Rules of using images on a webite

[Jeff Monson]

So I have hired a company to create a new website for my shop. The images that they are coming up with just dont make the cut IMO. So I have found a few images of different cars that I presented to him. I found these images by just a simple google search for example "free bmw images". So now my website guy is telling me that these images cannot be used and I must purchase his "stock images" for $200 each. So is there copywright issues or what is the deal with using images off the internet on a website.

[Myk Rian]

$200? What if you had images you own? Would he still insist you use his?
Find a high school kid to make your site.

[Rob Damon]

Photographs are typically owned by the individual that takes it. In order for them to take someone to court that is using it without their premission, they must first apply for a copyright, so to legally establish ownership before sueing someone.

Photographs that are taken while you are employed generally are owned by your employer.

With that said, it maybe one of two things. The first is to increase his profit margin. The second which is more likely is to keep him from being sued for copyright infringement by using a photo a client brings to him and says" Wink-Wink, I got this off the web that said it could be used freely." . If it turns out you did not fully read the fine print of the website and he uses the photo "trusting" you, and it ends not really being free usage, then he could be sued.

Many of the Free photo usage sites have fine print that basically says, "if you want to use the image for private use, go ahead, but if you are planning on using for commercial use, you need preapproval and may have to pay a licensing fee."


By using his own photos, he is absolutely sure he is legal.
Rob

[Jeff Monson]

Photographs are typically owned by the individual that takes it. In order for them to take someone to court that is using it without their premission, they must first apply for a copyright, so to legally establish ownership before sueing someone.

Photographs that are taken while you are employed generally are owned by your employer.

With that said, it maybe one of two things. The first is to increase his profit margin. The second which is more likely is to keep him from being sued for copyright infringement by using a photo a client brings to him and says" Wink-Wink, I got this off the web that said it could be used freely." . If it turns out you did not fully read the fine print of the website and he uses the photo "trusting" you, and it ends not really being free usage, then he could be sued.

Many of the Free photo usage sites have fine print that basically says, "if you want to use the image for private use, go ahead, but if you are planning on using for commercial use, you need preapproval and may have to pay a licensing fee."


By using his own photos, he is absolutely sure he is legal.
Rob

Rob, that makes sense. To me it seems he is trying to cover his ass. He told me he is not profiting from the images, and that they do cost that much (not sure if I buy that).

So if I tell him to use an image that I supply, say a nice picture of an Acura, what are the risks that I'm assuming or what are the chances that Acura is going to sue me for using a picture of their car?

[Dan Hintz]

One way to sidestep all of that mess is to let him put in placeholders, then you can go back when he's done and put in whatever images you desire. He is covered from a legal standpoint, and it doesn't cost you $200 for an image you don't want.

Though I'll say make sure to use legal images with whatever you eventually decide to use....

[Dan Friedrichs]

they must first apply for a copyright,

This is absolutely untrue. Copyright exists by mere virtue of creation.


Think about it this way: if you took an amazing picture of an Acura, then the Acura corporation started using it (without your permission) and that advertising campaign made millions of dollars in profit for them, wouldn't you feel slighted?

You can't use images that you don't own the copyright to, or that you haven't licensed.

[Moses Yoder]

What about taking your own photographs and using those? You would get a good book on photography and study it, buy a really good camera, then get a car (possibly just renting for a day) drive it a day or so to a nice background then taking some amazing photographs. $200 sounds cheap when you consider what is involved. On the other hand there are a lot of photographers out there who would sell you a photo for a lot less; I am assuming those are the ones that aren't good enough for you. Most free image sites have restrictions on what their images can be used for; if you are profiting off of them it is probably not legal but chances of getting sued are probably slim. My wife is constantly seeing cross stitch patterns posted on Pintrest and reporting the posts to the author of the pattern, so there is a small chance. I would say the best bet if you don't want to spend the $200 for photos is to find a high school kid that doesn't care about copyright laws and have her develop the site.

