can I use any image from internet?
-
I´m a new blogger and would like to add pictures, images to my blog, can I use any picture from the internet, like from flickr? do I have to ask for permission?
-
Legally, no, you cannot use just any image from anywhere. You are legally allowed to use thumbnails of images, I believe it’s 120 pixels along the longest side.
The etiquette differs from the law, as in so many issues. The generally accepted (although not court-approved) process is to use an image unless specific copyright info says not to (artists and photographers naturally often use these statements). You MUST absolutely always give credit to the source with a link back. You can either make your image a link to the post you found it on or you can name the site where you got it and make the name a link. But you can NOT take images without crediting the source: this is what got Perez Hilton sued for $7 million dollars. And he would have lost, too. He changed his policy to give credit for photos (though he still steals stories) and the lawsuit was dropped.
-
There are also quite a few free clipart sites. Microsoft Clip Gallery used to be pretty good if I recall. And some sites like icanhascheezburger or marriedtothesea.com provide the code so you can put their image in your blogs and hotlink it with their permission.
-
-
Bare with me here please but how do I do that? I´ve seen many pictures in blogs but haven´t seen any mention about the source in the posts or in the blog. First I should download the image to my computer and then upload it, right? I was trying to change the image of the header of the template I´m using but didn´t know how…
-
Yes, download it then upload it to your space. Unless a site specificly provides code for you to use, ie: cheezburger as rain mentioned, you would be hotlinking if you just link to the image at another site. And that’s a major, major no-no.
Just because you’ve seen photos in blogs without credits, links or permission doesn’t mean the blog author isn’t breaking the law.
You could also do a google search for royalty-free stock photos. It usually only costs about $2 to buy the rights to download one and use it only on your blog.
-
Here’s a link to a site where I bought a photo for a header image I used to use. It was $2 and I emailed the photographer if she wanted to see it the way I was using it. She was thrilled!
-
In this case you just buy the photo and that´s it? No need to credit them or link to them?
-
That’s right. You’re buying only the right to download use it, usually once and for personal use only. You’re not buying any rights to the photo itself, which remain with the photographer. The terms and conditions are all spelled out. As I recall, I didn’t have to buy more credits than I needed and they took PayPal.
I wanted a distinctive, specific header image and that method met my needs. And I was fully legal and helping someone else earn a little money for their work.
-
You could always create your own images… a decent digital camera can cost as little as $75, and PhotoShop Elements 4.0 — which is very user friendly — costs about $100… Google “photoshop elements 4.0” for a free trial download. Please, try not to steal.
-
To answer your question in a word: no! And you can be up for a lawsuit if you simply grab a photo off another site and stick it on yours.
There are even sites out there that sit in wait for people to do this, then they sick their lawyers on you. Blogged about it:
http://lettershometoyou.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/how-much-is-that-doggie-on-the-sofa/Contains link at bottom to The Blog Herald on the concept of fair use.
-
“You are legally allowed to use thumbnails of images, I believe it’s 120 pixels along the longest side.” – I’ll eat my hat if you can find a reliable cite for that or anything similar.
“Fair use” is vague at best; there are no hard and fast rules as to when or how much of a copyrighted work you might be able to use without permission.
Some things that can be said without qualification:
If you are the copyright owner of an image, you can of course publish it wherever you like.
You can publish it if you have permission from the copyright holder, provided you abide by whatever conditions that permission came with.
If you publish an image without the permission of the copyright holder or a specific exemption, you are breaking copyright law and might be liable for civil or criminal prosecution.
There are limited circumstances where you might be able to publish a portion of an image without permission, but you must make absolutely sure those circumstances are appropriate before doing so.
I’d highly recommend reading this:
-
tellyworth, I did give links for that. What kind of a hat do you have? I’ll spare you from the indignity if you can find the thread I posted those links in: Andy posted to it, as did Mark, I believe.
-
Here you go. Links are in the post, this is the text titles only:
https://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic.php?id=19983&replies=15#post-153384CNET
PC Pro
The Professional Photographer’s Legal Handbook
Out-Law.com
Reuters
Techlaw Journal
Peace Corps Online
United States District Court of the Southern District of New YorkAnd a well-wisher sent me this one as well:
FairUse project, Stanford University -
Hi Viasalternas!
Let me help try you with this. When you use a picture, you got to be fair. If you take Raincoaster’s picture of herself, and you attacked her with it, that’s not fair.
But if you take her picture, and it happens that Raincoaster is celebrity, or she is the galfriend of Edison (Of sex scandal in Hong Kong), and you ridicule her or you praise her or you make a comment with her picture, that’s legal.
For instance, you read Harry Potter, and you find X paragraph from Page Y is wrong, or exciting or whatever, and you cut that paragraph and use it in your blogging for discussion, that’s fair use.
