Grabbing pics off the net

Discussion in 'HTML' started by don, May 3, 2011.

  1. don

    don Guest

    Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
    your own?
    These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
    information on them.
    They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
    Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
    understand.
     
    don, May 3, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. don

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 3 May 2011 01:22:19 -0400, don wrote:

    > Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
    > your own?
    > These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
    > information on them.
    > They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
    > Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
    > understand.


    It's called "Public Domain".
    But be careful. If a certain generic photo clearly shows off a registered
    trademark, and you copied the photo from that company's site, they could
    force removal. Also, some shapes are registered trademarks.

    It really all boils down to just how generic the individual photo really
    is. Each one would have to be judged by itself.

    if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall which
    of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.
     
    richard, May 3, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. don

    Jeff Thies Guest

    On 5/3/2011 1:53 AM, richard wrote:
    > On Tue, 3 May 2011 01:22:19 -0400, don wrote:
    >
    >> Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
    >> your own?
    >> These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
    >> information on them.
    >> They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
    >> Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
    >> understand.

    >
    > It's called "Public Domain".



    Most choose to retain ownership, even if it is publicly viewable.

    > But be careful. If a certain generic photo clearly shows off a registered
    > trademark, and you copied the photo from that company's site, they could
    > force removal. Also, some shapes are registered trademarks.
    >
    > It really all boils down to just how generic the individual photo really
    > is. Each one would have to be judged by itself.
    >
    > if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall which
    > of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.


    No. The image in your camera is your image.

    It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
    rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
    time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
    different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
    enormously different images. Enormously different.

    As for the OP. Don't lift images without asking. "Generic" images are
    cheaply obtained from any number of sites. Often just a couple dollars.
    Often free.

    As far as lifting product shots. If the shot was done by the
    manufacturer, and if you are selling that product, I tend not to worry
    about permissions. Such images are commonly provided for use under such
    terms.

    If that product shot was done by a third party, then you should ask.
    Theft is common though, which is why so many images are "water marked".

    Jeff
     
    Jeff Thies, May 3, 2011
    #3
  4. don

    David Segall Guest

    "don" <> wrote:

    >Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
    >your own?


    Probably not. Most sites have a copyright prohibiting this and many
    sites use pictures that they have paid for. The latter often contain
    an invisible watermark that can be used to track unauthorised use of
    the picture.

    That said, the downside of using a picture without permission is very
    low and I have several on my own web site. Unless you are very rich
    and/or you are making money from the picture the worst that will
    happen is that you will be instructed to remove the image from your
    site.
    >These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
    >information on them.
    >They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.


    In that case there are heaps of legitimate sources. Google has an
    option in the advanced image search to look for pictures "labeled for
    commercial reuse". You can search Flickr for photographs you can use
    under a Creative Commons license
    <http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/>. There are thousands of free
    photographs at http://www.sxc.hu/.
     
    David Segall, May 3, 2011
    #4
  5. On May 2, 10:22 pm, "don" <> wrote:
    > Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
    > your own?
    > These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
    > information on them.
    > They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
    > Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
    > understand.


    All published data, irrespective of the media is covered by copyright,
    the web included. Unless you have permission to use an image you are
    infringing on someone's rights.

    http://richardfisher.com/
     
    Helpful person, May 3, 2011
    #5
  6. don

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 03 May 2011 23:58:16 +1000, David Segall wrote:

    > "don" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
    >>your own?

    >
    > Probably not. Most sites have a copyright prohibiting this and many
    > sites use pictures that they have paid for. The latter often contain
    > an invisible watermark that can be used to track unauthorised use of
    > the picture.
    >
    > That said, the downside of using a picture without permission is very
    > low and I have several on my own web site. Unless you are very rich
    > and/or you are making money from the picture the worst that will
    > happen is that you will be instructed to remove the image from your
    > site.
    >>These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
    >>information on them.
    >>They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.

