Mjewel: AN EXCELLENT POINT I went to Google pictures and entered: Dragon images free. I like the third one, so I checked it out. Free tribal dragon tattoo designs that are of great style can be found here with attributes like thick, long bodied, scaly skin, four strong legs, two bat-like wings. So yes, just add the word free, if you use Google pictures. Then visit the site, just to be sure. You might even find a better image or picture.-------- NO Lassie 911, I do not want to buy the Steroids you offer --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the last 2 post. It's sad to see people resort to personal attacks though. (That's how you know you've got them! lol @ a green eyed wizard riding a dragon on steroids. hahaha lmao) I'll bite though. Yes, my net worth is very low just as most of the webmasters here. With that said, if you think someone would waste their time suing me for something I don't have over a image then you are mistaken. They aren't going to waste their time spending thousands of dollars over this. Google does indeed show images from other places without permission. The resolution argument is invalid. If that's case then I would suggest to anyone that they get the image they like and simply re-size it. If google can get away with it, shouldn't we be able to also? They say google has been sued over this, yet you still can go and get millions of images. That's one of the benefits of the internet that won't go away even with lawsuits. If you would rather sue or try to remove images and not have them instead of facing the reality of the internet ie. what it is, how it works, it's perks and it's flaws, then shame on you. Shame on anyone who thinks this BEAST can be tamed. It can't! It's here to stay deal with it. It's not a physical place that's why the physical attributes you to try to impose on it won't ever work. Yes if I steal a painting from a store a crime has been committed. No, if there is a digital representation of the same image online and I save it on my computer or display it online on my site, that isn't a crime. If you want to say it's the same then a online picture of the mona lisa should be just as valuable as the original painting. I'll go a step further and say that since this isn't the case, no one really cares about digital images online to that extent. Here is a article to the hurt locker suits. It looks like a bad publicity attempt and a way to make money of the film since no one seems to care about it. Here is a comment on the story. Keep in mind with all of this that movies/music were used as examples but we are still on the subject of images. ^Good argument. You are being accused of something, that doesn't mean you have broken any law. If something is online and I click a link or copy and paste code, that doesn't mean I am violating a copyright. If you are really that upset over images being used by others, DON'T PUT THEM ONLINE! If you want to create a class of criminals based on images you can't even touch then don't be surprised when people start get charged with thought crime. If anyone wants to stream/download this film, visit one of the many movie sites listed below. http://www.ovguide.com/index.html
"Yes, my net worth is very low just as most of the webmasters here." Not all are, and you're saying you're entitled to steal because you are broke. There are plenty of places online that offer free images, and many others that sell them for as little as $1. If you're that broke, consider a fast food job. Google does indeed show images from other places without permission. The resolution argument is invalid. The argument is invalid? LOL!! That is the basis of Google's defense. Google acknowledges that use of the original images is copyright infringement. There legal defense is that a low resolution thumbnail creation falls within the realm of transformative use and is considered "fair use". Google is indexing all images, not using a single or a few images. So yeah, if you want to start an image search site and display low-res thumbnails that contain links to the original images and have provisions to exclude images from any website that doesn't want their images displayed and you have a million dollar for legal fees to argue fair use, then go ahead. As far as taking a few images and using them (or even resizing them) then it is illegal - a criminal act which can also have civil damages. What you are saying is that if you have no money, and there is a store owned by a blind 70 year old woman, you are justified to steal because: a) others do it. b) the chances of getting caught are slim c) you can't afford to pay. Most photographers are not rich. They make their living by taking photographs and selling usage rights. When you steal their work, they don't get paid. If everyone thought like you, they would be as broke as you are.
It's a long read but it proves that... 1. Not all artists, writers and designers are simply willing to roll over and let other people steal their work. 2. The courts do consider using other people's work as theft and will fine the folks like you who steal. http://www.cgstock.com/essays/copyright_lawsuit There are others out there who have successfully defended their work but I thought this first person account made for an interesting read. The irony in this case is that if the thieves had just admitted their mistake and paid for the use of the photos it would have cost them significantly less than the years of attorney's fees and the judgment they finally paid. As an employee at the copyright office told me last year, the laws have not truly kept up with the Internet but that is changing.