In a way, if what you cut is not a paragraph but a portion of the picture and you paste in not in your blog but another pictures, but you do so to create something that spells out a new theme or message, that’s also fair use. Because that’s part of expression, and expression is part of art.
Which is, if you shot a pic with Clinton’s poster in the background, and Mark the superstar passes by, the pic you have created is yours and legal. Neither Clinton nor Mark will be coming after you.
Actually, the legal issue of using pictures is this: Be fair.
Copyright existed also in songs, but just because you have a home video with your cat dancing in China’s national athem doesn’t mean China will come after you with the red army because your video production has their ‘copyright’ in it. So the theme must be very clear.
The use of copyright is hence not necessarily illegal. It is highly dependent on how you use it. (eg) If you use CNN’s photo which CNN pays $1000 from somebody but you paste it earlier than CNN does, CNN suffers a loss. If you paste it after CNN does (cut and paste), CNN suffers no losses but you cannot claim that is your picture. But it is not illegal to ‘spread’ such news via photos or wordings in the nature of attention (including gossips and comments) since that is the nature of the use CNN is for.
Fair use is pretty simple and outright. Open resources online can be used fairly, until the producer makes noise. However, here is one loophole…
Now usually a picture can be found in various forums and such. And usually, the sources of the pictures are not really the sources, and the pictures might have undergone fair usage. The one issue about open resources is this… by right, the owner of the picture must prove a that you have ‘stolen’ his picture from his source.
But the problem is, just because Car Daily and Vehicle Daily shot the same red Honda Civic in the same car show, crop it and place it online… can all of them says you are using their pictures, assuming you r using them unfairly?
The most important thing is, don’t sell the picture you took from (eg) Mark’s site. If you do, you are stealing with intention to deprive the income of Mark from his pictures. That’s OBVIOUSLY not fair. And Mark will sue you to claim back the ‘deprived’ income you have made. See?
Rgds.
Scope.
-
Well, no, anybody can take my picture and make fun of me, as long as they take my picture when I’m out in public. And if they link to my blog, I’ll be positively DELIGHTED!
Celebrity images are actually a little more complex than that, because of US law (and all WP.com blogs are under US law). In the US, celebrities have “the right of celebrity” which is a right to control how their image is used. It’s still nebulously defined, though. But people have gotten pictures taken down, even pictures they posed for. Rich people can get away with almost anything if they are also famous. Not everything (ask Tom Cruise) but they will certainly try.
-
If you look at the comments on this post, you’ll see an example of something that isn’t legally protected, but that the photographer was actually glad of:
http://raincoaster.com/2007/04/12/got-coffee/What happened was, I read BoingBoing and they showed these gorgeous pictures. I loved them, went to the site which was devoted to sharing pictures, copied them and posted them to illustrate my story. I had no idea that site had stolen them. Someone nasty in the comments accused me of theft, I got annoyed with his tone, I went looking for the real photographer, found her, emailed her and told her about the site. She didn’t know that thousands and thousands of people loved her photos, because none of the hits were coming to her site. I emailed people, she emailed people, and then she got featured in Make, which is a big, big deal. I think Boingboing even changed their link to her site, and they’ve featured her photographs since then.
That is why the “accepted practice” although not technically legal, is so often acceptable to so many. It gives credit where credit is due and can lead to more exposure and opportunity. If she’d asked me to take them down, I would have.
-
Rain,
If celebrities have “the right of celebrity,” how come paparazzi get to shoot celebrities and make gigabucks from their images? It must be very loosely defined for them to be able to get away with it.You’ve also got to realise that different jurisdictions treat it this matter differently. The story I outlined covers Germany, which is way behind as usual on matters such as this.
-
Because celebrities have the right to lay the smackdown on any images they feel are counter to their “right of celebrity.” Like, pictures of Carol Channing without her wig and makeup could possibly be covered under this right. Video of Tom Cruise going nuts about some weird religion, however, is protected because it is, itself, news. It’s a nebulous field and celebrities know they’re likelier to lose than win, but they have more money than other people, so less to lose by threatening to go to court.
I said above that ALL WP.com blogs are required to abide by US law. The ToS specifically state that in the event of a dispute, we agree to be bound by US court decisions, although I can’t remember if it’s Delaware or California.
Other countries only become an issue within those countries, which is why WP.com hosts some of Saudi blogs that put up stuff that is illegal in Saudi, for instance. And if you host your images on a German site, then German laws ALSO come into play.
-
The Right of Celebrity is not some sort of “protection from paparazzi” spell. It only gives the celebrity some power over images that are directly contrary to their own carefully-cultivated image, particularly images that were not shot in public. If, for instance, someone caught a pic of Paris Hilton in an old Camaro and a sweatshirt and no makeup, it might be covered. If they caught her going into Koi with somebody else’s husband, that’s perfectly in line with her image and not protected.
- The topic ‘can I use any image from internet?’ is closed to new replies.
WordPress.com Forums 