A discussion started about this on the end of another thread, but it's got buried. I was checking an early Hub today and it reminded me, because I'd used a photo from another website.
At that time, I didn't understand that most photos on most websites are copyright, unless they specifically say otherwise - so if you use them without permission and/or payment, it's stealing.
However, like everything on the net, it's not as simple as that. If I find a unique photo on a website, I wouldn't copy it now because I know it's wrong. Even if I found it duplicated on a couple of other sites, I wouldn't use it, on the principle that "two wrongs don't make a right". But what about a photo that has proliferated all over the web? Is there much point in foregoing the chance to use it, just for the sake of a principle? And where do you draw the line?
For instance, it has always intrigued me how people get the photos used on celebrity Hubs, since I'd have thought celebrity photos were all copyrighted (think of people like Catherine Zeta-Jones suing photographers for using her images). How do those Hubbers manage? Do they buy the photos, or are they using pics that have been pirated so much they feel copyright has become irrelevant?
How many times are you going to go back to this?
You obviously dont know a great deal about copyright laws, or whats required when using copyrighted images, or you wouldnt make these blanket statements. Its up to the individual photographer, and they are usually pretty clear about what they want in return. Its not hard to track most of them down, even the famous ones have people who will email you back.
Stockphotos that have been paid for usually dont require info to be listed apart from very under specific circumstances. So photos you assume to be stolen, may not be. I could go on, but Im tired of the subject. If you dont want to use any images other than your own, thats fine, but don't be throwing accusations around to those of who dont.
And dont compare it to copying text; images without copyright info showing do not imply ownership by the hubber - published text does.
why must you attack her? is it so hard not to respond if you have nothing nice to say or can't say it nicely? just a suggestion
Isabella, as far as I can recall, I've been involved in only one discussion about photos, which I didn't start. That discussion was allowed to fizzle out, because it was on a thread where there had been some cattiness about another subject entirely.
Reading my post, I'm not conscious that I'm making any accusations about anyone. If I've misunderstood the situation on photos, I'm more than happy to be corrected but I would hope fellow Hubbers will do it in a spirit of helping, not attacking.
This is at least the 3rd thread you've discussed it in. Maybe you should pay closer attention to your phrasing, cos if stealing isnt an accusation, I dont know what is. You should really do some research on copyright laws - specifically stock photos - before you assume every photo without a copyright notice is stolen.
Read my post and you'll say that I used a photo from a website without permission or payment, and I now realise I was stealing. You've chosen to interpret that as aimed at someone else, not me.
I really agree, as stated before, I am new here and there seems to be alot of animosity between members going back and forth, really gettin kind of sick of it. When I go to read a post, I don't want to see bickering back and forth betwn people. for god's sakes, is everyone really that angry. Why bother being mean to each other. You can say things nice and in a courteous way or don't bother. Please. Just my humble opinion, but I see people going back and forth like they each have to have the last word. Like little kids. Really silly.
I agree with you, at first I was happy with the forum but then this one huber had an attitude that really urked me, wasnt so much applied towards me but it got me involved by trying to defend the underdog in the fight.. I myself lost my temper and found myself in an emotionally compromising position (where other hubers childishly started to make unkind jokes about my ranting).. the thing is I dont think anyone is angry persay but stimulated by how some hubbers choose to talk.. they act professional and witty in their hubs then when someone triggers them on an issue they start to lose their cool and even hypocrocise their own hubs on things like netticate.. I believe that the culprit is in the language, how you come across, your words carry a vibration and when you string them togetehr a certain way that vibration irritates some.. how you say something is much more important than what you say. (i.e. my calling the other bloggers who talked about me unkindly "childish" will provoke them when saying simply "other bloggers made fun of my actions and forum posts" would not likely give the same impression (I put that by the way purposely to show my point)..
like rodney king said.. cant we all just get along..? some people on here however are feeling god like in status and always form their opinions in ungodlike ways.. but you will have to just deal with it for she/he will never change.. realistically and statistically the fights/angry rants are few like 3% comparred to the information of the rest.. so its not too bad.. I've seen worse..
I meant i agreed w/ Jerricho, by the way, not w/ the two quibbling.
I just went back and searched through the forums. I sometimes think Isabella must be confusing me with someone else. I can find only one other forum (besides the one I mentioned) which discusses photos and copyright,and I contributed one post to it. It was very useful as it provided links to some copyright-free sites, but it didn't really discuss what copyright was all about.
I have no desire at all to quibble, I'm just disappointed that this thread will probably now also die - no one is going to contribute anything useful, while they think Isabella and I are about to have a catfight.
