General Discussions

**AHelpingHand** · 03-16-2007, 05:14 PM

I've been reading for some time on those legal issues but I can't understand somethings:
If in my site I'm writing an article about for example David Beckham, can't I use a small picture of him? even If it's an ordinary picture published every where on the internet? and how about linking to some of his goals on you tube?

If a site is about software and it has some print screens of software, is this illegal?

If those actions are illegal then why millions and millions of sites, blogs...etc are doing this?!

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-16-2007, 05:24 PM

Because the law is basically unenforceable when it pertains to copyrighted images and people using them ad nauseam. If you own a site in California, are you going to persue legal action against a Russian for using your photo? Not likely.

It's a lot like file sharing. Most file sharing is illegal (some is legit, too), but how can anyone really track it?

As far as screen caps go, if they're your screen caps it's fine because you took them. If they're someone else's...well, that would depend on if you had permission or not.

As far as the Beckham example goes, if you took the picture, yes. if you didn't, then "no" in theory. Not sure about the YouTube example, although I suspect that's illegal too.

**yellow1912** · 03-16-2007, 05:32 PM

The question is: is your site famous/important enough, are you that well off that they can take some money from you

(jk)

**jyoz22** · 03-16-2007, 05:33 PM

"fair use" is not infringing copyright

Quote:

use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

here it is on the government's website (US Government):
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

**Learning Newbie** · 03-16-2007, 06:10 PM

Fair use is not an infringement, but there's another thing that fair use is not, and that's well defined. Honestly, it's not a risk I would want to take, that a judge or jury would agree with my idea of why something should be considered fair use. There are some clear ones, like you can buy a CD and make a copy for in the car, but you can't keep it if you give your friend the original.

If your site is commercial - and if you have ads on it but aren't selling anything your site is commercial - the judge is extremely likely to say that criticism and comment or anything that falls under research is not the primary motivation, that making money is, and deny fair use exemption. Ironically, though, 2 Live Crew vs Roy Orbison's ghost shows that parody can be commercial and fair use at the same time.

You need to either take the pic yourself, have permission or license from the guy who did, or be Google. The rest of the sites are just waiting to be sued out of existence, and people are pretty sue happy.

On the other hand, there are things like GPL and CC. Look at Wikipedia.

**jyoz22** · 03-16-2007, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

2 Live Crew vs Roy Orbison's ghost shows that parody can be commercial and fair use at the same time.

that's one thing i learned in school... parodies do not infringe copyright...

ur right about the fair use thing too...

**gsmile** · 03-17-2007, 12:46 AM

What if let's say you get stock images from a live journal community, and the community get's the stock images from vogue magazines, instyle, jessica stam collections, etc. Would it be illegal to use them? Since technically, the users didn't take the pictures.

**ForrestCroce** · 03-17-2007, 04:25 AM

You need to either have taken the photo, or have permission from the person who did. In a lot of ways, legally payment equals permission.

I don't think Vogue magazine sells stock photography. Getty does. So does iStockPhoto. A person/company can buy rights to use and republish an image from a stock house, but then only they have the right to use it. ( Them and anyone else who also buys a right to use. ) The fact that a thing has been sold once doesn't turn it into fair game ... just like I can't buy a CD, rip it into mp3 files, and upload them to an FTP site for anyone who wants a copy.

But then Creative Commons images, or GPL ones, can be used. Although Creative Commons lets the artist create their own terms, which you would need to follow to use the images.

There are a lot of places that have free or very cheap images, so when in doubt, go find "open" content.

**AHelpingHand** · 06:45 AM

Almost all of the free images sites I've seen demand that you mention the photographer name and a link of the website, does it mean I have to write those under every image I use, even small thumbnails? If so then it would be really very bad.

Also what does free for non commercial use mean for images? If you use those kind of images in your site and your site has some ads, does this mean you are violating the license?

**gsmile** · 03-17-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

You need to either have taken the photo, or have permission from the person who did. In a lot of ways, legally payment equals permission.

I don't think Vogue magazine sells stock photography. Getty does. So does iStockPhoto. A person/company can buy rights to use and republish an image from a stock house, but then only they have the right to use it. ( Them and anyone else who also buys a right to use. ) The fact that a thing has been sold once doesn't turn it into fair game ... just like I can't buy a CD, rip it into mp3 files, and upload them to an FTP site for anyone who wants a copy.

But then Creative Commons images, or GPL ones, can be used. Although Creative Commons lets the artist create their own terms, which you would need to follow to use the images.

There are a lot of places that have free or very cheap images, so when in doubt, go find "open" content.

But then is it okay for this site: http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent to be taking pictures from magazines? So you're saying what they're doing is illegal?

**ForrestCroce** · 03-17-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsmile

But then is it okay for this site: http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent to be taking pictures from magazines? So you're saying what they're doing is illegal?

