were smacked down by the court, not sure why that title of the article is worded the way that it is, it's misleading. The map company won and the guy who took them to court lost.

Peace,
EJ

I guess the author meant: Even if you have a Creative Commons license in good and due form, even if you meet all the terms of the license, you run the risk of being sued. And being sued is already a punishment in itself because it is expensive.

But in fact, as you point out in your post, the article shows that the photographer has lost on all counts,

I'm curious if anyone has heard of a case where a website using photos with the appropriate Creative Commons license was sued and lost? One case, for example, where the true owner of the photo sue the website because the license would have been granted by someone who was not the true owner of the photo?

In my view, in such a situation, the owner of the photo would rather sue the photo site (Flickr for example) rather than the owner of the website. Right?

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it. Thomas Jefferson

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10804839].message }}

Sid Hale

8 years ago

Sorry Sven,

Originally Posted by Sven300

In my view, in such a situation, the owner of the photo would rather sue the photo site (Flickr for example) rather than the owner of the website. Right?

but no...

Typically when one sues, they will sue all interested parties.

While a judge/jury may not find one defendant liable, they might rule against a second defendant. Rather than decide incorrectly which party to bring an action against (and potentially guess wrong), it is better to let the judge/jury make that determination.

With any luck, both parties will wind up having to pay restitution.

In the specific instance of the court case referenced in the link that E J Lear provided, the owner of the photo did NOT sue the photo site (presumably because they were aware that the site had not done anything contrary to the rights that the owner had conveyed to them), but rather the end user of the copyrighted photo (in that case, a physical printing vs. a digital copy).

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sid Hale
Coming Soon... Rapid Action Profits (Pro)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10805190].message }}

EJ Lear

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Sid Hale

Sorry Sven,

but no...

Typically when one sues, they will sue all interested parties.

While a judge/jury may not find one defendant liable, they might rule against a second defendant. Rather than decide incorrectly which party to bring an action against (and potentially guess wrong), it is better to let the judge/jury make that determination.

With any luck, both parties will wind up having to pay restitution.

In the specific instance of the court case referenced in the link that E J Lear provided, the owner of the photo did NOT sue the photo site (presumably because they were aware that the site had not done anything contrary to the rights that the owner had conveyed to them), but rather the end user of the copyrighted photo (in that case, a physical printing vs. a digital copy).

Sid,

Was just thinking how good it is too see you still here after all these years!

~Much love my friend!

Peace,
EJ

Thanks

Signature

Get Sales, Leads, and Traffic to Your Website by Mining Actionable Data With Twitter'sâ„¢ Powerful API AND Post to Unlimited Accounts, Better than Buffer and Hoostsuite, Combined | Get a FREE 3 Day Trial Here

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10805243].message }}

EJ Lear 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Sven300

In my view, in such a situation, the owner of the photo would rather sue the photo site (Flickr for example) rather than the owner of the website. Right?

I'd agree with you here! No sense taking someone to court who doesn't have deep pockets, if you are going to waste the money, with a chance you may lose, go big!

Thanks for your response.

Peace,
E
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
Get Sales, Leads, and Traffic to Your Website by Mining Actionable Data With Twitter'sâ„¢ Powerful API AND Post to Unlimited Accounts, Better than Buffer and Hoostsuite, Combined | Get a FREE 3 Day Trial Here
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10805238].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by EJ Lear

I'd agree with you here! No sense taking someone to court who doesn't have deep pockets, if you are going to waste the money, with a chance you may lose, go big!

The DMCA provides safe harbor to user generated (uploaded) photo sites like Pinterest, Instagram and Flickr.

Originally Posted by Sven300

But in fact, as you point out in your post, the article shows that the photographer has lost on all counts.

The photographer seemed to not have a clue on the license he offered. Case closed.

I'm curious if anyone has heard of a case where a website using photos with the appropriate Creative Commons license was sued and lost? One case, for example, where the true owner of the photo sue the website because the license would have been granted by someone who was not the true owner of the photo?

Persephone Magazine, along with more than 70 other defendants, is being sued for copyright infringement in relation to use of a single photograph.