RRRRReeeeeOOOOOOWWW SSSSSSSsssss.... lol
new hub.. catfight on the hub forum.. think it'll bring in hits? LOL hits get it haha.. ok im done.
I think that you and Isabella just have strong personalities. Isabella just expresses it more negitively.. honestly I dont think she means to do that, or to so much provoke but she is a firecracker with her words.. quick then BAm your upset for her remarks.. but some people you just gotta learn to get past.... I just ignore the tone and the fight (when I can) tone when I read them, and I find that I can read the context much better.. you learn tollerance that way.. I hate to say it but some of the people with the worst mannerisms or disposition (in writing personal posts etc..) write some amazing hubs.. owell.. lets chill huh? sometimes its better to ignore the post all together, if you feel the anger in you start to surface.. walk away, who do you have to prove yourself to? shows more strength than the person who didnt have enough strength to be nice..
I assume you've stopped doing that, so I don't see the problem.
Sounds like you want someone to tell you its ok to do what other people are doing. If the copyright can't be found, there may or may not be one. If there is one, you could be violating it. No one can say whether or not you are. Its just a chance you take, or dont take. If youre in violation and it matters to someone, someone will contact you and ask you to remove it.
Jerrico, do me a favour and delete those posts - I misread Isabella's post and responded inappropriately, so I've deleted my post and would be grateful if you'd remove the ones where you've quoted me. As you said, no point in adding fuel to the fire.
your such a b*** arent you? people like you make me NOT want to appoligise even if I were wrong (which so far as you'r concerned I ahvent been) write dont appoligise to her, you'll only feed her ego, you didnt do anything wrong, she provoked you.. I think I'll dedicate a hub to her later.. netticate, the ego driven Screename or the hidden daemons behind a screename.. I'll save my breath here.
The post I was referring to has been deleted and I see that Jerrico hasn't quoted it, therefore there's nothing for me to apologise for.
Jerrico, I appreciate your defending me, but really it's not necessary. I'm a big girl (actually, much bigger than I'd like to be )
Doesn't matter that I read it, and you meant it - you think deleting it means it never happened.
at least she is willing to try to work things out, unlike you who lives to show her ass.. what truly amazes me is how you got all those people to think your some kind of sweet girl.. I have to assume they dont think for themselves.. but most people don't, the crime here however is you live off the anger of others like some sort of weak being, I believe the term psychic vampirism fits. nuff said.
Actually I'm glad you read it, Isabella, because it was true, even if it wasn't relevant to your post. How can I apologise for something that I meant? In fact, I'm having second thoughts about posting it.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to bite my tongue when you're responded sarcastically or bitchily to my posts. I have tried to respond politely to you on every occasion, but it seems to make no difference.
As I said, being forever vindictive to someone makes sense if they've stolen your lover or something equally serious, but it hardly seems appropriate for something as minor as a small disagreement on an internet forum, does it?
Oh my god, hours later and you guys are still at it, I am so laughing right now......
Sorry I had to add my two bobs worth.
Its like with road rage. It takes two. If you ignore the aggressor......
Then there is no aggression. So just ignore one another.. By the way... I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. I will keep those thoughts to myself.
DO NOT REPLY TO ANYONE WITH ANY TYPE OF AGGRESSION
Have a great and Happy New Year Everyone.....Happy Hubbing.
I agree with Eileen. Any comment that is seen as rude and uncalled for can be ignored by all. Be adult here... Especially those who are doing nothing more than igniting the fire... Fight your own battles...
On a side note, I have a true question about pictures and copywrites...
Pictures that I don't take myself, I usually get from flickr. Do you think that by adding a note at the bottom of hte hub saying the pictures can be seen at flickr would suffice. I have been trying to add the author of the pictures in my newer hubs with pictures that I remember the author, as they're old pictures on my computer. But, versus look them all up again, do you think just having a statement with a link to flickr would suffice? Or do you think a link to the original picture is needed?
Many pictures that I use I will put a caption to, which is why I curious as to whether an overall summary at the bottom of the hub would suffice versus every picture?
if you're using creative commons photos from Flickr, it needs to be a link to the photographer -- either to the photographer's profile or directly to the photo. Creative Commons requires attribution and that attribution goes to the photographer not to their hosting provider so just linking to the Flickr website doesn't achieve anything.
I've tried to explain how it works in my hub here:
http://hubpages.com/_hublinks/hub/Free- … r-Websites
Let me know if anything is unclear or if you need more details.
