What Are The Rules For Posting Images Taken From Google To Your Website?

Never!

It's called stealing someone else's intellectual property.

Agreed.

It's stealing.

The reason articles are sometimes ok (not always) is because the author has agreed to have it republished as long as the credit for it remains intact.

If you just steal images with no arrangement then that's completely different.

So let's say I need pictures of a rare plant that can't be found for me to take pictures of myself, what exactly are my options? go around sending emails to website owners hoping the respond saying its okay I can use their pictures?

What if credit is given when someone else's article is published on my site? For example, posting a review of a product written on warrior forum, saying this was written by who and who or even posting a screenshot of the review on my site, is there any loophole I can work? like using some sort of disclaimer that says you don't take credit for this work or for informational purposes only?

I'm going to hate myself for doing this but there is a loophole in the current law regarding images. If you download the image and load it to your host server and display it on your site, that's basically copyright infringement. However, if you leave the image where you found it and display it on your site using a link to where the image sits on the owners site, then technically that's OK.

Now it doesn't sound right to me either, but I was recently shot-down on another forum by someone who pulled an actual court case where someone successfully defended using a third-party hosted image on their own website. That has since become a legal precedent for other similar cases. How long a life it lives is anyone's guess.

If you care enough to read these two posts you'll see that there's some clear areas and some ambiguity. The Internet is evolving and so are the legal precedents which control it. Al Gore had no idea it was going to turn out like this, of that I'm certain.

Linking Rights
10 Big Myths about copyright explained

If you go to advanced search option in google images you can select to search images with different usage rights.
Even for commercial use.

That's called hotlinking and it can cause you a world of hurt if you hotlink to the wrong person. There are quite a few savvy webmasters who will swap out the image you are linking to for one that is extremely offensive. I've seen it happen so many times and, therefore, I don't recommend doing this.

As other people have suggested, use public domain image sources like publicdomainpictures.net. Google is your bestest friend.

Re: Fiverr. It is a place to get cheap content. However, the quality will vary, so buyer beware.

Some sites such as Wikipedia.org are public domain and you can use those articles if you want to. But most articles that you find after doing a search on Google are the property of the site owner and if you use them you are subject to copyright laws.

I use Amazon and other product page images when I promote products from those sites. (I download and upload to my blog/site).

I assume that I should have read the TOS more carefully, but I understand that this would be OK in most cases? After all, my intentions are in their interrest.

I know this is TMI for most, but I was genuinely interested in this information having been sued several years back by Getty Images.

It's important for all web designers and website owners to understand the law.

"Inline linking: Inline linking involves placing a line of HTML on your site that so that your webpage displays content directly from another site. We now commonly refer to this practice as embedding. For example, many bloggers embed videos from YouTube on their blogs to illustrate a point or initiate discussion. While there is some uncertainty on this point, a recent case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that inline linking does not directly infringe copyright because no copy is made on the site providing the link; the link is just HTML code pointing to the image or other material. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (2007). Other courts may or may not follow this reasoning. However, the Ninth Circuit's decision is consistent with the majority of copyright linking cases which have found that linking, whether simple, deep, or inline, does not give rise to liability for copyright infringement. For discussion of these cases, see The Internet Law Treatise. In addition, merely using an inline link should not create trademark liability, unless you do something affirmative to create the impression that you are somehow affiliated with or endorsed by the site to which you are linking. Thus, embedding media in your online work should not expose you to legal liability, with the possible exceptions discussed below. "

Source: Linking to Copyrighted Materials | Citizen Media Law Project

Speaking on the legality of embedded video the perfect 10 case is again referenced:

"As von Lohmann writes, this makes embedded video just like any other in-line image links found on the web, including Google Image's search functionality. This is significant because an important recent case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Perfect 10 v. Google Inc., held that Google Image's in-line linking of copyrighted photographic images posted on third-party websites did not constitute direct copyright infringement of the plaintiff's display or distribution rights because no copies of the plaintiff's photographic images were stored on Google's computers. The court wrote:

Google does not, however, display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user's computer screen. Because Google's computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed . . . and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated" and thus cannot communicate a copy.

The court went on to conclude that HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on a user's computer screen because the HTML instructions merely convey an address to the user's browser, which itself must then interact with the server that stores the infringing image. Accordingly, the mere provision of HTML instructions, in the view of the 9th Circuit, does not create a basis for direct copyright infringement liability. Perfect 10 thus provides good support for the proposition that embedding a video on your blog or website, which is essentially just an in-line link, does not expose you to liability for direct infringement. Of course, Perfect 10 is not the last word on this issue, but it is a recent decision from a prestigious court with a history of important copyright decisions. What's more, Perfect 10 's conclusions are consistent with the majority of copyright infringement cases involving linking, which have found that linking, whether it is simple, deep, or in-line linking, does not give rise to liability for direct copyright infringement. See The Internet Law Treatise's discussion of linking . We will be addressing linking issues in more detail in the forthcoming CMLP Legal Guide, which is still a work in progress."

Here's the link to the full article: Embedded Video and Copyright Infringement | Citizen Media Law Project

I'd also like to credit a friend (TheHotPepperMan) for helping research this stuff (so he doesn't sue me)

If in any doubt whether the image is protected, simply do not copy it.

Getty Images and istock etc make an absolute killing from threatening to take people to court, who use images from their files where no licence was purchased.

A lot of people get caught out by use Google images search to find pics.

Try taking your own interesting photos and use them.

Why would you think it's ok to take people's articles and images? It's not ok. It's called copyright infringement. Check out the Warriors for Hire section for article writers. There are plenty of stock photo sites around where you can purchase the rights to royalty free photos.

As long as you credit the owner for their work as well as putting a source (URL) you're fine.

Guys, please don't play attorney, this is a perfect example.

There are TONS of lawsuits by people who own images that are successfully suing people for tens of thousands of dollars.

There is a cottage industry of people going after those to get money. RightHaven (thank god, now shut down it seems) would buy the rights in order to sue people.