Image rights

[ameerulislam]

I seriously need some advice here. I have a tech-blog where I use some one to write articles for me. I'm really having trouble deciding the use of images. Blog articles without images looks really lame. I know I can't just steal anyone's image and put it on my site right? So I though I can just use the link of the image I need without uploading anyone eases image. I thought this would be good for the site I'm linking too as I'm giving them some link Juice!

Today embarrassingly I found that this technique is called "Hotlinking" :/ . Which is kind of stealing bandwidth if used without permission.

Can Some one shed light on this. Where can I find trouble images for my blog. Please note that as my site is mainly about newest technologies so free images usually won't serve the purpose..

Any word is welcome!

Thanks

[MBScott]

Hi,

What you might want to look for are royalty free stock images. A site such as http://istockphoto.com usually has them at a good price. There is one, too, that offers free images, but I can't think of the link right now.

You can also take your own photos ... no copyright issues there.



Missy

[TechnoBear]

Have a search around the forums, as there have been several threads on similar topics which might be helpful. For example this one: http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...Website-Images

[ameerulislam]

Have a search around the forums, as there have been several threads on similar topics which might be helpful. For example this one: http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...Website-Images

Those stuff are fine. The challenge comes when I need an image of something that is totally new and most probably not possible to find on stock photos sooner. I guess there is no way but to maybe buy it.

And what do you think about hotlinking? Its illegal is it? And is hotlinking bad for SEO too?

[TechnoBear]

And what do you think about hotlinking? Its illegal is it? And is hotlinking bad for SEO too?

I don't know if it's illegal, but it's certainly unethical. You're effectively stealing somebody else's image, and stealing their bandwidth to display the image on your site. Suppose you decide that the only way to get the images you need is to buy them, so you pay to get them legally, and then one of your competitors hotlinks to those images. How would you feel?

[ameerulislam]

I don't know if it's illegal, but it's certainly unethical. You're effectively stealing somebody else's image, and stealing their bandwidth to display the image on your site. Suppose you decide that the only way to get the images you need is to buy them, so you pay to get them legally, and then one of your competitors hotlinks to those images. How would you feel?

You are right, I know that. But on the other hand you are giving them link juice right? So isn't it a trade off?

[TechnoBear]

You are right, I know that. But on the other hand you are giving them link juice right? So isn't it a trade off?

I've seen no benefit whatsoever from the people who have hotlinked to my sites, and I now take steps to block the practice. If you genuinely believe that you are offering a reciprocal benefit, then why not contact the site owner and ask if they will allow you to link to their images?

[ameerulislam]

I've seen no benefit whatsoever from the people who have hotlinked to my sites, and I now take steps to block the practice. If you genuinely believe that you are offering a reciprocal benefit, then why not contact the site owner and ask if they will allow you to link to their images?

amm asking the webmaster is a good idea. Thanks.. But does Google consider hotlinking as a bad practice.. ? Any idea?

[ameerulislam]

Hei TechnoBear,

What about this? downloading an image and hosting on my site and give photo credit to the source. Legal?

[ParkinT]

Hei TechnoBear,

What about this? downloading an image and hosting on my site and give photo credit to the source. Legal?

Using any copyright-protected work without explicit written permission from the owner of the copyright is illegal. That is the purpose and intention of copyrights.
Contrary to popular belief, providing credit or a reference is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

[Unit7285]

What about this? downloading an image and hosting on my site and give photo credit to the source. Legal?

Why do you even ask this question? You know the answer. Everyone knows the answer to this question. It's just that you don't like the answer to the question because it is inconvenient to you, that's the problem...

It seems to me that you are just fishing here for someone to agree with you that using other people's images without permission is fine and dandy. Well it isn't!


Paul

[ameerulislam]

Well I had some doubts as recently I'm seeing in big Facebook pages they are sharing pretty much any image. That left some doubt on my head. I heard meme's are copyright free but I have seen many general (non-meme) images shared and I'm sure they don't have permissions. I have few FB pages and I don't upload other people's images and rather share the link. But I'm in a disadvantage. Uploaded images look bigger in the walls and shared link's image previews significantly small. I did search the internet about that and didn't find anything. Are the rules uploading images in FB pages different?

Why do you even ask this question? You know the answer. Everyone knows the answer to this question. It's just that you don't like the answer to the question because it is inconvenient to you, that's the problem...

It seems to me that you are just fishing here for someone to agree with you that using other people's images without permission is fine and dandy. Well it isn't!


Paul

[guido2004]

I you are writing about new technologies, don't the producers of that new technology provide images that can be used for free? Like promotional stuff, or press releases? Or contact them directly and ask for it. After all if you write about their stuff, it's free publicity, isn't it?

[ameerulislam]

I didn't think like that thanks. The purpose of opening this thread now well served. I wanted to hear something like this. Coz I was sure all those tech blog out there do not purchase every single images. I couldn't digest that. Always felt something was missing. Thanks again!

I you are writing about new technologies, don't the producers of that new technology provide images that can be used for free? Like promotional stuff, or press releases? Or contact them directly and ask for it. After all if you write about their stuff, it's free publicity, isn't it?

[guido2004]

I wanted to hear something like this.

This doesn't mean you can just take and use images, though.
You still have to make sure you have the right to use them the way you want to use them.

[ameerulislam]

This doesn't mean you can just take and use images, though.
You still have to make sure you have the right to use them the way you want to use them.

Yeah I know, but I'm sure apple is not going to respond to my mail if I want to use their image..

