Image rights

[Stevie D]

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.

It happens. We had a case recently where a school was called up by a professional photographer for using one of his images without consent. He refused to accept an apology (even though none of the people responsible for the website going up were still working there) and immediate withdrawal, and pressed for payment, which the school had no choice but to make. You may think it's unlikely, that it won't happen to you, but the question is whether it is worth the risk – if a particular image is integral to your site design then apart from the moral/ethical aspect that theft is theft, what is going to happen to your site if you get a notice ordering you to remove the image? It could well mess up the whole design ... do you want to take that risk?

I have put a lot of photos on the internet over the years, and on the whole I would be happy for people to use them as long as they asked my permission first. In most cases, I would be unlikely to ask for anything more than a line crediting the photo to me, but nevertheless it remains my inalienable right to make that choice. Anyone who has copied my images without permission is far more likely to feel my wrath and be hit with a hefty bill.

[adammbsmith]

It happens. We had a case recently where a school was called up by a professional photographer for using one of his images without consent. He refused to accept an apology (even though none of the people responsible for the website going up were still working there) and immediate withdrawal, and pressed for payment, which the school had no choice but to make.

All they had to do was withdraw it.
They'd be under no obligation to pay him once it was gone.

[guido2004]

All they had to do was withdraw it.
They'd be under no obligation to pay him once it was gone.

And why's that? If you use something that is mine without my consent, why wouldn't you have to pay for the use you made of it? Even if you stop using it once I contact you?

[shadowbox]

All they had to do was withdraw it.
They'd be under no obligation to pay him once it was gone.

You seem to be somewhat confused by the way these things work. This is what courts are for - they are currently filled with civil suits from copyright owners suing people who have infringed their copyright. Withdrawing the image does not change the fact that the infringement was made in the first place. As for 'obligation', if the copyright holder is able to convince a judge you committed infringement of his work (commercial infringement it seems in your case based on your previous post), then the judgement he receives will definitely be an 'obligation' to pay, be it in cash or via the bailiffs.

Your advice in this topic seems to be based purely on what you've managed to get away with (so far). There's a huge topic within this very forum detailing the current ongoing campaigns by several stock image companies who are using image fingerprinting tech to effortlessly discover people using their images online without permission - most of these people unfortunately assumed the same as you - they'd just get a 'cease and desist' and the matter would be dropped. However, the stock image companies had other ideas. When they find you, they don't ask you to take it down - instead they send you a letter with two options: 1) 'request for settlement' of approx £1000 per image, or 2) 'See you in court' where you'll be liable for damages and their legal costs.

Please spend some time teaching yourself the basics of copyright law before giving advice on copyright issues on a 'legal advice' forum.

[adammbsmith]

Your advice in this topic seems to be based purely on what you've managed to get away with (so far).

My intent was to share what I've gotten away with (thus far).
Although I've been sensible when it comes to using images.
I'm not foolish enough to steal them from stock image companies for example!

[shadowbox]

My intent was to share what I've gotten away with (thus far).
Although I've been sensible when it comes to using images.
I'm not foolish enough to steal them from stock image companies for example!

Don't pack yourself on the back too quickly - there's nothing sensible about using images you don't have permission to use, regardless of source. And if you are using them at work, the ramifications spread further than yourself - assuming you are some kind of web developer, not only will your employer face possible legal action, but if he has them, so will his clients.

I seriously do not understand why any company would approve of this type of action, not when stock images are available so cheaply these days and are either a business expense or can be charged directly to the client.

[felgall]

My intent was to share what I've gotten away with (thus far).
Although I've been sensible when it comes to using images.
I'm not foolish enough to steal them from stock image companies for example!

You prefer to steal from the poor rather than to steal from the from the rich because the poor are less likely to be able to afford to take you to court when they find out you have stolen from them.

Of course some of the places you have stolen images from may belong to multi-millionaires who can easily afford to take you to court if you don't pay their bill for $1000 per image stolen.