I'd try to find the pics again, but I wouldn't stress too, too much, as it might be an impossible task at this point. If you do find them, a lot of pics on Flickr are posted by people who list their copyright info. If they don't expressly ask for a link (and some do), I wouldn't bother, unless it's something you want to do. If they don't list their copyright info, they might not own it, but since most on there at least claim to own their pics, I personally give them the benefit of the doubt. So, if no copyright info is mentioned, I will credit their profile name. If you're truly in doubt, you could always email them and just ask if you can use it. They tend to say yes when asked.
Regarding the question of having a link at the bottom of the page, if you can't find the originals, I'd probably just stick a caption under each pic saying image courtesy of Flickr or something of that nature.
Thanks Isabella. The reason I did a thing at the end was because many of the pictures, I've added a caption to. Would you sugesst just saying 'Courtesy of Flickr: USER: dog' or whatever the caption is?
Unless the pics are all from the same person, I wouldnt use a caption at the bottom, cos then you have to identify each photo. The images Ive used from Flickr had proper names of the photographers listed somewhere in the profile - Id suggest looking for that first. If you cant find anything like that, and the name is something really general, like your "dog" example, I'd use: © Dog/Flickr
I cant promise thats exactly how it should be done, but it seems logical, since thats how you have to do it when using Getty, etc for proper editorials in newspapers and the like.
I don't think you should credit Flickr myself. The images do not belong to them, they belong to a particular person who just hosts them on flickr. I have had the same worry myself, but if you put photos out on the internet for all to see and download, it's fair to assume they will be used.
Flickr themselves are coming in for some flack for using and selling images through third parties and selectively censoring and closing accounts of people who complain. Me? I would never give control of all my photos to a company like flickr.
I have never personally credited Flickr for the reason you mention, and Ive always used proper names, but her example of "dog" just isnt enough in terms of crediting someone. How else do you think she should credit them? Using the word "username" would be worse, IMO, as its not very professional looking.
I suppose she could use ©Dog @ Flickr
But even that looks unprofessional to me.. ??
I think it's better not to give credit than to give credit to the wrong person. I have just about given up trying to give credit to the originator. because many times, even on flickr, the photos do not belong to the person posting them up there.
If anyone needs some pictures let me know what your looking for and I'll post a bunch on my myspace albums you can rip them there (I have 100,000 stock photographs I purchased with royalty free use, I'm happy to share.. its funny lately I've been using none of them just my own pictures I took or made.. I'm more than happy to help.
LOL guys, as I mentioned before in some other thread on the matter, for those of us who do this professionally a buck for a photo paid to istockphoto or any other similar service just removes all the worries. Your time spent on finding out who is the originator costs much more than one buck IMHO.
Ive already said I use stockphotos -- but the selection is crap. Its really hard to find nice pics that way.
I guess so. Is that what you do?
Although many of the photos I use are promos and they are happy to have them spread far and wide. Depends on the subject of course.
Yep, all my pics here and on my sites are from those guys. And unlike Isa I don't have trouble finding what I need - it probably depends on the subject, too
Its hard to find really nice pics for my subject matter in stockphotos. Sometimes I can. Other times I find it easier to search for photoblogs and just ask the photographer directly. If you ask nicely and throw in a few kisses, they are usually happy to oblige.
So you think she shouldnt even credit the dog person? I disagree with that, I think its better to make an effort to credit someone, especially if they are claiming to be the photographer. I think it's better than nothing. The only time I put nothing is if I find it on a blog or something and cant track down the original.
That said, I dont think Ive used flickr pics from anyone who didnt also have a professional website with the same pics uploaded. I dunno, I guess its just a judgment call. Like Ive said before, if you're unwittingly violating a copyright and it matters to someone, someone will be happy to tell you once theyve found it.
Some people really dont care, though. I have found full tracks from my CDs on some MySpace pages and really couldnt be arsed to ask them to show proof they paid for it. I did get a bit mental over finding photocopied versions of one of my books on ebay though. That was just insulting!
so we can find your music on myspace? and your book on ebay? (Im kidding.. haha) I have 40 retail CD's selling for 35.00 a pop and people are pirating the crap out of them, but what you gonna do? I figure its karma for all the stuff I ripped myself before I became a legit buyer of music and books (dont want to run more bad karma in my wake lol).. don't be insulted be flattered your stuff is that good that others are desperately trying to make a buck from it.. now if its sold cheap that IS an insult.. although honestly if I found my stuff being sold that would be different than just pirated and I'd have to put my size 9 foot in someones size 3.. *evil grin*
I checked out your site/book/youtube in hopes of losing my distain for you (which actually I think that worked, regardless of how you feel about me watching that singing thing gave me a whole new respect for you.. simply magnificent work.. I read some of your book excerpts, and although I could write this stuff I'm not too fond of reading it but you have a gift, its actually quite tastefully written..
did anyone read my appoligy post? I'm tried to appoligize to all I've insulted, I can admit when I'm wrong, and I've changed my attitude, so I hope you guys dont hate me too much you cant forgive my actions..