    >
    > In that case there are heaps of legitimate sources. Google has an
    > option in the advanced image search to look for pictures "labeled for
    > commercial reuse". You can search Flickr for photographs you can use
    > under a Creative Commons license
    > <http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/>. There are thousands of free
    > photographs at http://www.sxc.hu/.


    Many times, those watermarks are added on by the website AFTER stealing
    them from another site.

    There was a case just a couple of years ago which involved Chrysler Jeeps
    and bikini clad ladies posing around them. After Chrysler initiated a
    lawsuit against the site, for improper use of their trademark, the guy took
    the photos down because he found out he had the wrong permission.

    However, as owner of that vehicle, with, or without the trademark attached,
    the manufacturer has technically relinquished it's right to the trademark
    and falls under "public domain" or even "fair use". Not to mention the
    manufacturer is getting free publicity.

    The real trick is, knowing who owns the copyright to that photo.
    Just because you put it up on your website, does not give you copyright to
    that photo.
     
    richard, May 3, 2011
    #6
  7. don

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 3 May 2011 08:25:53 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person wrote:

    > On May 2, 10:22 pm, "don" <> wrote:
    >> Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
    >> your own?
    >> These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
    >> information on them.
    >> They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
    >> Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
    >> understand.

    >
    > All published data, irrespective of the media is covered by copyright,
    > the web included. Unless you have permission to use an image you are
    > infringing on someone's rights.
    >
    > http://richardfisher.com/


    Basically that is correct.
    However, photos of objects that are constantly in public view, are not
    necessarily protected by copyright.

    Let's say I take a photo of a hammer on which the company name is proudly
    displayed. Nothing else is in the photo. As it so happens, that company has
    an identical photo on their website. Can they claim I violated copyright?
    They can try. But as soon as I produce the "negative", that will soon
    disspell any doubts as to who owns the photo.

    Many moons ago, back in the sixties, my father and brother went to the Indy
    500 race. My father got this absolutely fantastic photo of Debbie Reynolds
    stretched out on the pace car. If I had hung onto that photo, a slide
    actually, that would now be on my webpage. The interesting thing about it
    is, when he took the photo, no one else was around. It was as if she had
    posed for a photo shoot.

    <cue evan platt's mockery>
     
    richard, May 3, 2011
    #7
  8. don

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Tue, 3 May 2011 01:22:19 -0400, "don" <> wrote:

    >Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
    >your own?
    >These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
    >information on them.
    >They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
    >Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
    >understand.


    If you are an Amazon Associate you are allowed to use their product
    pictures to promote an associate link to the product.

    But pictures from sources like newspapers are copyright and you could get
    sued for using them. See this article:

    Enforcing Copyrights Online, for a Profit
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/media/03righthaven.html?pagewanted=all

    Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, May 3, 2011
    #8
  9. don

    dorayme Guest

    In article <ipovpl$doh$>,
    Jeff Thies <> wrote:

    > > if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall which
    > > of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.

    >
    > No. The image in your camera is your image.
    >
    > It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
    > rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
    > time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
    > different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    > compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
    > enormously different images. Enormously different.


    OK, if you and I stood side by side with identical cameras and
    took a rare good complicated image of a waterfall with the same
    composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    compensation, color balance, post processed them the same,
    published them at the same pixel size, which of us owns the right
    to that photo?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, May 3, 2011
    #9
  10. don

    dorayme Guest

    In article <176tolcoc7rvh$>,
    richard <> wrote:

    > ... My father got this absolutely fantastic photo of Debbie Reynolds
    > stretched out on the pace car. ... The interesting thing about it
    > is, when he took the photo, no one else was around. It was as if she had
    > posed for a photo shoot.


    That's because she did that sort of thing. Once I was returning
    to my old car and caught her hanging around my tow bar. She had
    this thing for muscle cars, glad I had my camera handy, no one
    would believe me otherwise.

    <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/debbie_on_my_ford.jpg>

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, May 4, 2011
    #10
  11. On May 3, 3:57 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <ipovpl$>,
    >  Jeff Thies <> wrote:
    >
    > > > if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall which
    > > > of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.