The photograph was available on several Creative Commons photography sites. No such site is named in the lawsuit. After the lawsuit was filed, the photograph was no longer available on the Creative Commons photography sites, and the photograph in question now features a watermark and right-click protection.

If, as an example, 73 defendants each settled for $1500, the resultant settlement money would amount to $109,500. Subtracting out the court filing fees of $700 ($350 for each of two complaints) results a total settlement amount of $108,800. Attorney fees are not subtracted out since the photographer is an attorney and filed the suit on his own behalf.

We Try It: Getting Sued – Persephone Magazine

On June 30, 2010, GateHouse Media, Inc., a publisher of local newspapers around the country, sued That's Great News, LLC (TGN), in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleged breach of contract, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition.

TGN sells plaques with article reprints to the people and companies featured in the articles. According to allegations in the complaint, TGN had reprinted copyrighted materials from GateHouse's newspapers, including the Illinois paper Rockford Register Star ,without authorization. Also according to GateHouse, TGN displayed GateHouse materials on its own web site "as an example of the reprints it sells," which violated the noncommercial and no-derivative works limitations of the Creative Commons license.

Furthermore, GateHouse argued that TGN's conduct violated the terms of a settlement agreement the parties signed on or about October 8, 2008. According to GateHouse's complaint, GateHouse sent TGN a cease and desist letter on September 10, 2008, after which TGN agreed "to permanently cease the unauthorized copying of original content appearing in any GateHouse newspapers or websites."

GateHouse Media v. That's Great News

TGN settled this case. Furthermore, I busted the Rockford Register Star stealing and using my images almost a decade ago. The Rockford Register Star settled with me just like TGN settled this case.

In my view, in such a situation, the owner of the photo would rather sue the photo site (Flickr for example) rather than the owner of the website. Right?

Nope... These types of user generated content photo sites usually are not subject to copyright lawsuits due to the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. The DMCA protects sites that allow users to upload images they did not create.

Copyright law has not caught up with the digital age. Hopefully, someday it will.

DMCA Safe Harbor

The DMCA safe harbor was designed to protect passive internet companies from incurring any liability if copyright infringement was found to have occurred on their website. But what exactly does “passive” mean? In the past, this has been defined as an ISP who allows user to freely upload and share content, without reviewing the content for its legality or otherwise ethical value, or charging any kind of premium for the benefit.

Thus, websites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and more often allow infringing material to be posted to their websites, leaving the burden of policing users who illegally share images on the copyright holders.

The DMCA safe harbor may seem wide-reaching, but the law does require internet providers to take certain measures should it come to their attention that copyright infringement did in fact occur. This includes taking the offending material down, and instituting methods of detecting infringing material from the moment its uploaded. But generally speaking, internet providers have a lot of leeway under the DMCA.

DMCA Safe Harbor: Why Artists Can't Sue Instagram - Art Law Journal

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10805244].message }}

EJ Lear 8 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Copyright law has not caught up with the digital age. Hopefully, someday it will.

I couldn't agree more with you here, that was my whole point in the earlier post. The whole image 'system' online is hard to keep up with and there's essentially no way to tell who owns an 'original copyright' anymore.

Just trying how to programatically attack it makes my head spin, it's a MASSIVE undertaking.

Peace,
EJ
- Thanks
Signature
Get Sales, Leads, and Traffic to Your Website by Mining Actionable Data With Twitter'sâ„¢ Powerful API AND Post to Unlimited Accounts, Better than Buffer and Hoostsuite, Combined | Get a FREE 3 Day Trial Here
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10805269].message }}

xixna

8 years ago

Originally Posted by leo1

I want to use some images from Google for commercial purposes.

When I perform an advanced Google image search and I choose the "free to use or share, even commercially" option in the "usage rights" section, does this mean only the images that appear on the main view of the image search results or does it also include those that appear under the "related images" section?

In other words, can I also commercially reuse those in the "related images" section without attribution?

Thank you!

Well in my opinion, it is not a good idea to use images from google that says free to use because Google can't tell if these images are truly free to use. You can try sites like shutterstock or pixabay.

Thanks

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10802775].message }}

chemtechguru

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10804137].message }}

Sid Hale

8 years ago

It doesn't matter whether Google Image can link it to the original...