[Jim Matthews]

This is a common problem, and fodder for copyright lawyers.

http://www.4networking.biz/forum/ViewTopic/139411
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

If you are using images of another company's products, and generate profit from the association - you're in breach.
Read the contract, see if the $200 indemnifies you against lawsuit.

If it does, it's cheap money.
If it doesn't, you're right to question the charge.

Lots of code monkeys out there, a few phone calls should tease out if this is common practice.

*****

If your site develops new leads, and captures more revenue then the $200 will pale in comparison to your increased business.

Does the developer have a proven track record?
Pretty sites that don't generate cash are like hanging a Van Gogh in your spare bedroom.

[Jeff Monson]

This is a common problem, and fodder for copyright lawyers.


If your site develops new leads, and captures more revenue then the $200 will pale in comparison to your increased business.



Jim thats the reasoning for developing a new site. The $200.00 is per photo, of which I'd like several images. $200.00 is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the site.

[Jeff Monson]

Though I'll say make sure to use legal images with whatever you eventually decide to use....

So how do you determine if an image is a legal image?

[Dan Hintz]

So how do you determine if an image is a legal image?

If you took it, it's legal. If you purchased it from a stock photo site, you're legal. If you contacted the photo's owner and received permission, you're legal. If the image is public domain, you're legal.

I can't think of any other circumstance in which it's automatically legal.

[Harry Hagan]

This is absolutely untrue. Copyright exists by mere virtue of creation.


This is true. ANY photograph anyone creates is automatically copyrighted under U.S.A copyright law.

[Jim Matthews]

Sorry, I missed the each in the OP.

That's more than a little steep.
Did you find another developer?

I have to wonder if the developer is attempting to employ
asymmetric knowledge to line his/her own pocket.

Something stinks, at $200 per...

[Scott Shepherd]

I don't think he's scamming you or ripping you off. What he's probably doing is getting it from a stock photography site and instead of looking at the usage of a web developer license, he's probably looking at the exclusive rights pricing. So he's essentially paying the premium price which will remove it from the stock photography site, meaning no one else can get the image to put on their website and copy your site. Just ask him to explain it to you, which site it's coming from and which plan he's trying to purchase. They normally have about 5 different options, a personal use, a business use, a business use for print, a business use for web, a limited use, etc. That price sounds more like the higher end of the plan.

If you decide to just grab images off the internet without use, here's what can happen (and does happen more and more these days). You've essentially stolen someone's property. There are tools on the internet that allow you to upload the image and within seconds, it'll show you everyone on the internet where that image is being used. So the creator just does that quick search, finds your site, emails the complaint department at your internet hosting company that there is a copyright violation in progress and they demand your images be removed immediately. The hosting company has a couple of days to make that happen. If they don't, it makes them liable in the lawsuit. So essentially, without you knowing, or ever being contacted by the original photographer, your site will be removed from the internet one day without your consent. Your hosting company may or may not contact you and ask you to remove the images. If they don't, they'll just turn your account off and your site will disappear.

Sounds crazy, but that's actually how IP lawyers are recommending you deal with people that steal YOUR images. Skip the cease and desist letters to the people and just send the form to the ISP or hosting company, and wipe you off the internet within days.

I read an article not long ago from an IP attorney and he even posted an example of the letter, explaining how it all worked and who to send it to.

[Jason Beam]

$200 per photo is high, but not unheard of in the stock photography world. It's all about licensing.

The ONLY way you can "tell if it's okay to use" is EXPRESS consent by the copyright holder. Googling images and just using whatever turns up is NOT the right way - though it's done thousands of times all over the web. If you can't afford real photography that you own yourself, stock photos are the way to go. There are sites out there that have royalty free photos that come with a license allowing you to use them in various ways.

You'd do yourself, and the web/photography industries a great deal of service to get permission for every image you use that isn't your own. Respect the authors and artists who take the trouble to create these things - it's usually not as simple as just grabbing a phone and snapping any old shot.

