Using googled images on your blog- copyright issues?
I'm not talking about photography blogs but normal blogs that pull images from the internet.
I use about 10-15 images per article, all googled. Up until now, I only checked to make sure if multiple copies of the image existed. In case there are hundreds, I figured what harm can one more do and used it. In case it was a unique image that had no copies, I would usually avoid using it.
I have recently started citing Image source for the rarer images used, and was wondering if that is enough. What about the pics that have tons of copies? Should we cite the image source, and if so, how do we know which website originally used the image, since so many have it.
Bumping this thread up as I got a few questions still.
From what I gather reading all the above views here is that if we use the images "Not filtered by license" from google search, we should be safe. But in one of the articles Vijay shared, it was written that
Aviva tells me a story. “One day, I open the weekend newspaper. One of the full-page ads caught my eye. It was by a professional photographer, offering his services for weddings, birthdays, etc. He had 4 samples of his photos at the bottom of the ad. I immediately recognized those photos – they came from my image bank! That photographer stole four photos of other photographers, and claimed on national newspaper that they are a sample of his own work”.
The lesson? If someone can publish an ad on national newspaper with stolen photos, someone can sure-as-hell upload stolen photos to his Flickr, Instagram or Facebook accounts, and even upload them to open “public domain” (AKA ‘free’) web galleries.
If you, or your designer, happen to download and use a photo from a public domain website, that was uploaded without the photographer’s knowledge – you are performing an infringement as if you stole the photo yourself.
Now I'm really confused if I can use the images "not filtered by license", coz someone might have uploaded them into these websites without taking appropriate license and the cascading effect has our blog as the culprit.
I'm still not sure on the exact way to obtain images, for free, that won't land us in trouble.
I believe unless you are damn sure that what you are using are copyright free images, you should refrain from using them. What Google tells us is that the search hasn't been performed keeping in view the copyright statys of the image. Usually the free image sites provide these images and the copyright notices attached. When using such images, I believe your liability in such copyright infringement cases is limited, as you, in your understanding used copyright free images. Still, this is not a legal opinion.
So, let us say if I'm writing a movie review. I go to a mall, take a picture of the poster from my mobile and upload it on my blog, would that be considered a violation too?
I don't think that amounts to a copyright infringement. Moreso, because you're promoting the movie, for the production house.
We need to understand that until the copyright holder doesn't give a damn to any copyright violations, anyone need not worry. It's when these copyright holders expect revenues from these copyrighted works that the problem comes in.
It takes a lot to create content, and images are just like that. A lot of photographers (even some of the non-professional hobbyists) spend a considerable amount of time retouching their photographs, sometimes using commercial licensed software, and thus, expect to be paid for usage of any of their works.
No there won't be a copyright issue until and unless company doesn't put a watermark into it. So, you can use those images on your blog or websites.
I think you doesn't have any idea about the copyright images. You can read it on wikipedia in the first two paragraphs it is giver. Watermark is added to stop the copyright infringement.
Ranjith is right you are absolutely wrong. If you use copyrighted images the company may sue you.
http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/
Scroll down and tick "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content "
All the images on wikimedia are free to use.
You can also use Google images without copyright issue. You just need to set Lable as Commericial use in advance search result,then you can use that images on your blog.You don't want to go anywhere.
many images you see in top results might be from top sites which actually pay for these images eg to gettyimages. In any case taking these pics without permission is not legal, unless specifically marked otherwise.
Search on google and better you download image by a lesser popular site.
Images that you see in Google search results do not belong to Google and neither do they authorize you to use them for free. Images belong to their respective copyright holder and irrespective of whether or not you are linking back, it is illegal to use such images, unless they have been released under creative common or free license eg. Wikipedia. If you use images without permission, then you are liable under various copyright laws and the copyright holder can even get your site barred from Google Search Results and Adsense. Better use images from Wikipedia or stock image sites.
@Stagg
You can use Google image advance search to find free to use images. Using copyright images may lead to problem in future. Here is an article which can help you to learn using Google images for finding royalty free images.
@Arindam nice to hear and thannk you for sharing this!
I use StockXchange to source 90% of pictures on my blog. I use it 100% for my office work, but only for communication (not for production/marketing).
On my new themed blog, I have used a lot of pictures for header images from sources other than SXC. So I had given due credit to the website where it belonged. In case the owner has objection, he / she would realize that I have credited the website. Still if they reach out to me, I would respect their copyrights.
Pictures on StockXchange are exceptionally high quality (hi-res) and are often really creative. Search is not very productive like Google's, but you need to search for the right keywords.
Thanks for the intro to SXC! It's great. My terms and conditions are pretty much the same but quality is basically 2-6 Mp max. :) Free to use for free with attribution.
Speaking of watermarked images, like the ones from istockphoto and getty, it is ok to use them without citing sources, right? That's what the watermark is for anyway, which you pay to remove. No harm in using them for free with the big watermark on them, right?
Thanks Aditya for the info. Meanwhile I have been linking to the source or mentioning the source to avoid any conflict. if the images are charged, its usually mentioned/watermarked. It is best to not use those.
For the past 5-6 months what I have been doing is to use advanced search features and take only images that are free to use and share. Also I use URL feature rather than downloading image and putting it up. So if you hover over the image itself, you can see the source.
I prefer not to use the URL feature because what happens if the URL you are pointing to takes down the image or something?
SM just keep a watch that a picscout spybot hasnt visited your blog. It is a spyder of the image agencies who then send infringement notices. You can read this article about how to avoid getting into copyright issues or get images for free >http://meronbareket.com/getty-images-demand/ If you are using a copyrighted image and picscout visits your site, remove the image immediately.
So if I get an infringement notice, and take the image down, will that end then and there? Or will they drag me to court or something?
Yea, never heard of this. Thanks.
I think, gving the direct link of your 'apparent' source and a disclaimer stating that you'll remove if the original photographer contacts you for the same would solve your confusion. And remember, if it's any artist's or photographer's work mail and ask him/her whether you can use it in your site before just putting it with the link. Cheers.
Right now, I'm adding the URL to the Image Properties. So its not clickable, but if you hover the mouse over it, the URL appears. I hope that's enough.
When I use Googled images, I simply link the image to its URL and if I am not sure about the owner, I give the courtesy to Google. I think that's enough...
That sounds like a good idea, but I'm talking upwards of 10 images per article. Won't all those links slow down the page?
No, I don't think it'll slow down the page. Depends on the resolution/size of the picture... Links don't slow down pages.
Press shots are not a problem. The same should apply for creative commons' photos that allows you to use them provided you do not alter them and use it for commercial purposes. In both cases, its best to link the credits to the source. If you are hotlinking the images, it won't slow down. But to be honest depending on the site and the site owner, many wouldn't appreciate their hosting's bandwidth is being leeched by another website (some have hotlink blocks as well). You can always host it in free image hosting site, embed the image and backlink it to the source.
No, as not all images available in google gives you the right to reuse. Google fetch images from all kind of websites and some of them don't allow or give permission for its reuse. One should only use the images which are "labelled for reuse" or you will be violating the copyright.
Sign in to reply to this thread