[TechnoBear]

Well, Apple have a section of Press info, including downloadable images. You would only need to check their terms of use.

[gavco98uk]

Well I had some doubts as recently I'm seeing in big Facebook pages they are sharing pretty much any image. That left some doubt on my head. I heard meme's are copyright free but I have seen many general (non-meme) images shared and I'm sure they don't have permissions. I have few FB pages and I don't upload other people's images and rather share the link. But I'm in a disadvantage. Uploaded images look bigger in the walls and shared link's image previews significantly small. I did search the internet about that and didn't find anything. Are the rules uploading images in FB pages different?

ALL images are automatically copyright, regardless of their use or intended use, UNLESS the creator explicitly states otherwise. You cannot share or use an image unless you are given permission by the creator, either by asking them permission, or by them posting a message along with the image granting permission to use the image. Whether it is posted on facebook or the internet, printed in a newspaper or displayed on tv, the image belongs to someone, and cannot be shared without their permission.

Why would you think you can just take an image and use it? Images take time to create. The camera used to take the images costs money, often quite a lot of money for a good camera, it takes time and money to travel to product launches and take these images, process and upload them. The same is also true for animated or computer rendered images, the software to produce them costs money.

Shouldn't the creator be paid for their work?

If they wanted you to use them for free, they would have uploaded them to a free image site.

[shadowbox]

Coz I was sure all those tech blog out there do not purchase every single images. I couldn't digest that. Always felt something was missing. Thanks again!

If you are writing tech reports and reviews, you should be able to source appropriate images from the manufacturers. Always worth specifically checking (no harm developing a relationship with their PR department, especially if it means they'll send you press releases direct), but generally speaking manufacturers are not going to cry 'copyright infringement' if you are using promotional product images and specs when reviewing or commenting their products. This is clearly in the realms of fair use and usually encouraged, not frowned upon by the manufacturers.

However if you need other images to embellish your blog, you'll need to source them either by creating them yourself, or purchasing them from commercial stock photo sites (you may be able to get some from free stock image sites, or from sites that allow free use with credit). You may also find plenty of people who will be more than happy for you to use their images for no payment, but you have to ask their permission to ensure they are happy for you to use it in the maner you intend.

Off Topic:

Not everyone creates to be 'paid' or to earn money, some people simply enjoy creating. Copyright is simply about providing the creator with the exclusive right to decide how their work is exploited by others - it just recognises that you are the owner of the work, no one else. The fact that someone spent time and money creating is irrelevant and certainly doesn't give them the 'right' to earn money from it. But I digress

Good luck with your site.

[adammbsmith]

In all the companies I've worked for, I've just used images I've found online.
Never had any trouble, apart from product images where a competitor had taken their own photos.
But generally, if someone didn't want it stolen/used they wouldn't have made it available for people to download.
And the odds of someone calling you up about images being used are highly unlikely.

[TechnoBear]

But generally, if someone didn't want it stolen/used they wouldn't have made it available for people to download.

Are you seriously suggesting that all content on the internet is there for the taking, irrespective of copyright and other laws? And that nobody will mind having their work stolen?

[adammbsmith]

Are you seriously suggesting that all content on the internet is there for the taking, irrespective of copyright and other laws? And that nobody will mind having their work stolen?

Not exactly.
I'm saying that if it's on the internet, someone is gonna steal/borrow it without permission.
Nobody likes having their work being used without their permission.
But what I am saying is that you can get away with a heck of a lot.

[TechnoBear]

But what I am saying is that you can get away with a heck of a lot.

Because you can get away with it doesn't make it right. And because you've got away with it in the past, that doesn't mean you won't get caught in future.

[oddz]

I'm going to play devils advocate.

From a legal stand-point the way I understand things is limitations on reproductions. However, when it comes to the internet the second someone visits a page all content is in theory "reproduced". Therefore, by the legal definition of the term "reproduce" when images are made available on the web the author implicitly grants "reproduction" rights. So one could ague there aren't any legal grounds for using others URL's regardless of how unethical it might be. Whether that be URLs to a html page, image, video, etc. Using a URL is a much more looser from of reproduction than physically copying data to a server. Though a case could probably be made for that as well if "reproduction" is defined as "copying" within the traditional context of print/physical "copies" for which it is defined.

edit:

The reproduction right is considered as one of the most important rights granted by the U.S. Copyright Act. Under this right, no person other than the copyright owner can make any reproductions or copies of the work. A reproduction right is a copyright holder’s exclusive right to make copies or phone records of the protected work. Unauthorized copying by others constitutes infringement.

Examples of unauthorized acts which are prohibited under this right include photocopying a book, copying a computer software program, and incorporating a portion of an already published song into a new song.

However, it is not necessary that the entire original work must be copied to result in an infringement of the reproduction right. If the copying is “substantial and material”, then it will amount to infringement.

So no where in there does it really state you can't use someone another persons URL. Unless you define an image as a "software program" than in theory nothing prevents copies of images to other servers either. You could easily argue that image is not a software program. A software program is a utility used to create the image. The image itself is merely data. If you define an image as a "software program" than you would also have to define text a software program by definition.

Not that it is ethical or anything just saying…

[oddz]

Think of it like this in theory if "reproduction" extends into the realm of not being able to use others URLs than in theory google could be sued. I mean what is that tab called "images" which displays images related to a search. isn't google "reproducing" those images within the same sense of someone else using one of URLs on their own site. I mean google is in the end a site, right. The same can be said for the browser which you are using. The browser is "reproducing" the image, no.