    >
    > > No. The image in your camera is your image.

    >
    > > It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
    > > rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
    > > time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
    > > different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    > > compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
    > > enormously different images. Enormously different.

    >
    > OK, if you and I stood side by side with identical cameras and
    > took a rare good complicated image of a waterfall with the same
    > composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    > compensation, color balance, post processed them the same,
    > published them at the same pixel size, which of us owns the right
    > to that photo?
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    Which photo? there are two.
     
    Helpful person, May 4, 2011
    #11
  12. dorayme wrote:

    > OK, if you and I stood side by side with identical cameras and took a
    > rare good complicated image of a waterfall with the same composition,
    > depth of field, exposure time, exposure compensation, color balance,
    > post processed them the same, published them at the same pixel size,
    > which of us owns the right to that photo?


    Neither of you. richard owns it!

    (because he has no understanding of copyright law, as he's proved many
    times)

    --
    -bts
    -Could. Not. Resist.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, May 4, 2011
    #12
  13. don

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <
    >,

    Helpful person <> wrote:

    > On May 3, 3:57 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article <ipovpl$>,
    > >  Jeff Thies <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > > if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall
    > > > > which
    > > > > of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.

    > >
    > > > No. The image in your camera is your image.

    > >
    > > > It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
    > > > rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
    > > > time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
    > > > different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    > > > compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
    > > > enormously different images. Enormously different.

    > >
    > > OK, if you and I stood side by side with identical cameras and
    > > took a rare good complicated image of a waterfall with the same
    > > composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    > > compensation, color balance, post processed them the same,
    > > published them at the same pixel size, which of us owns the right
    > > to that photo?
    > >

    ....
    >
    > Which photo? there are two.


    There are two cameras and two sets of atomic configurations in
    the memory card but the picture is a more abstract universal
    thing and harder to see as multiple. There are multiple
    instantiations of the universal.

    If there are two universals that cannot be told apart in any
    respect, what makes them two rather than one?

    Jeff, do me a favour: let's do this thing and take each other to
    court, it would be fun arguing in front of a judge and jury, the
    aim being to send them *crazy*!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, May 4, 2011
    #13
  14. don

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 03 May 2011 09:25:52 -0400, Jeff Thies wrote:

    > On 5/3/2011 1:53 AM, richard wrote:
    >> On Tue, 3 May 2011 01:22:19 -0400, don wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is it ok to grab generic pics of things off other websites and use them in
    >>> your own?
    >>> These pics have no company logos on them or other personal identifying
    >>> information on them.
    >>> They are just generic pics of products that I could use on my own site.
    >>> Is there a W3.org or something link that goes over this that a layman could
    >>> understand.

    >>
    >> It's called "Public Domain".

    >
    >
    > Most choose to retain ownership, even if it is publicly viewable.
    >
    >> But be careful. If a certain generic photo clearly shows off a registered
    >> trademark, and you copied the photo from that company's site, they could
    >> force removal. Also, some shapes are registered trademarks.
    >>
    >> It really all boils down to just how generic the individual photo really
    >> is. Each one would have to be judged by itself.
    >>
    >> if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall which
    >> of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.

    >
    > No. The image in your camera is your image.
    >
    > It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
    > rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
    > time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
    > different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    > compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
    > enormously different images. Enormously different.
    >
    > As for the OP. Don't lift images without asking. "Generic" images are
    > cheaply obtained from any number of sites. Often just a couple dollars.
    > Often free.
    >
    > As far as lifting product shots. If the shot was done by the
    > manufacturer, and if you are selling that product, I tend not to worry
    > about permissions. Such images are commonly provided for use under such
    > terms.
    >
    > If that product shot was done by a third party, then you should ask.
    > Theft is common though, which is why so many images are "water marked".
    >
    > Jeff


    I was using the scenario to point out that each person who takes a photo of
    the same subject in the same location, owns the copyright to their photo.
    If that other person makes a million bucks off his photo, you can't turn
    around and sue him because you have the "same" photo.

