Legality and practicality of using random web pictures on your website?

[cleanbluesky]

As title, just lifting them straight off? Is it legal to use them and give credit?

 

[cleanbluesky]

As long as you're not in breach of copyright.

And how can you find out the copyright on images?

 

[cleanbluesky]

Yeah, I've found that the BBC don't like people using their pictures...

 

[cleanbluesky]

I take it it isn't a picture of a public street\place then?

Yeah, it is...

 

[cleanbluesky]

As above, you must find out the terms of use stated in the copyright. If it's not present on the website then you must get written permission from the owner of the image.

As a photographer I must ask you please, please, please do not just lift peoples images or photos off websites without consulting them first - it's A) Usually illegal and B) Down right annoying when you find somebody stealing your stuff.

If you don't like it, don't circulate your stuff - you want to control how people view what you create? I suppose you buy all your cds and DVD and have a little shrine to Metallica as well... I bet you set fire to your copies of Napster

 

[cleanbluesky]

Surely those aren't hard to find?

I want to use this, its lovely...

 

[cleanbluesky]

That's a ridiculous point of view. A photographer has a right to use their work and expect other people to keep the law.

They have no 'right' to expect other people to behave within the law, crime is actually illegal and expecting a crime to remain completely unbroken is naive
They are hypocritical should they violate the copyright of others.

 

[cleanbluesky]

??? uhh CBS he's right. Are you advocating illegal procurement of items on the forum?

No I'm advocating a complex philosophical discussion of 'rights' and the tangibility of enforcing copyright in a digital world... which seems to have gone above your head if you think I am endorsing copyright theft.

I'm also willing to bet that no-one here who is waxing lyrical about how copyright violation is BBBAAADDD M-KAY isn't guilty of it themselves

 

[cleanbluesky]

Agreed. Unfortunately theres been a few times that this certainly hasnt been adhered to on this forum (posting private pics and copyright works with gleeful abandon) and its a public forum...surprised moderators dont seem to be aware of the legal ramifications. A lot of people just ignore copyright regulations because they think they wont get caught....shame that people think that way. What i mean is they have no respect for individuals and their right to privacy/copyrighted works etc.

Two points

1) Obviously if no legal action has been taken then the 'legal ramifications' are abstract

2) If anyone here wants to add anything further about the idea of copyright violation being cast in stone, please also sign off with the honest declaration that you have never violated copyright

 

[cleanbluesky]

So by posting images on websites, photographers should expect their work to be stolen? Thats like saying that drivers should expect their cars to be stolen if they park on the street. Just because its easily done and its widespread does not make it right or legal.

Learn to interpret written information properly, then come back.

If I found someone using any of my photographs without my permission, I would come down on them as hard as I could.

You mean you'd send them a stiff e-mail if you could find their e-mail address?

Have you ever violated copyright?


Moral whingers agitate me, puffing their chest out to suggest they have mighty standards without taking a look at the simple practicalities of the situation.

 

[cleanbluesky]

there are plenty of free "stock image" or even paid for image sites you can get stuff from which are generally free to use depending on the type of work you're undertaking. there's another forum i look at that's banned users posting pictures of footballers due to the forum being threatened with action due to copyright infringement. saying that though users always used to post link to live football streams so i suppose that's why they were on the radar.

Care to link?

 

[cleanbluesky]

the main one i use is Stock.XCHNG - http://www.sxc.hu/ you'll need to register but downloads are unlimited and the license stuff is next to each image.

Thank you kindly

 

[cleanbluesky]

Your effectively stealing straight from the photographer, rather than a big faceless company(thats budgeted for it), just seems morally worse.

No theft is involved, because no-one is being deprived of a resource. Back to this issue later - I'm off

One of the reasons that I believe that copyright enforcement isn't anywhere near as clear cut is because of the amount of music that goes around. Artists seem to think they are being cheated should anyone want to listen to their music without following strict instructions to do so - it is an affront to art, it is an affront to goodwill.

There is no way to stop a person using music, an image and unless they are passing it off as their own or using it to make money whilst depriving the artist then it should be taken

Music is largely recycled, and no photographer would like it if architects, car designers, models and people took the same attitude as they do with regards to their photos. What if you had to seek a landowners permission before photographing anything on their land, what about the council or even the government?

Art is the depiction of beauty, and no-one can or should own beauty. If you're a photographer and wish to stamp on the creative right of others to appreciate your material in the way they consider appropriate, you are a scrooge and your heart isn't in it.

As long as no-one is making money from your efforts and they aren't passing it off as their own, then you should WANT to see your work shared.