Don't blame you. On another subject, I found you a jet and posted a link on my Most expensive motorcycles hub.
If you buy it, I want a ride.
A company I've done some work for just dealt with the photos online copyright issue, and I wanted to share what their legal team has concluded. Please, if any legal-eagles disagree with this, let me know.
Basically, what they said is someone that posts a photo online has no assumption of privacy. There is an implied innocence that the photo is somehow public domain (unless the "borrower" is selling or making money from the photo.) That doesn't make the copyright or rights any less valid, it just means there is an innocence in the eyes of the law. The innocence is corrected by informing the borrower that the use of the photo is not permitted. This means the originator of the photo has every right to contact you, the borrower, and ask you to take it down. And if the borrower complies, that's the end o' story.
This comes from the fact that where you find the photo, isn't necessarily the origin of the photo.
Like everyone is saying on this thread, if you see a photo on a blog, contact the blog owner for permission for use, and they say yes, you think you're covered. However, you have no way of knowing if that blog owner didn't steal that image from someone on flickr, who stole it from an old myspace page. By the time you got it, it could be 12 times removed from it's origin.
Because of that, the law doesn't perceive online photo copyright infringement as an automatically intentional theft. Because of all this, the "borrower" always has the opportunity to rectify the situation by simply removing the photo if asked, and being assured that that's the extent of it.
I'm sorry if I've relayed this poorly. What I'm trying to say is that the bottom line of their findings was not to sweat this - if you use a photo you find online the supposed originator of the photo, even if it's not the person you think you got the photo from, can tell you to take it down. If that happens and you are contacted, better safe than sorry - just take it down. Once you've complied with that request, the copyright infringement is over.
If you innocently use a photo you think is ok, or you think you have permission to use, don't sweat this. If you remove the photo if asked, you aren't going to get sued, or arrested, or anything else.
If you cooperate when asked to remove a photo, nothing will happen to you.
That sounds correct, Veronica. I do think people should still make the effort to show copyright when its not a paid-for stock image, for the sake of at least trying to be professional or courteous, but unless they are actually selling a photo in some capacity, there is a lot gray area in terms of the law.
Hi all. I would just like to add that Veronica is right in regards to the legality of pics. The onus is on the photographer to chase down and report copyright violations and ensure the pics aren't used if they were copied illegally. That's why I have my good ones copyright embedded so I can always prove ownership and I never post them anywhere outside my own site. And stock photos are a great source for legitimate pics.
What I have been wondering about also are videos. I just recently put some u-tube vids on a couple of my hubs as I know these are mandatory if you want to write a flagship hub (so I thought I would try them out.) How does copyright work for the videos?
How does copyright work in regards to your music and writing? With photography if I see a copyright violation of my work and do nothing about it then I legally lose my copyright over that particular image. Then anyone can use it without having to pay me royalties. That is why photogs and companies involved with photography always pursue copyright violations. As a musician myself I know that music has higher copyright standards but I've never truly read up on the fine print. Just wondered about it because you would hate to have any copyright issues with your work.
With music you're not even allowed to use a camcorder in a club without the musicians permission. That doesn't stop people from recording with their mobile phones though. There is a lot of protection for music, too much to list here.. some musicians really get worked up over it, I just don't. That said, if someone recorded my songs and didnt give me copyright dues or notice, I would sue them in a heartbeat. I would do the same with my books or whatever else. Well, not me, my publisher or record label would do it. Otherwise, eh, I have other things to do with my time than get upset because someone liked my music enough to put it on their myspace page. How offended can one really be? If they arent profiting from it, Im not going to get upset.
Regarding stockphotos - when they are bought, they rarely come with rights to re-distribute, so if people are buying them and then passing them out for additional usage, thats usually a big no-no. Personally, when it comes to photos, I think its best to try and do the right thing if you can, regardless of whether or not you can get in trouble for it if someone comes along and slaps your hand for using their photos. It cant always be found, but often it can. And, as an aside, its very easy to remove copyright symbols and text from images, so just because people see images without them, doesnt mean the photographer didnt put it up on their own site with it in plain view.