    Case in point. Drive around Lake Tahoe and you will find a certain spot
    that has been photographed almost identically a million times because there
    is only one spot where you can get that picture.
     
    richard, May 4, 2011
    #14
  15. don

    Jeff Thies Guest

    On 5/3/2011 6:57 PM, dorayme wrote:
    > In article<ipovpl$doh$>,
    > Jeff Thies<> wrote:
    >
    >>> if you and I stood side by side, took the same photo of a waterfall which
    >>> of us owns the right to that photo? We both do.

    >>
    >> No. The image in your camera is your image.
    >>
    >> It is odd that you mention waterfalls. A simple snap of a waterfall is
    >> rarely a good image. More than in almost any other photograph, exposure
    >> time is very important. Two images taken from the same spot can be very
    >> different. Composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    >> compensation, color balance, image size and post processing can yield
    >> enormously different images. Enormously different.

    >
    > OK, if you and I stood side by side with identical cameras and
    > took a rare good complicated image of a waterfall with the same
    > composition, depth of field, exposure time, exposure
    > compensation, color balance, post processed them the same,
    > published them at the same pixel size, which of us owns the right
    > to that photo?
    >

    To each, their own.

    What if one markets the photo and the other doesn't? Should the one who
    didn't benefit from the others effort?

    For the most part photographers just try to take a better version of
    an image they have already seen. This is often all that is needed, a
    competent portrait, product shot or landscape.

    For some landscapes locations, the tripods all fit in the same holes,
    as that is the classic shot view. There can be grumbling about stealing
    the composition, but you still have to make the shot.

    Jeff
     
    Jeff Thies, May 4, 2011
    #15
  16. don

    P E Schoen Guest

    "dorayme" wrote in message
    news:...

    <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/debbie_on_my_ford.jpg>

    That looks photo-shopped. If it's real, it looks very uncomfortable.

    My first car was a pea-soup green 1960 Falcon with a 144 engine and 2 speed
    automatic. I painted it metallic green using a dozen spray cans of enamel:
    http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/carpaint.jpg
    http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/falcon69.jpg

    My first vehicle was a 1966 Honda CA160 motorcycle:
    http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/honda66.jpg

    Later, I got a really old clunker:
    http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/oldcar.jpg

    Paul
     
    P E Schoen, May 4, 2011
    #16
  17. don

    dorayme Guest

    In article <ipqfg3$fir$>,
    "P E Schoen" <> wrote:

    > "dorayme" wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/debbie_on_my_ford.jpg>
    >
    > That looks photo-shopped. If it's real, it looks very uncomfortable.
    >


    Many dreams are like that, with photoshopped looks and
    uncomfortable things. <g>

    > My first car was a pea-soup green 1960 Falcon with a 144 engine and 2 speed
    > automatic. I painted it metallic green using a dozen spray cans of enamel:
    > http://www.smart.net/~pstech/photos/carpaint.jpg


    It looks like one of the very early automatic Fords I tried out
    once, while interesting to try the auto gearbox, I got the
    impression at the time that it struggled, the manual much more
    practical. But Ford solved that problem by huge powerful engines
    and better automatic gearboxes later on...
    my old bomb was a 1971/2 XY model.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, May 4, 2011
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul  Smith
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,553
    johannsig
    May 22, 2012
  2. harold

    indexing pics in frames

    harold, Nov 30, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    455
    Whitecrest
    Dec 1, 2003
  3. The Bicycling Guitarist

    IE not reading PICS tags correctly

    The Bicycling Guitarist, Dec 14, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    429
    Andy Dingley
    Dec 15, 2004
  4. Headbanger

    Scrollbar with pics?

    Headbanger, Mar 11, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,094
    Travis Newbury
    Mar 12, 2005
  5. Don Noll

    PREVENT COPYING WEB PICS HELP

    Don Noll, Jun 13, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    4,611
    Joel Shepherd
    Jun 17, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page