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 that are legal use."
Excuse me, but the attribution specifically SAYS "public domain" further on in the link. Just because it says "Google" at the beginning does not mean it is not legally used. I am very careful about that. The "bot" that check for such things should read the whole link, and see the "public domain" part as well, and not stop reading after the word "Google."
I ignore them some of the time. It doesn't always apply. Nice hub.
Chasmac has it right:
1) If it's a public domain image you don't need to provide a source at all. No attribution is required.
2) If you are going to provide a source anyway, don't use the Google Image Search URL, use the URL of the actual source of the image. When I click that link I get a redirect notice, and it wants to take me here, which is the real source of the image:
http://public-domain.zorger.com/alices- … mad-hatter
If you put that URL in instead, you won't get the tip.
Hello Paul, I think there is an issue with the style tips. I was just working on my hub (What Jamaica Is Known For: Top Ten Things) and got the same message. None of my photos have Google as the source. All photos are properly attributed and have either been given permission or have a CC licence. You guys need to take a second look.
That would be frustrating but not easy to avoid when you think of all of the algorithms they would have to change.
But why mention Google at all in the attribution? They're just showing images in their search results that they get from websites. You can mention that it's public domain and the website Google found it on (as recommended) but I would keep Google out of the 'picture' (excuse the pun). It's nothing to do with them and serves only to confuse the HP bot, which has been told that Google Images (unlike Flickr and others) isn't actually an image source for legal attribution purposes.
You can use any image, if you provide exact source name and link of the image. Giving credit to the owner is of great importance in this regard.
No - That's no true. You must have permission to use any image that is NOT in the public domain or made available under a special licence such as 'Creative Commons' - which means that the vast majority of online images aren't usable without permission.
That's correct. You must make sure that the image, even if found through Creative Commons is licensed for reuse. When you find the image you must check which CC license it's under in order to properly attribute said photo.
You may use any image so long as you follow the CC requirements that are placed on the image by the author. If the CC says " By-SA" (attribution, share alike) for example, the only requirement is that you give attribution and if you alter the image the attribution remains the same as if you had not altered anything.
You do not need to ask permission unless the CC notice says so.
If the CC notice reads " CC BY 3.0" (attribution) all you need to do is attribute the image.
If the CC notice reads " CC BY-ND 3.0" (attribution, non derivative) you give attribution but cannot alter the image.
So far as using images on HubPages, the CC notice must say "to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work,to make commercial use of the work".
So far as attributing an image it should be attributed to the URL of the author and not to Google, Flickr, Deviantart etc... for example.
This is the correct way to give attribution " http://lowexlyncxvolan.deviantart.com/a … -252609824 "
(Note: the quotation marks are not part of the link)
Well you cannot use "any image", because a lot of images don't have a CC or public domain licence. If an image doesn't say anything about reusing it, the assumption is it is fully copyrighted, and you can only use it if you get permission directly from whoever owns the copyright.
The best link to check out to see what is required for correct attribution is on the creative commons site itself http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users
Interestingly they say "It is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists", and "It is nice to link to the original work". "It is nice" is not the same as saying "you have to". They do however say that you should link to the page about the licence, or provide the info. about what the licence means, which HP doesn't really provide us with a good way of doing. Most people will have no idea what CC-BY-SA-ND-2.5 means.
The post is assuming that one can actually see the CC notice, so yes I neglected to ad that but my posts does mention "CC requirements that are placed on the image by the author."
SO far as most people not knowing what CC-By...means, it is meant for CC purposes/information only or "if " a copyright issue should arise and I REALLY doubt that a reader would be interested in looking for what the CC-BY-SA-ND-2.5.....whatever signifies.
That is true in terms of the reader. However, I think what CC is worried about is people who might see somebody else's image on your page, want to use it, but don't know the licence. Lets say somebody sees a nice image, downloads it, modifies it and puts it on their site. If the site had a CC-ND licence, they shouldn't have done that. But if you don't tell them what the licence is, they won't know.
