Full Version: Image Etiquette
I am a leaper when it comes to technology. I also tend to do what I see others doing. When it comes to copyright issues I try to be faithful without keeping myself from having access for myself and my students of material that would generally be used by most people of educators.
I have long questioned the ethics of using images on blogs and power points. This was the main issue that slowed my use of both. Last year I threw caution to the wind and dove in on both projects.
Recently I have seen comments decrying certain image using practices and now I feel compelled to revisit this practice and perhaps offer a feeble and general apology for my past behaviors.
What I've been doing.
Power Point Presentations
Copying the images I find and using them for my presentations without hesitating. Generally I have been making attributions in the form of links behind the image or small hyperlinks not really visible to the audience.
Blog:
Copying the image locations and posting them to my blog. I thought this was a way of giving credit to the image location I found, now I fear that I am actually pirating bandwith.
How then do I post images on a blog if I don't link to them? I believe I have limited uploading privileges with my free Live Journal account.
Questions:
What do you do for images in blogs, sharing, or power points etc. and how do you do it?
What are the standards practices, ethics, and legalities of image posting?
I have long questioned the ethics of using images on blogs and power points. This was the main issue that slowed my use of both. Last year I threw caution to the wind and dove in on both projects.
Recently I have seen comments decrying certain image using practices and now I feel compelled to revisit this practice and perhaps offer a feeble and general apology for my past behaviors.
What I've been doing.
Power Point Presentations
Copying the images I find and using them for my presentations without hesitating. Generally I have been making attributions in the form of links behind the image or small hyperlinks not really visible to the audience.
Blog:
Copying the image locations and posting them to my blog. I thought this was a way of giving credit to the image location I found, now I fear that I am actually pirating bandwith.
How then do I post images on a blog if I don't link to them? I believe I have limited uploading privileges with my free Live Journal account.
Questions:
What do you do for images in blogs, sharing, or power points etc. and how do you do it?
What are the standards practices, ethics, and legalities of image posting?
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 2 2006, 12:25 PM)
Blog:
Copying the image locations and posting them to my blog. I thought this was a way of giving credit to the image location I found, now I fear that I am actually pirating bandwidth.
How then do I post images on a blog if I don't link to them? I believe I have limited uploading privileges with my free Live Journal account.
Copying the image locations and posting them to my blog. I thought this was a way of giving credit to the image location I found, now I fear that I am actually pirating bandwidth.
How then do I post images on a blog if I don't link to them? I believe I have limited uploading privileges with my free Live Journal account.
Use a free image hosting service like ImageShack, Photobucket, Village Photos or the Image Cave and others to save your images online and link from your hosting site, that way you're not riding on the website's bandwidth.
What are the standards practices, ethics, and legalities of image posting?
Aside from doing the above if the owner seems fickle about using their images I usually offer a link below the image that takes the reader directly to the page where I found the image.
Jaime is quite the expert in dealing with situations such as this. I think she has some very useful tips and practiced etiquette on what to do if you find your own images being pillaged.
I borrow images only if there is no notice of copyright either on the image itself like that watermark thing or on the page the image is being displayed on.
I link to the site the image is on only if it is a major news source or entertainment page or something similar. I figure they appreciate the link and the use of bandwidth. Also I have discovered it is how to get your own blog listed..I am up on WaPo
as they have this look who has blogged about this article insert now on their pages. See Jaime it is working........ CNN won't be long. 
I use photobucket for anything else.
I borrow images only if there is no notice of copyright either on the image itself like that watermark thing or on the page the image is being displayed on.
I link to the site the image is on only if it is a major news source or entertainment page or something similar. I figure they appreciate the link and the use of bandwidth. Also I have discovered it is how to get your own blog listed..I am up on WaPo
as they have this look who has blogged about this article insert now on their pages. See Jaime it is working........ CNN won't be long. I use photobucket for anything else.
I'd say that regarding images it depends on where you are taking them from. If it is a publication of some kind then hosting them on your own and providing credit is enough.
If it is a personal site then it is probably best practice to make an attempt to email the person asking for permission. If you can't reach them then of course you can just credit them. Some people have Creative Commons licenses which lay out the rules. The permission part isn't really necessary but it is certainly a common courtesy.
If it is a personal site then it is probably best practice to make an attempt to email the person asking for permission. If you can't reach them then of course you can just credit them. Some people have Creative Commons licenses which lay out the rules. The permission part isn't really necessary but it is certainly a common courtesy.
I treat images like text. If there's a watermark, hands off, it's the same as a copyright notice. If I were to be doing a scholastic piece or part of a bigger research work, standard citation is in order and the source has to be a publication anyone can get to. If this is going into a work to be published for profit, permission is needed for both images and lengthy quotations. You can paraphrase source contents enough to avoid the permission thing, but images are special.
I've gotten around the permission part by having technical photo images worked into line art. That makes a second original image that is simply based on the first. There's a fine demarcation here, so be careful to make the line art obviously original.
