Question About Image Use

1. 83

   EricDockettposted 2 years ago

   This is something that has bothered me for years. I asked in the forum a long time ago but never quite got a clear understanding.
   
   I always do a reverse image search before I use a pic, even from Wikimedia or a "free" site. Sometimes, images on free sites also appear on commercial sites.
   
   How is it that the same images that appear on free image sites also appear on sites where you have to pay for them?
   
   What am I missing here, and how does this affect our usage of images that appear in two places?
   
   To this point, I've just been avoiding them.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Eurofileposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I think I used a free image once, when I was unable to take one of my own due to building work. But I was very wary. I tend to err on the side of caution and stick with photos I have taken myself. On the plus side it helps me justify the numerous photos I take and store. I am grateful to have found a use for them.

      replyreport
2. 67

   PaulGoodman67posted 2 years ago

   I've wondered about that, too. I suspect that sometimes people upload free images to sites like Wikimedia Commons when they don't always actually have the necessary rights.
   
   I focus on covering my own ass by always sourcing my images in every article, but I think you're right to question whether the person doing the original uploading is in the right.
   
   I've used public domain images in the past only to find that it was taken down later.
   
   Sometimes the free images can seem too good to be true. That said, some publicity shots of celebs, for example, can be legit public domain.
   
   I think it's impossible to know for sure, you just have to do the best that you can and hope that the site carries out effective policing.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      EricDockettposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You are definitely right that some bad actors upload images they don't own the rights to. Usually, Wikimedia catches them before too long, and the HP link checker will show the image is now a dead link (if people cite them correctly).
      
      I always, always, link to the actual image (which I notice editors don't always do) so that I get a notification from the link checker if it is ever taken down. It's only happened two or three times in ten years, but you never know.
      
      But, I wonder if people who legitimately own the images might upload them to two sites or more. Like, to sell photos on any of these image sites, is there a requirement of exclusivity?
      
      If not, there would be nothing to prevent a photographer from adding their image to both Unsplash and Shutterstock (for example).
      
      I don't know how that affects our usage under the free license, but as I said I've been staying away until I better understand it.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         PaulGoodman67posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         It generally depends on what they've legally declared. If the owner of an image uploads it to a "free" site, then I'm sure that they will have to declare its legal status as free to use. In that case, it wouldn't be a problem if they put it on a paid site too, as far as the user was concerned.
         
         The presumption with US and British law is generally that it's the owner's intellectual property unless they waive their rights. If you waive your rights, it's public property.
         
         In practice, there can be complications and shenanigans, of course, but that's the core of it.
         
         I think most of the problems come when people upload images that they don't own and therefore have no rights to waive.

         replyreport
3. 82

   Eric Cauncaposted 2 years ago

   I once used a photo from Wikimedia that was licensed under a CC BY SA, and Wikimedia says that it was free to use the image even for commercial purposes. However, when I discovered the photo's original source, it was CC BY-ND licensed, so I quickly deleted it. I think it is still important to credit the owner and include a link to the source, even if the photo is free because of this.

   replyreport
4. 68

   eugbugposted 2 years ago

   I just noticed that while Google Maps screenshots (not Street View screenshots, because someone may request a place is removed for privacy purposes) can be used for personal purposes, they can't be used commercial reasons without contacting Google and doing some sort of deal. Likely the subscription would cost more than I earn. Looks like I'll have to remove them from an article. I think I'll just make up a fake map and use it as the background for any overlayed graphics.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      PaulGoodman67posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Satellite views are (virtually always) public domain, I believe. They might serve your purpose in some instances? Just thinking aloud.
      
      The only maps I've used were via the map capsule and even then, not many times.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         eugbugposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         According to this, you can use satellite images (which I've done), but the guidelines are for non-commercial use. The attribution at the bottom of maps appears to be sufficient. Maybe there's no cost involved for using them commercially, but they just want to know about it. In this, they say that the Google Cloud Customer Team should be contacted.
         
         https://www.google.com/intl/en-GB_ALL/p … uidelines/

         replyreport