Stock Photos- Are They Free Or Not?
It got me thinking as to why you needed permission. I thought that by simply copying and saving the image from one of these sites, along with the water-mark on them, was sufficient enough for me to use it without subscribing to that particular site. If the water-mark was present in the images, doesn't that mean I don't have the right over the image, but the website that provided it does?
I have quite a few images from one particular site and this has got me worried whether I've broken any copyright laws!
Could anyone shed some light on this?
Recent Comments
25
Just to add another note, if you ever see some graphics software at gararge sales, swap meets etc, you can take the pics from those too since you own the software you can use those.
One way to add to your library too for dirt cheap!
Kal
Rich,
Yeah, I see that. But it doesn't give me any more peace of mind. I have been there with those types of warranties. I was a home builder for 24 years. With each and every house there is a roof. Each roof was covered with shingles. The shingles were guaranteed for a minimum of 20 years. Over the years there were several occasions where a home owner made a claim against the manufacturers. ( large firms ) In every occasion the home owners were denied coverage because of this or that, usually something in small writing in the warranty. Each roof was installed according to "best practices" at the time. But each claim was denied by a "gotcha" like this: "used within the terms of the license agreement"
That is actual experience, not supposition. They will find a way out.
Another case was when I purchased a gas bbq grill. It came with a lifetime warranty including parts and labor. It was a little pricey but I decided to go with it based on the warranty. ( I lived on the coast in Florida and anything metal will be destroyed by the salt air in a short period of time ) When it rusted a year later and i needed to replace several crucial parts I was told that the parts were not covered under warranty because I had not protected it from the elements. ( I had been very careful actually to keep it covered under a roof and also with the grill cover that came with it ) When I pressed the issue I was told that the cover should not have been used in that environment...... jeesh. Finally the company i bought it from gave me another grill.. I threatened to go all electric.. (They were a gas company) But the mfg of the grill didn't fix the broken one.
Warranties like that are worthless.
As to rankings in Google. depending on Google is risky business no matter what you do. I guess you mean Google. There may be some merit in that, everyone has become paranoid of Google. I just haven't seen that they are going after the CC license or should actually. After all, if you do a google search for any keyword you get the option to look at images.. This is content actually provided on the internet to YOU the user, using content that is protected under copyright law. http://femalefundamentals.com/blog/ Scroll to the bottom of the page. It says all rights reserved yet google presented the image shown in their search page. Few people who place images online really don't want them NOT to be found. But who is to say that Google won't slap you for using an image that you have a valid license for? Certainly not me. After all Google and Yahoo are competitors. But who would be calling the kettle black?
You can always be afraid of everything and you SHOULD be afraid of Google. So I agree with that, just not to the same degree. But if you are afraid of google.. then, wouldn't it be smart to hedge your bets? and maybe buy some adwords? After all, google certainly does what it wants.. and what it wants is money. (read between the lines)
http://everything.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/photo-use-and-attribution.html
check out the comments. I'm not the only one.
Cheers and Peace with a bit of Rebel Skepticism and a healthy dose of cynicism. It comes with age.
Hey T.
The watermarked images in stock libraries are called "comps" and are made available to users to get a look and feel for how they would work in practice prior to purchase or to pitch to clients, etc. etc.
If you put them on your site, even with the watermark, you are liable to be "fined". It's not enough to remove them or pay the minimum charge, I have a portfolio with a stock library and received two substantial payouts last year and the stock library charged their "legal" costs on top, which I gather were in the region of $3,000 a time.
More importantly, most of the major agencies are in negotiation to have sites deranked or deindexed that use stolen content from their catalogues. It could mean that your website might be slapped to oblivion in a future Google update.
There are some great legitimate free resources such as http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ or listed in Diva B's training https://my.wealthyaffiliate.com/training/where-to-find-images-for-your-website otherwise simply sign up to a stock library and purchase the right to use the images you want, the majority such as http://www.fotolia.com or http://www.123rf.com charge as little as a $1 for the right to use an image multiple times on as many sites as you want without accreditation. :)
Rich. x
Pay for something that you can get legally and morally free is NOT common sense.
As to your point about your young cousin's picture that answer is IF he granted the license then YES i do have the right.. Would I? Probably not. That is common sense.
I think what you are getting confused about is that if you pay for something then you are on the moral side of right. That isn't true. I"m not condoning what you suggest. That would NOT be common sense either.
Best practices are :
"A best practice is a method or technique that has consistently shown results superior to those achieved with other means, and that is used as a benchmark. In addition, a "best" practice can evolve to become better as improvements are discovered. Best practice is considered by some as a business buzzword, used to describe the process of developing and following a standard way of doing things that multiple organizations can use."
I challenge you to show how using a CC license is not a best practice. Also, where anyone was sued for use of a CC license while using common sense. The reason I use Flickr in the first place was because of researching best practices for use of images other than my own. Flickr is not dodgy. They are a legitimate well funded and I would bet have very good legal counsel.
