5 replies to this topic

[Chint™]

I have a website that requires 580 images to fill the gallery up with Random images!
Would it be alright for me to take an image off a website, if I correctly put its
Image name, description and a link to their website, would I be breaking any
laws since I have provided thier information and not taking credit for thier work? :search:

Edited by Chint™, 03 March 2008 - 09:44 PM.

[AbleReach]

The best practice is always to get permission.

[EGOL]

I am glad that you are asking this in advance. Consider these situations...

I have images that each took me about one day of research and planning then an employee spent two days preparing them from scratch for the web. The value of each image is hundreds of dollars at the minimum. They are unique and that is why we went to great length and expense to produce them. If someone asks to use any of these images on other websites we must say "no" - because the uniqueness is what adds value to our website and brings people there to see. How would you think I would feel if you took that image and used it without permission - when the answer to a request to use it would be "no"?

Another situation... I go to Getty images and license an image to use on my site. That license fee pays for my use - not yours. I don't own the image I licensed it - for a specific use and for a specific length of time. Some of their prices are not cheap. So, if someone writes and asks if they can use it I must say "no". I can not say "yes" to a ten year old student who wants to include it in a report because I don't own the image. Even if the Pope calls and wants to use the image I must deny him immediately and in a very clear voice. If you use that image I will be the least of your worries. Getty will be angry with you because licensing images is how they earn their living and the photographer who would have been paid for the use will want compensation.

If you don't have images you can go to a website like istockphoto.com and license images for about $1 each. They have lots of really nice images there and you can use them on your site for up to 500,000 pageviews for only about $1 each. You will get great images, istock will make some money, and the photographer or artist will get a small reward for their work. At that price it is win,win,win. You can feel good about using images if you do it that way - and the selection at istock (and other similar sites) is impressive for many subjects.

[Chint™]

Egol thank you for your reply! If I was a photographer or artist and someone promoted my work on thier site I would be most greatful and happy, wouldnt you?? All the images on my website will not be owned by me! Why wouldnt you want someone helping you promote your site with a link from my site and possibly gain extra traffic and/or even a sale??

All I am is an advertising platform for Artists/Photgraphers! I will have a disclaimer saying I do not own any of the images on site!

So am I correct in saying if I get an image of a photographers website and display it on my site, with a link to thier website and descriptions and a disclaimer, would this be illegal or bad ethics?

[Respree]

I think you'll find this article of interest, which will help to protect you when (not if) the shoe is on the other foot.

As a side note, I own a website offering art prints and posters. I source these art prints from duly authorized art publishers and have obtained permission from them to display images of the artists they represent (maybe 15,000 artists in all). For the most part, I think artists are generally delighted to see their art on the Net, of course, provided due credit is given. However, there are some artists who are constantly searching for websites who are stealing their images. I think they believe suing people for unauthorized use is a good way to make a lot of money fast, with not much work to do, but hire an aggressive, ambulance-chasing attorney. I've been threatened with lawsuits about 10 times over the years by these artists, who don't understand that when I sell their art prints, I pay the art publisher, who then in turn pays them a royalty. Luckily, once the above-mentioned situation was explained to them, any then-pending or threatened litigation were dropped

By the way, its not a pleasant feeling to receive a letter from an attorney claiming infringement and demanding $500,000 in punitive damages on behalf of their client, even knowing you've done no wrong. Your heart tends to beat a little faster when the certified letter shows up at your doorstep.

The best advice has already been stated above - get permission (in writing) first.

Edited by Respree, 04 March 2008 - 04:24 AM.

[IncrediBILL]

Don't assume people you steal from, I mean INFRINGE upon, will be excited about being promoted. I'm a photographer and you can ask others that took my work without permission about their web sites being shut down, legal fees, yada yada.

What some of you don't realize are some images earn huge licensing fees and those images showing up all over the place cause dilution of the images worth, so expect some photographers to defend their money makers to the fullest extent of the law.

Depending on who you steal from, I mean INFRINGE upon, especially people that formally register their copyright, you can find yourself facing statutory damages up to $150K and paying $2k or more per image.

If you don't think this happens, read about what PicScout does. They have a service that scans the web looking for anything registered with their service by photographers and photo agencies and when they find something being used without a license a lawyer sends a nice collection letter for a lot of money.

Sounds fun doesn't it?

However, there are many images on Flickr freely available under various creative commons license that you can download for free, with or without attribution.

Look here for more information about free Flickr images:
http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

One word of caution is that you make the leap of faith that the person uploading the image to Flickr actually owned the image. If they uploaded something to Flickr that didn't belong to them in the first place the creative commons license is meaningless and you'll get sued anyway.

Edited by IncrediBILL, 04 March 2008 - 02:46 AM.