I'm not saying I am stealing because I am broke. If you want to have a discussion on this, don't twist my words. 1. I don't have any websites up. 2. Most of the people here who don't aren't exactly rich. 3. I don't consider linking or saving images "stealing" in any way since they are digital items. Regardless of the amount of money I have or don't have doesn't play a role on the stance I take on this subject. Google using a loophole is fair to you but for anyone else it isn't? Whether the size is made smaller or larger, it should still be "illegal" based on your argument since it's the same image. How is it illegal for us but not google? Because they are a powerful corporation? You have no real points here. you only want to harp on my money issues which really has nothing to do with this argument. Just as the poster above said, many of the laws that apply to the real world don't apply to the internet. Much of it is legal jargon and fear being pushed to try to scare people. Many of the laws you speak of don't even apply to everyone. There are state, local and federal laws people may try to apply to the internet. However to assume they apply is silly. So you trying to argue a real situation of theft and apply it to linking or posting code doesn't fly. Not all people who go online are willing to roll over and let multinational corporations dictate how the internet is to be used, dicate laws etc. My argument is simply the internet can't be stopped. Once something is online, like it or not, people will have access to anything that's up. Trying to sue is only a temporary solution to the internet dilemma. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how screwed up it may seem, nothing will be able to stop this BEAST man has created. No lawsuit, propaganda, fear, threats etc. Anyone will still be able to use any image, song, video, article and big brother just won't be able to stop it.
Follow this and you can use them for free ! http://npxp.com/find-free-images-to-reuse-on-your-blogs-via-google-search
If you can't see the difference between a low-resolution thumbnail and a full-size copy - well, you are just plain stupid. It doesn't really matter what you think or how stupid you are - the courts have ruled on this and they don't agree with anything you have posted. There are people in prison for copyright infringement. That is a fact. There are people who have lost thousands of dollars from committing copyright infringement. That is also a fact. Taking images without permission is illegal. That is a fact. . Your moronic position could be applied to anything - i.e. "The government will never stop murder or bank robbers. True, but that doesn't mean there will ALWAYS be a risk. It's the same with copyright infringement. Not everyone will be caught, but those that do will regret their actions. If you take images without permission and display them on your site and the owner reports it to google, you will lose your adsense account and all earnings. It's a lifetime ban. A DMCA will remove your site from all major search engines. A DMCA will also result in your US host suspending or deleting your entire account. If you ever do actually own a site, well sell how you feel about someone making an exact copy of your work and using it when they outrank you and all your efforts were for nothing. After all, it is only digital content and you obviously have no problem with anyone make a copy a putting it online. I am sure there are many other scumbags who would be happy to make copies of the sites in your signature since you have no problem with it and has basically granted permission anyway.
You're a slave wrapped up in a world that doesn't exist. One of these days you'll wake up and realize that you are obeying the fictitious laws of computer code. You have some valid arguments but not in the larger context of the issue which currently evades your closed mind. You're calling me stupid for taking advantage of loopholes while fighting for your own destruction. It's people like you who sit back and accept everything that has everyone 10 year olds being sued for downloading music. Google doesn't control me like it controls you sweetie.
"fictitious laws of computer code" .... lol, copyright infringement is not only a civil matter, but can be criminal. Nothing "fictitious" about it. People HAVE gone to prison.... but this quote of yours "Yes, my net worth is very low..." is commonly used as justification for stealing from someone else. Get lost, scumbag.