I hope you have a lot of money stashed away to cover the costs when you get sent the bill for all the images you stole - which shouldn't be too far away now given that you have actually admitted the theft in a public forum.

[oddz]

Until a court case says otherwise using others links is not illegal. Otherwise everyone would be breaking laws by copying and pasting links into Facebook. Not to mention Google itself posts other peoples links as a search engine. There isn't a law in existence that directly states you can't use other peoples links on your site. Whether it be an image or otherwise. Not saying it is morally right but linking to someone else's content on your site is really no different than posting the URL on Facebook or having it turn-up in search results on Google. At least until the law differentiates those contexts, which isn't likely to happen to any time soon.

[shadowbox]

Why are you talking about 'links'? This post is about using other people's images without their explicit permission.

Until a court case says otherwise using others links is not illegal. Otherwise everyone would be breaking laws by copying and pasting links into Facebook. Not to mention Google itself posts other peoples links as a search engine. There isn't a law in existence that directly states you can't use other peoples links on your site. Whether it be an image or otherwise. Not saying it is morally right but linking to someone else's content on your site is really no different than posting the URL on Facebook or having it turn-up in search results on Google. At least until the law differentiates those contexts, which isn't likely to happen to any time soon.

[oddz]

If this image is copyrighted by the New York Times can Sitepoint now be held liable for "stealing" their photo even though it is merely be linked to? If that is the case than damn there are a lot of sites including Google itself that can be sued!

[felgall]

If this image is copyrighted by the New York Times can Sitepoint now be held liable for "stealing" their photo even though it is merely be linked to? If that is the case than damn there are a lot of sites including Google itself that can be sued!

You haven't linked to that image on the original site - you have stolen the image to post it here - something entirely different. In facxt not only have you stolen the image but you have set things up so as to constantly steal bandwidth from the owner - something they have to pay for - which means that you are likely to be presented with a far higher invoice for the misuse as you are stealing money from the owner every time that this page is displayed.

[oddz]

You haven't linked to that image on the original site - you have stolen the image to post it here - something entirely different

How so considering the direct link to the photo.

In facxt not only have you stolen the image but you have set things up so as to constantly steal bandwidth from the owner - something they have to pay for - which means that you are likely to be presented with a far higher invoice for the misuse as you are stealing money from the owner every time that this page is displayed.

True but no law that I'm aware of provides direct protection for this action. No matter how morally wrong.

The existing copyright infringement law doesn't really apply itself well to the digital realm. The concept of what a "reproduction" is or isn't could be argued in many different ways. Nothing covers concepts such as; hot linking. Some could even say that the second you post an image on the web that implicit reproduction rights have been granted. The browser itself in all actuality is "reproducing" the image. I'm just saying that when it comes down to it image infringement laws don't really cover the digital realm well considering they have been written with consideration for print.

[felgall]

How so considering the direct link to the photo.

You didn't use a direct link to the photo - you embedded it. A link would need to be clicked on and then the image would display on the owner's site.

Direct Link (which you might get away with as you haven't actually taken anything without permission):

<a href="http://example.com/remoteimage.jpg">this is a direct link to an image</a>

Stealing an image and bandwidth as well if you don't have permission:

<img src="http://example.com/remoteimage.jpg">

Just stealing the image and not the bandwidth:

<img src="remoteimage.jpg">

[oddz]

So legally you are saying there is a difference between using an anchor and an image tag. I would like to see that grammar…

I understand completely what you are saying but don't believe the first two cases are covered within any legal context directly that applies to image infringement.

The third case is the only one that really could be covered under "reproduction" considering the image data was directly copied.

[Stevie D]

So legally you are saying there is a difference between using an anchor and an image tag. I would like to see that grammar.

I don't see that it would be difficult. Current legislation has no trouble distinguishing between someone referencing another book and someone copying large sections of that book.

[backupbranch]

Many companies are now using image recognition softwares to find their images online which have been wrongfully used. They are then suing for large amounts. Use stock images for god sakes!