On bandwidth, I bet this isn't so much a concern to the source site as the hit rate. Traffic is gold in the Internet economy, right? By linking, you're helping to drive traffic to the source site. I've never been called up on taking bandwidth by linking, but maybe someone else has. I'm thinking that this is free advertising, but I'm no expert on the subject. It just seems to make sense, and I've seen the idea in lots of Internet business articles and books.
I've gotten around the permission part by having technical photo images worked into line art. That makes a second original image that is simply based on the first. There's a fine demarcation here, so be careful to make the line art obviously original.
On bandwidth, I bet this isn't so much a concern to the source site as the hit rate. Traffic is gold in the Internet economy, right? By linking, you're helping to drive traffic to the source site. I've never been called up on taking bandwidth by linking, but maybe someone else has. I'm thinking that this is free advertising, but I'm no expert on the subject. It just seems to make sense, and I've seen the idea in lots of Internet business articles and books.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jan 2 2006, 02:49 PM)
On bandwidth, I bet this isn't so much a concern to the source site as the hit rate. Traffic is gold in the Internet economy, right? By linking, you're helping to drive traffic to the source site. I've never been called up on taking bandwidth by linking, but maybe someone else has. I'm thinking that this is free advertising, but I'm no expert on the subject. It just seems to make sense, and I've seen the idea in lots of Internet business articles and books.
I think the problem he was referring to is when you determine the location of an image on someone's web page (by viewing the source code) and then use the exact same URL on yours. In otherwords you don't store it yourself, you are using someone else's bandwidth to display the image on your site.
Like Mike and Jaime, when I discover this is happening I usually replace the image with something less appealing
I've taken a class on intellectual property law so let me give my interpretation. All original works become copyrighted by the creator at the time of creation, without the creator having to do anything.
This means any content you find on the internet is copyrighted by someone, regardless if they've posted a copyright notice on their page. Using said content without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal. (Although you're unlikely to be prosecuted.)
Exceptions apply to the quotation of written material, provided it is properly cited. This is why it's legal to re-print quotations (including the quoting posters on this site do of each other). This is also why scholarly journals can quote each other without asking for the author's permission.
Often websites will have blanket clauses on their sites enabling people to use their content (especially images) as long as they cite it's original location and give credit to the authors. As long as they follow the stipulated guidelines, they're in the clear.
Absent this authority, the legal course of action is to contact the copyright owner and obtain permission to use their image. Pain in the butt, but you can blame lawyers and the constitution for that.
It's not clear to me exactly what you are doing by the description above. I interperet this to mean you are re-creating the original work with line art and displaying your new creation. If this is true, your "new" art would be considered a derivative work under the law. To the extend it's content was based on another copyrighted piece of work, it would still belong to the original copyright holder, you would only own the rights to the additions or changes you made. Posting this new image doesn't get you around the legal hurdle. Making it obvious you re-created the image also doesn't get you anywhere legally. You still don't own the idea the image was originally based off of.
As for linking to the image's location on someone elses server, it's still using their image for your own purpose so beyond the bandwidth issues, it still violates their copyright assuming you don't have permission.
This means any content you find on the internet is copyrighted by someone, regardless if they've posted a copyright notice on their page. Using said content without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal. (Although you're unlikely to be prosecuted.)
Exceptions apply to the quotation of written material, provided it is properly cited. This is why it's legal to re-print quotations (including the quoting posters on this site do of each other). This is also why scholarly journals can quote each other without asking for the author's permission.
Often websites will have blanket clauses on their sites enabling people to use their content (especially images) as long as they cite it's original location and give credit to the authors. As long as they follow the stipulated guidelines, they're in the clear.
Absent this authority, the legal course of action is to contact the copyright owner and obtain permission to use their image. Pain in the butt, but you can blame lawyers and the constitution for that.
QUOTE
I've gotten around the permission part by having technical photo images worked into line art. That makes a second original image that is simply based on the first. There's a fine demarcation here, so be careful to make the line art obviously original.
It's not clear to me exactly what you are doing by the description above. I interperet this to mean you are re-creating the original work with line art and displaying your new creation. If this is true, your "new" art would be considered a derivative work under the law. To the extend it's content was based on another copyrighted piece of work, it would still belong to the original copyright holder, you would only own the rights to the additions or changes you made. Posting this new image doesn't get you around the legal hurdle. Making it obvious you re-created the image also doesn't get you anywhere legally. You still don't own the idea the image was originally based off of.
As for linking to the image's location on someone elses server, it's still using their image for your own purpose so beyond the bandwidth issues, it still violates their copyright assuming you don't have permission.
Eeyore-
You should weigh your risk/reward and then decide for yourself whether copying another’s image is worth the possibility of infringing on the creators copyright. The best and safest solution is to contact the website author and get the permission you need. Without permission, unless you are certain it is ok to copy, you are risking infringing the owner’s copyright. If you can claim Fair Use then you don't need to get permission.
Personally I believe that it is better to be safe then sorry. Unless you can trust that the image is safe for copy then I wouldn’t do it. Cube provided a source where you can download images and be clear on what you can/can not do. I would stick to that. Or google other sites that are free to download/copy and use.