There is no such thing as copyright on digital images, that is a fictitious concept. If you want to say it isn't then it also applies to Google as well. Don't sit up here and say they can have a image that's copy written as long as it's smaller in size but I can't. No, just because the legal system has been enforced in some cases <key word, SOME> in regards to the internet doesn't mean that it's universal or that we should just go along with it. You are defending the same Google that is in trouble with PayPal amongst others AS WE SPEAK. Shame on you for letting the internet, corporations and a legal system gone astray dictate how you think. I'll say it again, you're a slave. The law is only valid if you allow it to rule over you, yes, it's fictitious and man made. I suggest you look into admiralty jurisdiction. No, it doesn't apply to code because someone said so. They laws used in many cases were never intended for the internet and the internet was in place when they came about. Even if they were made for the internet, they are invalid because the images themselves aren't real. No it's not theft to use it since nothing has been stolen. Nothing has been lost since the person who claims ownership still has the image in their possession. Your argument is just as invalid as you harping on the amount of money that is made. You're the scumbag for not being able to argue a point without calling people names. I hope you like the taste of your own medicine you stupid, idiotic, scumbag whore! If you don't have anything other to add to this issue, please go away. You have already been refuted several times on this issue already.
If you're going to use the Google images, you need to type in what you're looking, click images, click advanced search, under user rights choose "labeled for commercial reuse and modification".
"There is no such thing as copyright on digital images, that is a fictitious concept." hahahahahahahaha...... I get it, you're trying for the title of biggest DP moron..... and the next thing you'll say is that the Internet wasn't around with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was made law in 1998..... hahahahaha
Thank you for asking this question.am realy enlightened out of the answer, especially from the firm law link in your signature
Interesting theory on the law - it's only theft if it's a tangible good. So lassie911, do you believe that copyright law, in general, is a fictitious man-made law that does not apply or is it simply once something has been digitized that it is no longer protected? Aren't all of our laws fictitious and man-made? Does that make them invalid as well? In a small way, you are correct about digital images. IF it is a photograph, scan or copy of a public domain 2-dimensional work, most countries in the world will not let the someone copyright the copy. England and a number of other countries get that one wrong but the US and most of the world do not allow for copyright transfer simply through the copying of an earlier work. As for Google, I'm not a fan of their image search. Yahoo and Bing have also added that functionality. I use them but I don't agree with the idea that they are just providing an index of other people's images. Let's face it, Google does nothing that doesn't make them money. Can't really blame them for that. But, those services are just making it easier for people to steal other people's work. In many ways it's implied - here's some images you can use. Sure, they now have a disclaimer, but who really reads it?
In regards to your first paragraph it's both. 1. once a image becomes digital and is used it isn't theft if someone uses it because it isn't tangible, 2 nothing is stolen since the owner is still in possession of it, 3. if it is theft then it would be theft regards no matter if the original is 50x50 and someone uses it at 49x49. As far as all laws being fictitious and made made, yes! Does that make them invalid? It depends on whether or not the community chooses to abide by them. In most cases the laws are forced on people against their will and own common sense. How can it b illegal to download a song when a person just clicks a link? The information is already public and no crime has been committed. If a song was stolen from a record company, that is the crime. Not the person who listens to it and likes it and downloads it. The don't know where the some came form, they just click a link. Back to the law, yes it is man made bs that has gotten out of control to the point where people can be arrested/sued/jailed for any and everything. It is about time people spoke u against this madness. Trying to apply old laws and/or create new ones to the internet won't work and will only further complicate our lives.
Yes, we get it. You are the founder of the tin foil hat society and income tax isn't legal, Elvis isn't dead, and you have proof of a alien spacecraft on a grassy knoll in Dallas 11/23/1963. How many of your brethren are sitting in jail protesting their innocence? lol
Sued for Hurt Locker? Wow, glad I moved to the Philippines and have an ip shared by millions. Not saying I downloaded it or anything... I will say that I sure don't like it when people take my content without a follow link back to the original. DCMA complaints are mostly dismissed. I don't really mind my photos so much but my articles, that I mind. It is true, there's very little one can do about it but get the wrong whacko with nothing but vengeance and hate of everything in their heart and mind and even if you do everything they way you should, you can still be their online victim.