Originally Posted by chemtechguru

I read somewhere from another Warrior Forum member that if you flip an image you found somewhere during a Google image search, Google Image won't be able to link it to the original. I have a feeling that some people might feel this is a way to get around copyrighting laws.

because Google isn't the one who will be suing you. They have NO skin in this game.

Instead, if/when the copyright holder finds your use of their image (flipped, or not), they can bring suit against you for copyright infringement. Modifying an image (i.e. flipping, modifying hue/saturation, clipping, etc) doesn't negate the copyright. Derivative (that means modified) works are protected under copyright law, to the same extent as the original.

Where you got the image (i.e. Google search) is immaterial. It's the creator's image and if you use it without proper license to do so... you are liable for copyright infringement. That license cannot be conveyed to you by anyone other than the copyright holder.

Thanks

Signature

Sid Hale
Coming Soon... Rapid Action Profits (Pro)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10804296].message }}

Steve B

8 years ago

Yes, the ways and strategies to "trick" Google and to infringe upon copyrights are many and varied.

If people would spend just half the time they do on hacking, cheating, and trying to circumvent the rules . . . on building a solid business . . . they could enjoy having a profitable business online much faster.

Steve

Thanks

Signature

Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
SteveBrowneDirect

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10804158].message }}

mdimamhossainrubel

8 years ago

You will need to read the terms & condition of the Images host site. If there is any restriction to use that images, you will not be able to use where it is restricted. Though the google will show the link of the site, which you will choose from the Advance features. When you are taking one image from any site, that mean you much agree the terms & conditions of the Image Host site. beside this you are not use google site to download the image. The google show the site location only. Thanks for your advance.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10805601].message }}

apollo gabriel

8 years ago

been doing same exact advance search feature for some time and I make good income and I have never had a problem,

It may depend on what you are using the image for as image or property release may also be required.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10805607].message }}

Sven300

8 years ago

Originally Posted by apollo gabriel

been doing same exact advance search feature for some time and I make good income and I have never had a problem,

It may depend on what you are using the image for as image or property release may also be required.

I think the likelihood of prosecution is quite low. Much less so than if someone uses images on the Internet without worrying about copyright.

But as shown by several posts in this forum, the risk is still very real.

I just read an article on this topic that interested me and which I think will interest many of the participants in this thread: The Problem with False Creative Commons Licenses

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013...mons-licenses/

Then my conclusion after reading this thread is that...

1) using our own creative material or that we ordered + a model release is better than

2) using a stock site such as Shutterstock, Fotolia, Adobe Stock or PhotoSpin, wich is better than

3) using a public domain photos site such as Pixabay or Pexel (CC0 1.0 licence or PDM 1.0). wich is better than

4) using a website that offers (mostly) Creative Commons CC BY 2.0 /3.0 /4.0 licences like Flickr, wich is better than

5) stealing images without worrying about copyright.

In fact, option 5 should be completely excluded from the repertoire of a serious webmaster. I'll try to limit myself to options one, two and three.

Thank you to all (in this thread) who made the effort to make insightful contributions.

Thanks

Signature

I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it. Thomas Jefferson

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10805889].message }}

JohnMcCabe 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Sven300

In my view, in such a situation, the owner of the photo would rather sue the photo site (Flickr for example) rather than the owner of the website. Right?

The US Marines have a saying (or used to):

Kill'em all and let God sort them out.

Many lawyers (especially those who work on contingency) seem to have a variant:

Sue 'em all and let the judge sort them out.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10809626].message }}
Steve B 8 years ago

Originally Posted by apollo gabriel

been doing same exact advance search feature for some time and I make good income and I have never had a problem

Really, that's not the point, is it?

The fact that you haven't had a problem in the past does not relieve you from the current risk that you are under. But there are ways to avoid the risk, and that is what some of us are trying to get across in this thread.

The "good income" that you are making is at risk. Of course, you have made that decision and you have no one to blame if it proves to be foolish.

Steve
- [ 3 ] Thanks
Signature

Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
SteveBrowneDirect
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10809727].message }}

Using Google images commercially

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?