I've gotten around the permission part by having technical photo images worked into line art. That makes a second original image that is simply based on the first. There's a fine demarcation here, so be careful to make the line art obviously original.
It's not clear to me exactly what you are doing by the description above. I interperet this to mean you are re-creating the original work with line art and displaying your new creation. If this is true, your "new" art would be considered a derivative work under the law. To the extend it's content was based on another copyrighted piece of work, it would still belong to the original copyright holder, you would only own the rights to the additions or changes you made. Posting this new image doesn't get you around the legal hurdle. Making it obvious you re-created the image also doesn't get you anywhere legally. You still don't own the idea the image was originally based off of.
I will take this one step further:
A derivative work is one that is based on one or more earlier works. Derivative works include editorial revisions, annotations or other modifications. A derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded a new work – in other words, it must contain some substantial, not merely trivial, originality. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not make it a new version for copyright purposes.
Protection for Your Derivative Works
Btw, Even though an image does not contain a copyright notice does not mean it is not protected. A copyright notice is not required by law.
Finally here are some interesting articles on photo copyright, they come from the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) national website.
Another fair use ruling on photo thumbnails
A win, but little payoff
This next article may be very helpful with most of your questions. I only posted one but you should read the whole thing.
You should weigh your risk/reward and then decide for yourself whether copying another’s image is worth the possibility of infringing on the creators copyright. The best and safest solution is to contact the website author and get the permission you need. Without permission, unless you are certain it is ok to copy, you are risking infringing the owner’s copyright. If you can claim Fair Use then you don't need to get permission.
QUOTE
FAIR USE
The copyright law allows someone to copy your work without penalty in certain cases. This is called "fair use". In order to qualify for "fair use" the photograph would usually have to be copied for educational, classroom, news reporting or other educational or public interest purposes. Fair use is always subject to interpretation. There is no simple rule to apply to determine when an unauthorized use is "fair use."
Each case has specific facts that must be examined before such a determination can be made. This is one reason why it is important to consult with a knowledgeable copyright attorney before jumping to conclusions about infringement. Fair Use
The copyright law allows someone to copy your work without penalty in certain cases. This is called "fair use". In order to qualify for "fair use" the photograph would usually have to be copied for educational, classroom, news reporting or other educational or public interest purposes. Fair use is always subject to interpretation. There is no simple rule to apply to determine when an unauthorized use is "fair use."
Each case has specific facts that must be examined before such a determination can be made. This is one reason why it is important to consult with a knowledgeable copyright attorney before jumping to conclusions about infringement. Fair Use
Personally I believe that it is better to be safe then sorry. Unless you can trust that the image is safe for copy then I wouldn’t do it. Cube provided a source where you can download images and be clear on what you can/can not do. I would stick to that. Or google other sites that are free to download/copy and use.
QUOTE(Adam)
QUOTE(AuthorMusician)
I've gotten around the permission part by having technical photo images worked into line art. That makes a second original image that is simply based on the first. There's a fine demarcation here, so be careful to make the line art obviously original.
It's not clear to me exactly what you are doing by the description above. I interperet this to mean you are re-creating the original work with line art and displaying your new creation. If this is true, your "new" art would be considered a derivative work under the law. To the extend it's content was based on another copyrighted piece of work, it would still belong to the original copyright holder, you would only own the rights to the additions or changes you made. Posting this new image doesn't get you around the legal hurdle. Making it obvious you re-created the image also doesn't get you anywhere legally. You still don't own the idea the image was originally based off of.
I will take this one step further:
QUOTE
A derivative work is one that is based on one or more earlier works. Derivative works include editorial revisions, annotations or other modifications. A derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded a new work – in other words, it must contain some substantial, not merely trivial, originality. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not make it a new version for copyright purposes.
Protection for Your Derivative Works
Btw, Even though an image does not contain a copyright notice does not mean it is not protected. A copyright notice is not required by law.
QUOTE
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
ASMP recommends that all photographs carry a copyright notice, even though it is no longer required by law. The lack of notice could provide an infringer with a defense of "innocent infringement". This defense could seriously limit the recovery of damages in an infringement claim. Copyright Notice
ASMP recommends that all photographs carry a copyright notice, even though it is no longer required by law. The lack of notice could provide an infringer with a defense of "innocent infringement". This defense could seriously limit the recovery of damages in an infringement claim. Copyright Notice
Finally here are some interesting articles on photo copyright, they come from the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) national website.
Another fair use ruling on photo thumbnails
A win, but little payoff
This next article may be very helpful with most of your questions. I only posted one but you should read the whole thing.
QUOTE
3. Q: May I link to anyone's site?
A: Linking is what the Internet is all about; at the same time, some sites require your permission before you may link to them and some even require a linking agreement.
Avoiding Copyright and Trademark Problems
A: Linking is what the Internet is all about; at the same time, some sites require your permission before you may link to them and some even require a linking agreement.
Avoiding Copyright and Trademark Problems
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.