Grabbing pics off the net

[don]

Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
your own?
These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
information on them.
They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
understand.

 

[richard]

Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
your own?
These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
information on them.
They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
understand.

It's called "Public Domain".
But be careful. If a certain generic photo clearly shows off a registered
trademark, and you copied the photo from that company's site, they could
force removal. Also, some shapes are registered trademarks.

It really all boils down to just how generic the individual photo really
is. Each one would have to be judged by itself.

if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall which
of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.

 

[Jeff Thies]

It's called "Public Domain".

Most choose to retain ownership, even if it is publicly viewable.

But be careful. If a certain generic photo clearly shows off a registered
trademark, and you copied the photo from that company's site, they could
force removal. Also, some shapes are registered trademarks.

It really all boils down to just how generic the individual photo really
is. Each one would have to be judged by itself.

if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall which
of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.

No. The image in your camera is your image.

It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
enormously different images. Enormously different.

As for the OP. Don't lift images without asking. "Generic" images are
cheaply obtained from any number of sites. Often just a couple dollars.
Often free.

As far as lifting product shots. If the shot was done by the
manufacturer, and if you are selling that product, I tend not to worry
about permissions. Such images are commonly provided for use under such
terms.

If that product shot was done by a third party, then you should ask.
Theft is common though, which is why so many images are "water marked".

Jeff

 

[David Segall]

Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
your own?

Probably not. Most sites have a copyright prohibiting this and many
sites use pictures that they have paid for. The latter often contain
an invisible watermark that can be used to track unauthorised use of
the picture.

That said, the downside of using a picture without permission is very
low and I have several on my own web site. Unless you are very rich
and/or you are making money from the picture the worst that will
happen is that you will be instructed to remove the image from your
site.

These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
information on them.
They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.

In that case there are heaps of legitimate sources. Google has an
option in the advanced image search to look for pictures "labeled for
commercial reuse". You can search Flickr for photographs you can use
under a Creative Commons license
<http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/>. There are thousands of free
photographs at http://www.sxc.hu/.

 

[Helpful person]

Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
your own?
These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
information on them.
They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
understand.

All published data, irrespective of the media is covered by copyright,
the web included. Unless you have permission to use an image you are
infringing on someone's rights.

http://richardfisher.com/

 

[richard]

Probably not. Most sites have a copyright prohibiting this and many
sites use pictures that they have paid for. The latter often contain
an invisible watermark that can be used to track unauthorised use of
the picture.

That said, the downside of using a picture without permission is very
low and I have several on my own web site. Unless you are very rich
and/or you are making money from the picture the worst that will
happen is that you will be instructed to remove the image from your
site.

In that case there are heaps of legitimate sources. Google has an
option in the advanced image search to look for pictures "labeled for
commercial reuse". You can search Flickr for photographs you can use
under a Creative Commons license
<http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/>. There are thousands of free
photographs at http://www.sxc.hu/.

Many times, those watermarks are added on by the website AFTER stealing
them from another site.

There was a case just a couple of years ago which involved Chrysler Jeeps
and bikini clad ladies posing around them. After Chrysler initiated a
lawsuit against the site, for improper use of their trademark, the guy took
the photos down because he found out he had the wrong permission.

However, as owner of that vehicle, with, or without the trademark attached,
the manufacturer has technically relinquished it's right to the trademark
and falls under "public domain" or even "fair use". Not to mention the
manufacturer is getting free publicity.

The real trick is, knowing who owns the copyright to that photo.
Just because you put it up on your website, does not give you copyright to
that photo.

 

[richard]

All published data, irrespective of the media is covered by copyright,
the web included. Unless you have permission to use an image you are
infringing on someone's rights.

http://richardfisher.com/

Basically that is correct.
However, photos of objects that are constantly in public view, are not
necessarily protected by copyright.

Let's say I take a photo of a hammer on which the company name is proudly
displayed. Nothing else is in the photo. As it so happens, that company has
an identical photo on their website. Can they claim I violated copyright?
They can try. But as soon as I produce the "negative", that will soon
disspell any doubts as to who owns the photo.

Many moons ago, back in the sixties, my father and brother went to the Indy
500 race. My father got this absolutely fantastic photo of Debbie Reynolds
stretched out on the pace car. If I had hung onto that photo, a slide
actually, that would now be on my webpage. The interesting thing about it
is, when he took the photo, no one else was around. It was as if she had
posed for a photo shoot.

<cue evan platt's mockery>

 

[Don Wiss]

Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
your own?
These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
information on them.
They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
understand.

If you are an Amazon Associate you are allowed to use their product
pictures to promote an associate link to the product.

But pictures from sources like newspapers are copyright and you could get
sued for using them. See this article:

Enforcing Copyrights Online, for a Profit
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/media/03righthaven.html?pagewanted=all

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[dorayme]

if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall which
of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.

