Hey all, I was wondering what exactly are the rules concerning images and pictures on your site. I'm currently building a history site, and I'm especially interested in the rules for pictures of (old) buildings, art, etcetera. As I understand, everything from before about 1900 is in the public domain, so most things for a history site are. However, the pictures are of course not. I was wondering what the rules are. Should you pay, or name the author, or does that differ from author to author, and from country to country? Thanks in advance!
Yeah, but what if I wanted to use pictures of the Mona Lisa or the Great Wall of China? That term has expired, but the creator of the picture of the Mona Lisa is still alive! What counts?
Everything before 1923 is in the public domain. (us law only, no idea about others) ** it is the date of the photo or picture, not the object in the picture, that matters ** The life + 70 rule only affects works 1923 and after. Just do a google search for "public domain 1923" There are plenty of sites that will explain the law. Here is simple and easy to follow chart: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
If the PHOTO of the Mona Lisa or Great Wall was taken prior to 1923 then you can use it. Not sure what else you are asking.
Thanks a lot! So, for pretty much every image I want to use I have to have the authors consent, or it has to be in the public domain already, right? Damn! That's a lot of work!
It easier than you think. You can start here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Library_of_Congress-verified_public_domain_images
At least you would be 100% sure that you will not get sued. Also take note that some buildings are copyrighted (yes, indeed buildings/designs can also be copyrighted aparently) and you may not use images of them regardless. An example of this is the Eiffel Tower lit up during the night. The lighting structure is copyrighted.
You take certain statements and spin them into something else. While a building's design may be copyrighted, I fail to see how your claims that I may not use my own photo of that building have any merit. Frankly, I think you are dead wrong, and cite no law. There are many shapes and designs that are copyrighted, that would not legally prevent someone from taking a photo and using it. Taking a photo of a copyrighted item is not illegal or improper in any way. Virtually every building made owns the copyright to it's design. Taking a photo, in no way impinges on that copyright. Again, I only refer to us law. You took this statement: "PACA does not have a position as to whether the use (either commercially or editorially) is in violation of any applicable laws, but merely advises users to seek advice from their own legal representation to determine if any additional permissions are required under the circumstances." And turned into this: "Also take note that some buildings are copyrighted (yes, indeed buildings/designs can also be copyrighted aparently) and you may not use images of them regardless."
I might not have expressed myself clearly. I apologize. The point I was trying to make is that you might run into some problems when photographing and using images of certain buildings on a site. Since most websites have some form of advertising on them that could be seen as commercial use and could be seen as a violation of copyright (to a degree). This is also very important where there are trademarks or artwork incorporated into the building. The Eiffel Tower example I cited was based on this: And from the official Eiffel Tower site FAQ: US law does not view taking images of copyrighted buildings as creating derivitive works, so you are allowed to take photo's of copyrighted buildings provided they are visible from a public place. However if there is a trademark/artwork incorporated in the building that might be an infringement. Also due to the international nature of the Web it is difficult to determine which laws will apply. Once again the point I was trying to make is to be careful, and check out any issues before using such images. Also take a look at Freedom of Panorama that details restrictions for some countries. *I hope that clarifies it a bit. Sorry for any misunderstandings.*
Yes it does. Thanks for the more complete explanation. I appreciate it. Also, I am totally ignorant of French law. So, none of my comments were intended to indicate otherwise.
Allright, thanks for your information so far. I'm new to this, so just to clarify this to myself: This does mean that for pretty much any picture I want to use, that is published after 1923 (in the US), I have to have the authors (written?) consent. Now, I'd just like to know this: Do you really do all this, and does everyone do this? I certainly understand why big sites like Yahoo, MSN, etcetera do this, but does every owner of a website do it? Do you?
I've been in the shoes of both parties, as an artist and as a webmaster. For me it's a case of principle. I make sure that I have the consent of all image copyright holders, before I use their images on my site. You will be suprised how willing people are to allow you to use their work, provided of course that you ask permission first and then give them the credit they are due. Just think about it this way: As a webmaster you will definitely not want anyone to copy your unique article you spend hours writing (or dollars paying someone to write it for you). Now why would you think that images are any different? Images are just another form of content. Depending on the image it can take alot of effort, time, skill en artistic vision to create. I definitely won't like it if someone stole my work and used it without permission. Would you? Of couse nothing is stopping you to go ahead and use any image you find without permission. However chances are that you will at sometime use something belonging to a copyright holder that is passionate enough to take legal steps all the way. I know quite a few artists who will, at the minimum, file a DMCA complaint (against sites using their works) with Google and other search engines as well as the site's webhost. Now, you have to ask yourself - is the risk worth it? And much more importantly - how would I feel/react if it was my work being stolen?
I agree, I wouldn't like it at all, and if it's indeed as simple as you say to get consent, I will definately do it. I was wondering one more thing: When you say ' give them the credit they are due', is that usually just a link to their site, or do publishers expect money for this?
That depends on the person and situation. For exclusive use of an image you might have to pay them some amount. You can also look into stock images. These are available at very reasonable prices $1-$3 or so per image if you are planning on having ads on your site, otherwise they are free to use subject to certain conditions(determined by their usage agreement). If the image is from another person's site/blog (e.g. a hobby site) they will most likely allow you to use the image if you provide them a link and a credit line (e.g. Photo courtesy of: xxxxxx.site) without needing to pay anything.
If I were you I'd go to flickr and search for creative commons licensed images that you're allowed to fully use.