Anyway, I don't make the rules, I'm just telling you what it says on the CC website, which is what matters, not mine, yours, or somebody else's interpretation of the the creative commons concept.
I don't think I was clear enough and you are correct " I think what CC is worried about is people who might see somebody else's image on your page, want to use it, but don't know the licence."
But if someone else uses any image on a hub that is not the writer's own, it becomes their issue and not the writer's whether or not the writer included the CC notice on the image, clarified what it meant or anything else, not the best scenario but the way things are.
I am only trying to point out some facts so far as the CC notices are concerned.
BTW please forgive me if I appeared rash, it is turning out to be a really "stay in bed day for me".
See, from my point of view, I am trying to point out some facts, by referring to the CC website. It seems to me that your facts are more like conjectures, and where you provide a reference it is to somebody's ideas on deviant art. Which might be right, or not. I think my reference to the CC website wins.
As to your point, it might not be our problem if somebody takes a photo of a hub without getting all the licence information. However, when the CC people were designing the system, they wanted to make it robust. It is a problem for them if the licensing information is easily lost, because it means that people will be less willing to make their stuff creative commons, since there is a bigger risk that their copyright will be violated.
Hence they mandated that if you use creative commons content, you should provide easy to understand information about the licence. CC-BY-SA-NC-3.0 is not easy to understand information.
Incidentally if you don't carry out the conditions of the CC licence, you are violating the copyright.
Forgive me for being so pedantic, it is genetic.
"When reusing a CC-licensed work (via sharing the original or a derivative based on the original), it is your legal obligation to include what license is being used, as well as abiding by the license conditions provided by the licensor, aka the creator or content owner of the work."
The only legal requirement is to include the CC notice. How you do it is more of choice as the "best practices" states.
How you post them is also a matter of choice, space, TOS etc.... "If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, you must leave those notices intact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are re-publishing the work.
Since we are going back and forth and arguing the finer points to death I think it is best to get back to my work before I too become pedantic.......
I was specifically referring to: Cite the specific CC license the work is under, and link to the specific CC license, ie. for CC Attribution you would link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0.
But you are right this discussion is becoming too detailed........
Moreover, you cannot use more than two images form same site. That is why, you got the style tip message. Use only one image from one site.
Then I must be in violation. Most of my current hubs have images (properly attributed) from the same source, mostly Photopin and Morguefile. I wonder if I'm being penalized and don't know it.
Morguefile doesn't require a citation nor a link. Certainly, don't give them a link!
So all of my images that say "morguefile" should have nothing? Or show the entire link under source without "Morgufile?"
You are fine just as you are -- many common photo sources are exempt from the two links rule
I don't put anything on photos I use from Morguefile. That source does not require it; I'd rather my competition not know where I find my free images; and a followed link which goes to a page not related to the content of your Hub can be penalized by Google. I just write an Alt Tag in the caption space which describes the image and Google loves that.
So what if that disqualifies your Hub from HOTD. I know my Hubs get more traffic from Google than 99% of the Hubs chosen for HOTD.
I would NEVER use Google images to find photos. Many marked "public domain" are incorrect or unreliable.
ALWAYS cite your sources, even from Morguefile. It's polite, but more importantly, if the source of your photos are ever questioned, you will have backup immediately at hand to show where you obtained the image and the license agreement. I take a screen grab showing where I take my images from and keep it on file so I can prove my images were sourced properly.
I take my own photos 99% of the time. It saves me worry, time and headaches. Most of the time I can photograph what I need. Sometimes I just set up a quick image, like a cup and saucer, or a pencil on my desk, or something like that.
Why do I go through all this trouble? Because I have friends and acquaintances who have received outrageous "settlement demand" letters from major stock photography companies. Many of these people tried to the right thing just as you are doing -- looked for public domain sources, thought they had a Creative Commons image licenses, etc. Wrong. Licenses change, photo owners (and copyright owners) can change, attribution mistakes can be made, and many other issues can come up. Better safe than sorry.