I dont fault people for using photos without copyright notice when it cant be tracked down and I have said I do it myself. I just think its worth the effort to give credit where its due when at all possible.
The stock photos I purchased came with master rights, I can use them sell them, change them and if I change them I can even copyright the derivitive work. I purchased them specifically because this company made a big deal about them being YOUR to do with as you please, no limitations.. it was 14 CD's chalked full of pictures, movie clips, clip art, fonts an amazing suite of useful artwork. The suite however wasnt cheap 400.00 but I may never have to purchase artwork again, I've barely tapped the pictrures and I used this alot in making websites, jewel cases, CD art, and now hubs
Yes, it is true that many people remove the text overlays to photos that's why anyone who is serious should digitally embed their information. It's not actually visible but if someone tries to copy or download it the photographers info pops up. There is no way for people to remove this marking and it is traceable if you have a contract with one of the relevant companies. This is the best and most secure method of copyrighting your digital work.
Of course this costs money and is only relevant to work you really have a vested interest in protecting. The photos of mine that I post here in hub pages are not worth protecting to that extent. If someone wants to use them to enhance their web page I'm happy to oblige as long as I'm given credit (like you have repeatedly promoted doing Isabella.) I think most photographers are happy to share their non-commercial work if asked or credited properly as it is a great form of free advertising. I mean most of us have thousands of pics that don't make the cut for professional work but are still great photos nonetheless. Might as well get some use out of them!
And again, (as Isabella said) it's easy to fire off an email to find out if it's cool to use a pic if you're unsure.
And I would definitely be flattered if someone liked my music enough to post it on their myspace page.
What has been done by one person, can *always* be undone by another... Just a question of time and money...
It doesn't even take much to munge up digital watermarking. It's easily accomplished in photoshop. Cropping and then changing resolution on an image will easily make it unreadable. Ummm. Not that I'm recommending people do that. Just pointing out that, so far, no one has invented a digital form of protection for files that cannot be easily defeated.
Okay, it is true that devious people can alter and use pics to try and circumvent copyright. However, the purpose of the digital watermarks are to tell honest users what copyright is attached to the image and who it belongs to. It also gives the photographer added leverage when they fight copyright violations as the person who illegally downloads and removes the mark cannot claim they unintentionally violated copyright.
Honestly I find it kinda sad that the world is this way. We should all just respect each others work.
I'm new. I don't even know how to put pictures up. I tried, and it didn't work, so I will have to get one of my three college-going kids to help. If they ever have time, which they say they don't.
Jerricho, If I ever figure out how to do this, I will certainly want to borrow from your collection. It sounds great!
Whitney, it was really nice the way you changed the subject way back there between Marisa and Isabella.
I have known Marisa for quite a long time, and she has been polite and courteous and very helpful to me.
She is a very good writer. She pointed the way to Hub Pages to me, and I thank her for that.
hhhhhhhhhhhbn , sorry, my white tailless kitten typed that. She's so smart!
Writers should try to get along in Public. Insults, etc. should be left to personal messages. I'm sure we all know how to do that. We wouldn't want to scare new people away. This does not make the Image of Hub Pages look so well.
Sometimes, it's better not to say anything at all. Am I right?
I'm new, and need all you guys to be in my Fan Club, I guess. I don't even know why yet.
Thanks for listening. I'm Betty Jo.
by hubwriter 10 years ago
How do you tell if a Photograph on a website is copyrighted? In particular, do manufacturers who post pictures of their products copyright those pictures? Is it reasonable to assume that a manufacturer would be encouraged to have you use their photograph since it promotes their product?Is there any...
by NotPC 3 years ago
HubPages is very firm in their rule to only use photos for which you have permission to use. Hypothetically, what happens if you break this rule? I've seen many people using images that are clearly not theirs to use and I was just wondering if this affects them in any way...
by OrangeCast 9 years ago
Another question regarding HubPages protocal and general legalities...How do we know if an image is copyrighted? Is it imperative that we use sites like freefoto.com or use only our own pictures, or can we include pictures saved or linked from, for instance, a google image search? This...
by Rose West 8 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 this thought in the back of my mind wondering if I've stolen someone's photo...
by Richieb799 8 years ago
I have heard you can't use images from google etc, is using youtube video risky too?
by Kate Swanson 6 years ago
I just noticed that Pinterest links are now "No Follow".http://www.polepositionmarketing.com/em … -nofollow/The only link which is still "Do Follow" is the description, which does not always survive repinning. What this means is that while Pinterest is still...
Copyright © 2018 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|