And BTW, It makes me smile too when when someone purchases something and then finds out it was stolen. But common. Chances of anything like that would be extremely remote whether paid for or not.
I used to hear this phrase used by almost every lawyer I've talked to. "you can't get blood from a turnip" The inference here is that if there was a problem with the license that the lawyers would be going after Yahoo and Flickr (deep pockets) rather than a struggling blogger..
Now then,, if you are one of those RICH bloggers then by all means pay for your pictures.. but,, if I were i'd still use Flickr and if I felt guilty about using a pic i would send them a few dollars.. or a gift.. And CERTAINLY, if I was going to embarrass someone with the use of their image, which is common sense NOT to, then I would at the very least contact them first. But common sense dictated that you don't do something that will cause you or someone else problems. It's up to the blogger to protect themselves.
Hey Rex.
This is a common misconception. No you don't have the "right" to use the image. I took the photo and therefore I'm the copyright holder and I have not released it. No one else can release or licence it on my behalf without my permission. In the same way, I don't have the right to put this picture http://d.pr/i/E5Lo into a Flickr stream and add CC to it. I'm not the copyright holder, am I?
This is my whole point. It's not an issue about Creative Commons, just the way it is applied by Flickr. If you read and understand CC, you'll know that ONLY the copyright holder can legitimately apply CC.
Rich.
I said:
"As to your point about your young cousin's picture that answer is IF he granted the license then YES i do have the right.. Would I? Probably not. That is common sense." He being your cousin. Your point it not lost on me. I get it.
My point is this:
"HOWEVER, no site can enforce the level of compliance that would guarantee to the end user that the images are without a doubt submitted by the copyright holder. There is an implied affidavit of ownership, if not explicit, and by choosing the CC license when uploading images it is the responsibility of the submitter to withhold those right that they are entitled to. Also, the submitter can elect to make their picture private or public. "
The issue would be: Did the Blogger act in good faith and exercise reasonable caution? Whether paid for or not, a license is a license. If a blogger found out "without a doubt" that the image he or she used was submitted fraudulently then "reasonable caution" would be that the image be removed. But, as I said, the probability of this happening, (and becoming an issue) are so unlikely as not to be something to be concerned about. Furthermore, directly to the point of our discussion, I see no more protection from a paid "reputable" firm than from Flickr. Neither will send their lawyers to defend you and do you really think that there would ever be the need to?
Hey Rex,
"I see no more protection from a paid "reputable" firm than from Flickr. Neither will send their lawyers to defend you and do you really think that there would ever be the need to?"
Here's just one example from a reputable source, iStockphoto.
- - -
"Every royalty-free file licensed on iStockphoto includes a free Legal Guarantee. This is our promise that content, used within the terms of the license agreement, will not infringe any copyright, moral right, trademark or other intellectual property right or violate any right of privacy or publicity.
If you receive a threatened or actual claim that your use of iStockphoto content (used within the terms of the license agreement) is infringing any rights mentioned above, notify us of that claim and, with your consent, we will defend you and be responsible for your damages and expenses up to $10,000.
If you need a little extra peace of mind from iStockphoto, the Extended Legal Guarantee increases iStockphoto's responsibility for your damages and expenses up to $250,000. This Extended Legal Guarantee comes free on any file purchased from the Vetta Collection or Agency Collection, and can be added to any other file outside of those collections."
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses
- - -
As I said, Flickr is a devalued resource, if anyone wants to knowingly run the risk that their site will be slapped down in a future search engine update or chance copyright infringement whether in regard to the image itself, or it's content if it includes people, places or products, I'm more than happy to let them *choose* to do so.
I've simply advised caution about considering the CC content on Flickr in any way reliable and offered suitable, legitimate, worry-free alternatives. :)
Rich.
Flickr is a great source of free photos that you can use. When you search click on the advanced search link, then scroll down and find the check box that filters for images that can be used for commercial purposes or that can be modified. CC Creative commons is where you will find this. Then check the boxes that apply to how you want to use the photos ( Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content
Find content to use commercially
Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon)
Your search will be filtered to show only those photos.
You should check the rights that the owner has reserverd .. It will say something like this:
You are free:
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to make commercial use of the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Attribution is simply putting a link to the authors page some where in your post. At the bottom is fine. I always send a short note to the author thanking them and letting them know I used their photo.
Flickr is great.
Hey T. I don't recommend the use of Flickr, it's a completely devalued resource. I'm afraid that a huge percentage of the images are put up by people who are not the copyright holder and therefore have no right to licence the images for reuse, ie. http://www.flickr.com/photos/53558245@N02/
Likewise, never use images that show people or private property, even if you're sure that the copyright holder has released them under CC. It's almost always the case that no Model or Property Release has been signed and the person portrayed can claim damages from you for the use of their likeness.