Possibly. To really answer this, I'd need to know more about the images, and what's gone on between the blog and the magazine. If I saw one of my photos being used on someone else's page, the first call I'd make would be my lawyer, and then she'd be getting in touch with the site owner, basically telling them where to mail a check before taking the images down. On the other hand, if someone sent me an email saying they like a particular photo, and are making a web site, this has happened several times, and in almost all of them it's been non-commercial sites, and I've let the person use the image for free.

So it really depends on a lot of things, and we probably can't know whether that particular site is using the photos legally or not. But keep in mind, the default penalty is $10,000 per copyvio; it's not throw you in jail illegal, it's take your money illegal. Not at all the same thing as stealing somebody's car, for instance.

Also, the world is starting to pay more attention to this issue. The 100,000 videos taken down from YouTube is a good example. Or, a couple months ago, Walgreens refused to make some prints for me because they thought the quality was too high for anybody who would ever be in a Walgreens. They didn't want to be sued for making possibly illegal prints, made me sign a form indemnifying them.

**ForrestCroce** · 03-17-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHelpingHand

Almost all of the free images sites I've seen demand that you mention the photographer name and a link of the website, does it mean I have to write those under every image I use, even small thumbnails? If so then it would be really very bad.

In general, those are Creative Commons Attribution Required licenses; it sounds like you want GPL ones instead. You can head to Wikipedia and Wiki Commons to see examples of both, and also for a technical description of the difference.

The person who created the image gets to decide the terms under a CC license. If it says "attribution is required with each use" then you probably do need to list the author under each thumb, or at least if you run three thumbs in a row, to identify those three as a group to the author. It really depends on so many things, not least of which being whether the author knows you're using the images. Obviously, if not, you can get away with more, for a while anyway. ( I wouldn't risk it, personally. )

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHelpingHand

Also what does free for non commercial use mean for images? If you use those kind of images in your site and your site has some ads, does this mean you are violating the license?

Yes. Non commercial use means exactly what it sounds like; you can't use the images to get money, even indirectly. If they're content to attract people to advertising, that's been ruled commercial many times, so much so that US courts go on precedent. Not all photographers or illustrators agree with this definition, though, so you might want to shoot the guy an email and ask. You also want to pay attention to whether the license says anything about "no derivatives."

Again, there are enough choices that are completely legal and don't put you at any risk, that it really doesn't make sense to chance it. It can take longer to find the high-quality GPL images, especially if you need a particular one, but there are some excellent ones out there.

**gsmile** · 03-17-2007, 06:56 PM

What if you search for let's say a flower on google, and you find a flower image. So then you put it on your site. Does the same rule apply?

**AHelpingHand** · 03-18-2007, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsmile

What if you search for let's say a flower on google, and you find a flower image. So then you put it on your site. Does the same rule apply?

Searching for images in Google is no different than visiting any site and taking the picture, you have to know the license of the images. Showing in Google doesn't mean they are free.

**ForrestCroce** · 03-18-2007, 03:54 PM

A Helping Hand is exactly right. An image being on the net doesn't mean anything for this question. People can make a compelling argument that Google Images is a massive copyright violation, but a lot of artists make an exception for that one because it gives them free advertising. ( There's a more detailed thread in the Google forum. )

But it turns out if you look under Google's Advanced Search, you can filter for usage rights / license type. This only works for web search ( not images, at least not directly ), but it's something. Choices are not filtered by license, free to use or share, free to use or share, even commercially, free to use share or modify, free to use, share or modify, even commercially. The last one is ideal.

Wikipedia really can't be discounted as a source of free images, for people who need them. In general, you get what you pay for, and places like iStockPhoto that charge $1 to $5 per image have about 1 in 100 good ones. But people don't add images to Wikipedia for profit, they generally do it because they believe knowledge should be free. Wikipedia forces anyone who uploads an image ( since 2005 ) to release it for commercial and derivative use. Which is a little strange, as WP is non-commercial, but you can find incredible quality there, more easily than at micro stock houses.

Example: this is a GPL ( free for any purpose ) image I found by searching 'flower'

There's a photograph of the human eye that's just astonishing. It's polite to put "image by ..." somewhere, but unless the license is Creative Commons Attribution Required, you don't have to. ( The bee photo is GPL, so you don't have to. )

**ADAM Web Design** · 05:56 PM

Quote:

that's one thing i learned in school... parodies do not infringe copyright...

ur right about the fair use thing too...

Someone should tell that to Atlantic Records.

I don't know if anyone's ever seen the parody "You're Pitiful" on the Weird Al website, but he couldn't even put that on his latest album because the artist okayed it, but the label didn't.

So yeah, Don't Download This Song (well, actually, go ahead, because Al said it was okay to do it, but if anyone asks you own the CD and stuff.)