[Clarence Martin]

This Copyrighting of pictures can get a little sticky. Suppose , for example, there are 2 people side by side that take the exact same picture of something. Person A is a professional photographer, and Person B is just a regular person. Person A copyrights his picture. Now what happens to the picture that person B took ? If I was person B, I would not care who did what with the picture. But, does that mean that person B cannot use his own picture ? If someone used that picture and made money off of it , it would not matter to me. It's just a picture.:)

[Dan Hintz]

This Copyrighting of pictures can get a little sticky. Suppose , for example, there are 2 people side by side that take the exact same picture of something. Person A is a professional photographer, and Person B is just a regular person. Person A copyrights his picture. Now what happens to the picture that person B took ? If I was person B, I would not care who did what with the picture. But, does that mean that person B cannot use his own picture ? If someone used that picture and made money off of it , it would not matter to me. It's just a picture.:)

You're making it appear as if there's some confusion with the law here, but there's not. Both photographers own rights to their own image and are free to do with each as they wish. Both pictures are, by the mere fact they were created, copyrighted by their respective photographers. If 'B' is used in a magazine, 'A' has nothing to say about it as picture 'A' was not used. And vice versa...

[Jason Beam]

This Copyrighting of pictures can get a little sticky. Suppose , for example, there are 2 people side by side that take the exact same picture of something. Person A is a professional photographer, and Person B is just a regular person. Person A copyrights his picture. Now what happens to the picture that person B took ? If I was person B, I would not care who did what with the picture. But, does that mean that person B cannot use his own picture ? If someone used that picture and made money off of it , it would not matter to me. It's just a picture.:)

Don't confuse the scene with the photo itself. The photo is what is copyrighted, not the scene captured. Meaning 500 people could all take the "same" picture (they won't be the same, i assure you), and each has their own copyrighted photograph of that same scene. If you want to split hairs, every single camera involved captured their own individual photons and recorded what it saw. It's that recording that gets copyright.

[Jeff Monson]

I don't think he's scamming you or ripping you off. What he's probably doing is getting it from a stock photography site and instead of looking at the usage of a web developer license, he's probably looking at the exclusive rights pricing. So he's essentially paying the premium price which will remove it from the stock photography site, meaning no one else can get the image to put on their website and copy your site. Just ask him to explain it to you, which site it's coming from and which plan he's trying to purchase. They normally have about 5 different options, a personal use, a business use, a business use for print, a business use for web, a limited use, etc. That price sounds more like the higher end of the plan.

If you decide to just grab images off the internet without use, here's what can happen (and does happen more and more these days). You've essentially stolen someone's property. There are tools on the internet that allow you to upload the image and within seconds, it'll show you everyone on the internet where that image is being used. So the creator just does that quick search, finds your site, emails the complaint department at your internet hosting company that there is a copyright violation in progress and they demand your images be removed immediately. The hosting company has a couple of days to make that happen. If they don't, it makes them liable in the lawsuit. So essentially, without you knowing, or ever being contacted by the original photographer, your site will be removed from the internet one day without your consent. Your hosting company may or may not contact you and ask you to remove the images. If they don't, they'll just turn your account off and your site will disappear.

Sounds crazy, but that's actually how IP lawyers are recommending you deal with people that steal YOUR images. Skip the cease and desist letters to the people and just send the form to the ISP or hosting company, and wipe you off the internet within days.

I read an article not long ago from an IP attorney and he even posted an example of the letter, explaining how it all worked and who to send it to.

Very well explained Scott. Yes he is getting them from a stock image site, the images that he provided me to choose from were horrible. They were photos of plain old cars with a lousy backdrop. I'm just looking for a few nice vehicle images to enhance my website. Not to advertise a car. I have found a few that really appeal to me, I plan on giving the link of the photo to my web guy, that way he can pursue if it is for sale or ok to use. Thanks for the easy to understand explanation.