No. The image in your camera is your image.

It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
enormously different images. Enormously different.[/QUOTE]

OK, if you and I stood side by side with identical cameras and
took a rare good complicated image of a waterfall with the same
composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
compensation, color balance, post processed them the same,
published them at the same pixel size, which of us owns the right
to that photo?

 

[dorayme]

... My father got this absolutely fantastic photo of Debbie Reynolds
stretched out on the pace car. ... The interesting thing about it
is, when he took the photo, no one else was around. It was as if she had
posed for a photo shoot.

That's because she did that sort of thing. Once I was returning
to my old car and caught her hanging around my tow bar. She had
this thing for muscle cars, glad I had my camera handy, no one
would believe me otherwise.

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/debbie_on_my_ford.jpg>

 

[Helpful person]

No. The image in your camera is your image.

It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
enormously different images. Enormously different.

OK, if you and I stood side by side with identical cameras and
took a rare good complicated image of a waterfall with the same
composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
compensation, color balance, post processed them the same,
published them at the same pixel size, which of us owns the right
to that photo?
[/QUOTE]

Which photo? there are two.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

OK, if you and I stood side by side with identical cameras and took a
rare good complicated image of a waterfall with the same composition,
depth of field, exposure time, exposure compensation, color balance,
post processed them the same, published them at the same pixel size,
which of us owns the right to that photo?

Neither of you. richard owns it!

(because he has no understanding of copyright law, as he's proved many
times)

 

[dorayme]

<[email protected]

,

....

Which photo? there are two.

There are two cameras and two sets of atomic configurations in
the memory card but the picture is a more abstract universal
thing and harder to see as multiple. There are multiple
instantiations of the universal.

If there are two universals that cannot be told apart in any
respect, what makes them two rather than one?

Jeff, do me a favour: let's do this thing and take each other to
court, it would be fun arguing in front of a judge and jury, the
aim being to send them *crazy*!

 

[richard]

Most choose to retain ownership, even if it is publicly viewable.


No. The image in your camera is your image.

It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
enormously different images. Enormously different.

As for the OP. Don't lift images without asking. "Generic" images are
cheaply obtained from any number of sites. Often just a couple dollars.
Often free.

As far as lifting product shots. If the shot was done by the
manufacturer, and if you are selling that product, I tend not to worry
about permissions. Such images are commonly provided for use under such
terms.

If that product shot was done by a third party, then you should ask.
Theft is common though, which is why so many images are "water marked".

Jeff

I was using the scenario to point out that each person who takes a photo of
the same subject in the same location, owns the copyright to their photo.
If that other person makes a million bucks off his photo, you can't turn
around and sue him because you have the "same" photo.

Case in point. Drive around Lake Tahoe and you will find a certain spot
that has been photographed almost identically a million times because there
is only one spot where you can get that picture.

 

[Jeff Thies]

OK, if you and I stood side by side with identical cameras and
took a rare good complicated image of a waterfall with the same
composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
compensation, color balance, post processed them the same,
published them at the same pixel size, which of us owns the right
to that photo?

To each, their own.

What if one markets the photo and the other doesn't? Should the one who
didn't benefit from the others effort?

For the most part photographers just try to take a better version of
an image they have already seen. This is often all that is needed, a
competent portrait, product shot or landscape.

For some landscapes locations, the tripods all fit in the same holes,
as that is the classic shot view. There can be grumbling about stealing
the composition, but you still have to make the shot.

Jeff

 

[P E Schoen]

"dorayme" wrote in message

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/debbie_on_my_ford.jpg>

That looks photo-shopped. If it's real, it looks very uncomfortable.

My first car was a pea-soup green 1960 Falcon with a 144 engine and 2 speed
automatic. I painted it metallic green using a dozen spray cans of enamel:
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/carpaint.jpg
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/falcon69.jpg

My first vehicle was a 1966 Honda CA160 motorcycle:
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/honda66.jpg

Later, I got a really old clunker:
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/oldcar.jpg

Paul

 

[dorayme]

"dorayme" wrote in message

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/debbie_on_my_ford.jpg>

That looks photo-shopped. If it's real, it looks very uncomfortable.

Many dreams are like that, with photoshopped looks and

My first car was a pea-soup green 1960 Falcon with a 144 engine and 2 speed
automatic. I painted it metallic green using a dozen spray cans of enamel:
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/carpaint.jpg

It looks like one of the very early automatic Fords I tried out
once, while interesting to try the auto gearbox, I got the
impression at the time that it struggled, the manual much more
practical. But Ford solved that problem by huge powerful engines
and better automatic gearboxes later on...
my old bomb was a 1971/2 XY model.