R. x
"completely devalued resource" @Rich What does that mean? And where do you get your information. I haven't been able to corroborate your claim at all. Since Yahoo is backing Flickr it would seem that risk for use of properly licensed photos would be minimal if NOTHING at all to a blogger.
Many people use Flickr as a way to share their personal photographs for example. How would you feel if a photo of your child was used to portray the horror of sexual abuse on someone's website, or a portrait of your parents was used to illustrate incontinence products? Just because someone on Flickr "says" the images in their stream are available under CC doesn't mean they have any legal right to release them in this way unless they are actually the copyright holder and have signed model and property releases such as http://en.fotolia.com/Info/Release/View/release_minor. Rich.
Some things are just common sense. There are literally thousands of photos on Flickr that are not pictures of people and I would agree that using those images such as you linked to might not be appropriate for use in a blog. HOWEVER, no site can enforce the level of compliance that would guarantee to the end user that the images are without a doubt submitted by the copyright holder. There is an implied affidavit of ownership, if not explicit, and by choosing the CC license when uploading images it is the responsibility of the submitter to withhold those right that they are entitled to. Also, the submitter can elect to make their picture private or public.
"How would you feel?" Well the cat was let out of the bag when the images were posted in the first place, don't you think? I do agree that a blogger should use ANY image responsibly. Also, as I mentioned, I send a note to the author of the image letting them know that I used their image and give them a link to the blog post. I have never had any objection, and if I had I would have removed the image immediately. I stand by my recommendation of Flickr as a good source. Just use common sense.
The submitter may attach which ever license they choose.. The CC license is just a choice. Under that license the owner may specifically grant to the end user it use for commercial purposes and or to be altered or modified. That means you can use it in a blog.
"Creative Commons licenses are drafted to be enforceable around the world, and have been enforced in court in various jurisdictions. To CC's knowledge, the licenses have never been held unenforceable or invalid. "
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Do_Creative_Commons_licenses_affect_fair_use.2C_fair_dealing_or_other_exceptions_to_copyright.3F
Rex,
I can email a mate a pic. of my young cousins pulling faces, he might share it on his Flickr stream with a CC label, that doesn't mean you have the right to use it on your website to illustrate mental health issues, does it?
I think it's "common sense" to use best practice, which is what I'm advocating. I'm not stopping anyone using Flickr, just advising that it is a devalued resource and that the appearance of CC against an image is no protection whatsoever. I can upload your profile pics to Flickr and stick CC against them. How happy would you be if someone then uses them on their site to illustrate a blog about general incompetence or idiocy?
You wouldn't download music or videos from a "dodgy" source, would you? Why treat photography or illustration any differently. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
It always makes me smile that people will spend hundreds and hundreds of man hours on their websites but even though "a picture paints a 1,000 words", they baulk at spending a $1 to license one from a reputable source or decline to use a genuine repository of free images. If people want to run the risks of getting their sites slapped in a future update or a substantial bill popping through their door, that's their choice. I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't recommend anyone else do it either. However, it's definitely their decision to make!
I'm afraid that I wholeheartedly agree with Kyle that "common sense" is just not so "common": https://my.wealthyaffiliate.com/kyle/blog/common-sense-sure-goes-a-long-way :)
Rich.
Sounds like I would err on the side of caution and not use them!
Have you tried www.morguefile.com ??
There are others, just google free photos
Kal
Generally... the watermark is there to deter you from using it... once you pay for it or get permission, watermark no longer appears, generally speaking. There are several places to get free photos... Google "free photos" and include the genre you are looking
for... ie: business, scenery, vitamins, whatever... You need to be extremely careful using photos or any kind... or element that does not belong to you... especially when used for business purposes... If are discovered with artwork that belongs to someone else... they will come after you. It is not worth getting caught... if caught can be huge costly mistake. your business site can be removed from service,... not worth the risk to save a buck IMHO.
I found this by Bis here at WA read what it says about Images you will be amazed.
https://my.wealthyaffiliate.com/training/where-to-find-images-for-your-website
I hope this helps.
See more comments
Wow, Teresa that's a lot of long comments you got below! Haha!
It's hard not to take images from somewhere and even when they say it's free, you have to link back to it....but the watermarked images are not something you want to use...., there are a number of places to go and sign up and get them like mentioned below. I am striving to use all my own images, but when I don't... I like to use the free clip art that comes with Microsoft products and then modify it with text or soft edges. I started http://tactci.com with this issue in mind, why not team up with people in the photography industry and do some internet marketing for them and in return they'll give you images you need. I like the bartering game and the charity game. Squidoo is a place, especially now, where you don't want to use copyright images, you could lose your whole lens over it. Hope this helps. Would love to create some images or logos for you sometime, just ask.
Thanks for the offer Ben, I'll bear that in mind for the future!