is it necessary to cite the origin of your photos if you downloaded them from somewhere? and is it necessary to copyright or somehow mark photos posted that you yourself has taken? thank you in advance for any input.
If you're using someone else's photos you need to check what rights they've granted to make sure they're OK with that. If it's a creative commons licence that allows commercial use then you should be okay (you can find these on Flickr), also if it's a wikimedia commons public domain photo. If you don't know what the rights are then you need to contact and get permission from the creator!
Another option is to use a company like clipart.com to get your images - that's what I do. It's a bit pricey (think it was something like $130 a year or so), but worth it if you use a lot of art. There's other companies out there too that do the same thing.
In the past I've bought the Gazillion ClipArt images CD sets, but eventually it got to be too big a hassle to look for stuff as you needed to keep switching CDs - even with DVDs it was a bother on the bigger sets. If you're not going to be using a lot of images though, they might be worth getting - you can get some pretty cheap sets with a lot of images from larger computer stores (or even better deals from eBay).
Creative Commons are good too - although I've wondered if Hubpages and such count as truly non-commercial use as money is being made (in theory!).
What about Google Images or Bing Images. Are these free for public use?
No, they're not. ALL photos on the internet are copyright UNLESS there's a caption or disclaimer somewhere that says otherwise. If you click on a Google image and go to the original site, most times you'll find there's no such statement.
You can search on Google Images using the Advanced Search and select "for commercial use". It used to be inaccurate, but I've noticed it's much better lately.
Or search on Flickr using the Advanced Search and select "Creative Commons" and "for commercial use". For creative Commons licensed photos, you need to credit the photographer with a hyperlink to their site in your Hub.
Some people don't seem to care - I see stolen images on Hubs far too often, even from Hubbers who should know better. Personally I think it's disgusting - the same people are up in arms if someone steals their own writing, yet they don't think twice about pinching a photographer's work!
Oh Boy, I've got some work to do in checking out the pictures I've used on my hubs. I thought that if it were an image on google or bing it was free to the public.
Can you tell me how to check the images I have displayed? I just went into one of my hubs thinking I could click on an image and be taken to the source ... then I went into edit to see if I caould find it but the source is not saved in the capsule.
Thank you for clarifying this for me. I really appreciate this and am thankful that this topic came up and was brought to my attention.
Mekenzie, it might be quicker in the end just to find legit CC photos and replace the ones you're dubious about.
No, that's the problem Mekenzie. People think because you paste in the URL, you're creating a link back to the source (like Youtube clips). But you're not - you're creating a copy on the HubPages server.
Unfortunately that means your only option is to try to find it again, or find new images that are legal.
okay Marisa, you just brought up another area. Youtube clips .. do we need permission to use them to? If so, how do we go about getting permission? Geezzzz I wish I hadn't come to this forumn ... lol Just kidding .. I want to do things with integrity.
I'm not a lawyer, but since Youtube explicitly gives you the code to embed in your page/site I would assume that it would be kosher to do so. Copying the video and hosting it on another site would be a different story though.
I'm not sure about hot-linking to a photo on another site that doesn't explicitly allow it though. It's poor form in any case, and occasionally the original host will replace the linked photo with something rather, um, unappealing so it appears on your site.
You have that backwards, copyrighted material must specify as such other than that if published in any other form it becomes public domain. Some works after a period of years also become public domain.
Can you post a link to your authority for that statement? I'd be interested to see it, because all the following sites disagree with you:
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/beyond/refer … hp/3472671
If you think about it, what you're saying is that everything we write in a Hub automatically becomes public domain unless we put a copyright notice on it. I certainly hope that's not true! Photographs and text are both treated the same way.
I don't believe that's correct. My understanding is that pretty much any creation automatically falls under copyright of the creator. There are differences in financial damages and stuff like that if something is officially registered, but the creator owns all their creations (excluding work for hire and that sort of thing).
Copyright does lapse after a certain number of years, but the government (US at least) has extended it to something like 70 years, or X years after the creator dies (something like that). It's a long time.
I think you're right, Starfish. Readytoescape hasn't returned to back up the claim, so I suspect he/she was just repeating a common internet myth.
Starfish is also partially correct by what he describes, as I understand it, and applies as “Intellectual Property” to which the laws are even more ambiguous depending upon usage. Although they way I have read it, intellectual property can be “self-protected” by announcement and/or labeling, for example:
“The above article is the express Intellectual Property of XXXX (the author). Any unauthorized use of this material is prohibited without the direct documented permission of the owner.”
The statement above can provide limited protection for your hubs where a copyright is not employed.
Your totally wrong. Anything and everything published online is automatically copyrighted, at least in the USA it is protected irregardless if there is a copyright statement or not.