Best advice: Take your own photos.
Second best advice: If you use sources, use the ones HubPages suggests in their tutorial articles. Take a screen grab to prove where you attained your image and save it on your computer. Cite the photographer and link to it. It's polite and gives them credit where credit is due as well as protects your integrity.
(I am also a photographer who contributes to Morguefile and I am grateful whenever anyone gives me a photo credit.)
Thank you for the advice and for contributing to morguefile, Jeanne. I use the site quite often and I always give the photographer credit, even though the morguefile license says that I don't have to. If I'm going to benefit from their creation I think it's only fair that the photographer is credited.
Thanks, Jeanne. I do shoot a large amount of my photos as well. Lately, I've been using images found online. It is tedious to find exactly what I want. It actually takes longer than writing the hub. Thanks for the advice.
Wow--my head is spinning. Thanks, everyone for all the info.
I find it weird that Google came up in the link, since I was ON the site to which "G" had pointed me, and grabbed the URL from that page...so I thought it would point directly there.
The second image did not show Google in its link, but was a CC/public domain, and only required a "mandatory hyperlink" back to the source page when using it. I have no problem with that.
The thing that confuses me here, however, is the claim that you don't need to make any attribution for public domain images. Huh? Don't the HP basic rules require "properly attributed, legally used images?" And if there is no attribution given, then how would HP know it was public domain, and not illegally swiped content???
For the most part, I do take my own photos, but for some things, such as the article in question, I just do not have access to the sort of item or event that the article requires, so I must to a public domain search. And when I find an image, I always go to the page where the actual license is shown, so I can copy it. ...Or, at least I think I do--when I'm presented with a screenful of images, and select one, that takes me to a new page, of that image alone, and there I find the copyright/no copyright info, and from there I grab the URL.
(@ Jeanne Grunert--I don't know how to do a "screen grab.")
Hmmmm......I just had a look at the hub you mentioned and the second picture. Really weird, they say "License: Public Domain. If you are going to redistribute this image online, a hyperlink to this particular page is mandatory." In my understanding, "public domain" means that anybody can use the picture any way they like with no conditions. I don't think the people on that site understand their licences.
I have seen that requirement a LOT in my searches, aa lite...
You're right--it is mystifying.
The basis in law is weak, but some places claim the rights to the photograph of the public domain work.
AliciaC -- you're the kind of writer MF contributors like! Thanks! And yes, even though you don't have to give credit....it is so much appreciated when folks do!
DzyMsLizzy - to do a screen grab or capture, hit the Print Screen (PrtScn) button on your computer keyboard 3 x while on the screen you want to take a capture of. Then "paste" it into a Word file. The image of what was exactly on your screen should go there.
I think the confusion about public domain images is the attribution. You may not know who the photographer is, but the citation should be there...
Have you seen this page on HubPages? There are links to sites to find photos you can use: http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/legal-image-use
Thanks...on my keyboard, after some searching, I fount the PrtScn button--it's at the top of the key, above "SysRq" (and the front of the key is labeled "Insert") ... So, since it's at the top of the key would that be like using caps--a "shift-prtscn" ???
by Celina Martin4 years ago
Just wondering, is it necessary to mention source link while using photos from search engines. And, if I do will it be beneficial for my hub or not?
by Jeff Davis7 years ago
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.
by MissFrost5 years ago
I thought I had to include the whole website when I use a picture from google images? But, when I look at other hugs, they aren't doing that...
by Janis Leslie Evans4 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 ruthwalker3 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 Brittany Kennedy6 years ago
A couple of weeks ago, I realized that I had not read the ToS about image use correctly and had to go back to all of my hubs and make sure the images were cited properly and were available through the creative...
Copyright © 2017 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.