A proper copyright should include either the copyright symbol or a c in some sort of circle, like (c), or the word copyright, the year first published and the owner's name followed by the statement: All rights reserved worldwide . I have studied copyright, trademark and patent law a bit.
An official copyright registration only entitles the owner to more damages in a court of law and makes it easier to enforce your rights. Even material licensed under creative commons is still copyrighted to the owner, they are just giving you free usage of their material under the license they choose to use.
HubPages has it right: © 2010 Hubpages Inc. and respective owners. All rights reserved. Except they are missing the word "worldwide" which could cause them problems internationally!
Sites like Photoxpress have free photos you can use. Just sign up!
Ready, I wondered about that because sometimes when I try to download a pic, I get a message that it's been copyrighted.
I've never gotten a message like that .. never. I have noted a publishers name accross a picture at times .. and I knew not to use it for that reason. But I guess I was in the dark about picture credits etc. I'm goint check out Photoxpress tomorrow .. I'm tired. Nite Everyone! :0)
Seems to me that AEvans wrote a hub about where to find good legal photos. Don't remember the name of it though. It was about a year ago.
In the research I have performed ALL law refers to copyrighted material only. Copyrighted materials being that of a piece of work is “registered” with the Copyright office, other non registered material is not protected by copyright law. There are however many open areas of criticism to the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 US Code section 107). But, and this is a biggie, the code covers only registered copyrighted work. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Further: Orphaned Works http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf
“While U.S. copyright law does not contain an omnibus provision addressing all orphan works as such, it does contain a few provisions that permit certain users to make certain uses of certain classes of orphan works, and other provisions that reduce the risk in using an orphan work.”
I still have not found any legal documentation that addresses “unregistered work.” Especially work that which has been distributed into the “public domain.” There are many opinions, mostly from protective private organizations that site a particular portions of law to support only their view.
I have read some case law that supports a “poor man’s copyright” where substantial financial damages have been incurred but I can’t remember or find those particular cases any longer it was years ago. I do remember one case where a manuscript was “stolen” by a “promoter” and rewritten then published under a pseudonym. The original author received an award even though the material had been modified, since he proved ownership of the “concept” via a copy of the work he mailed to himself which was postmarked before he submitted the original work. They presented this unopened mail as proof of concept ownership.
And yes from my research our hubs could be considered non-copyrighted works or orphaned works, but proof of ownership as original work can also be argued.
Just one more item of consideration, what is the purpose of the copyright and why is there so much law defining it?
Logic alone would dictate, someone found it necessary to protect works, therefore such safeguards were put in place by the power of law to provide such requested preservations should the producer of said work elect to employ these protections.
In so, one can also then presume that any piece of work not elected by it’s producer to be protected by copyright thereby permissible to be used by others, and implied permission is granted once “introduced” into the public domain whether that permission is derived unknowingly or the conscious choice of non employment of the laws by said producer.
How is one to know the difference between the ignorance and/or choice of the producer?
Hence the copyright.
This presumption will of course prompt loud and vociferous argument. Of which both opposing opinions may have merit and therefore we have the Judicial system.
Question: Do I need to register my copyright?
Answer: You get copyright automatically when you create a work and "fix" or record it. Registration with the Copyright Office is not a prerequisite, but it can give you additional protection: you can only get statutory damages for infringement of a registered copyright. A U.S. author must also register before filing a copyright lawsuit
http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi#QID802 this is where I got the copyright info if anyone wants to look it over
Readytoescape: this is the information that you're missing in your research.
All the links I posted, state clearly that copyright does NOT have to be registered - a work is copyrighted by nature of being published.
I suggest you read a few of the links I posted and see what you think.
by ruthwalker2 years ago
Hi there, joined HP a little while ago but only just got round to writing my first hub. It is going to be an historical piece but seem to be spending most of my time trying to find who owns copyright to the images I...
by Janis Leslie Evans3 years ago
Regarding the latest newsletter about incorrectly crediting images, is it suggested that we take down all images that are not copyrighted or cites "google images" or "microsoft images." Should we,...
by DzyMsLizzy2 years ago
I just published a new hub this evening, and got this "style tip" message:"We noticed that you may be using Google Images as the source of one or more images in your Hub. We recommend only using images...
by Rose West6 years ago
Has anyone ever run into copyright issues using images from photobucket? I like the selection at photobucket, but it seems like people post a lot of photos they probably do not own. I like using photobucket, but there's...
by tamron3 years ago
I looked everywhere on bing but can't find if the images can be used or not and if they can be used who do you give credit too Bing or the link?
by Mary Hyatt2 years ago
I am reading more and more Hubs where there are beautiful photos, but NO attribution to them. I just read one that clearly has a watermark of the person holding the copyright. When you look at the photos, it...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.