This is my first post here so a big hello to everyone Let's say that I am the owner of the site A. There's the other site named B that has some cool images that I would like to include to my site..Unfortunately site b is really old and I tried contacting it's owner but no response Would it be legal if I showed these images to site A (giving full credit to the B site) without hosting them to site either by using as a source site B or by hosting them somewhere else like imageshack ? Site A is hosted by godaddy so I guess the answer should take into consideration us-laws.... Thanks in advance
No, you cannot use an image without permission. Giving credit does not get around copyright infringement.
No. Without permission from the copyright holder of the image, you are not allowed to use the images, since that would be a copyright violation. If you can't get the permission you can't use them. Even if you provide a credit line and a link to the original site it would still be a violation.
Don't worry about it. Use the image..unless your a millionaire, worse comes to worse is you are forced to take it down. Boo woo. Chances of you going to court for such a small case is 1 out of 100. Remember, to take someone to court requires money. This is the main reason why most peopel decide to ask the person to take the image down, rather then going straight to court. This is me thinking logically, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.
There are several threads about people being forced to pay thousands of dollars in usage fees for copyright infringement. Taking a photograph down doesn't legally get you off the hook. Suing isn't always a financial decision, and even if only 1 in 10 will sue you (vs taking down the image) do you want to risk paying thousands of dollars per image? So what you are saying is that if you are a loser with absolutely no money or net worth, go ahead and do something illegal because no one can collect from a person with nothing? Do you want a court judgment on your credit report for the next 7 years? Getty Images doesn't even bother to sue, they just bill you a thousand per image and turn the debt over to a collection agency. Maybe the copyright holder will just file a DMCA and have your site removed from google.
My advice was for him. Tell me, why would 10 people even think of suing a site like his? A site that has a small picture that may or may not be copyrighted. Why would he have to be worried about being slapped with a 150k fine when millions of sites like his are doing so? There are so many laws being broken in the U.S, I think the justice system can careless about sites taking copyrighted material. Unless, that copyright material is something significant....but I'm pretty sure of what he describes is not signifcant at all. Look at torrent sites for example....they distribute pirated material and host their sites that are located out the U.S.....look at Napster...was the owner of napster thrown in prison? I'm pretty sure they ripped him of all the profits he made and the only thing he lost was his time and effort. I don't know the whole story obviously, but I'm just trying to point out how much of a wuss you sound like. You sound like a mommy..."Don't ever drink alcohol till your 21,,,or else you will be breaking the law!!!!" Your basically telling him "don't break the law, you can be sued for 150k for this lil image you want to post on your site". I think thats just bs....use the image and take the risk...I honestly don't think you'll have anything to worry about....afterall theres millions of sites doing it. Goto this site: http://www.hicelebs.com/disclaimer.html Hicelebs.com has so many images of celebrites....they been going on for about 2 years making profit.....they claim that all their images are public domain...riiight. Tell me, how is a site like that gettin away with the law? And please post me these threads with people talking about how they have been charged with 150k fines...I would like to see their circumstances....its probably much different from the one arxidakas described.
You are giving bad advice out of ignorance. No one said anything about 150K per image. Images have an automatic copyright, so your statement of "if" doesn't even apply. There are thousands of child porn sites and using your logic, go ahead and do it because others are. Taking an image is usually going to be a civil matter and the court will certainly hear the case. Copyright infringement can actually be a criminal charge and yes, people have gone to prison in extreme cases. I guess that is what you mean by "justice system"? It sounds like you are one of those people with no money and nothing to lose, but I would like to point out that not everyone is like yourself, and some people are actually concerned about being dragged into court or being forced to pay a $1000 per image for a usage fee when they could just have gotten a photo off istock for $1.
When I mentioned 150k, it was from Crusaders thread that included that info. He stated that taking a image that is copyrighted....then you can be slapped for 150k per image....again even I said that his post just scares small people like me. And when you talk about child porn images....thats totally different. That is a totally different law your breaking. And of course, if thousands of sites like those exist, I don't condone it because thousands of sites like those exist...thats just wrong for you to even say. What I'm trying to really say is that, arxidakas is trying to do something that is not too bad of a thing. If his site doesn't generate millions and doesn't have millions of viewers, I'm pretty sure he is safe from being slapped with a fine for what he is trying to do.....and what he is trying to do is something millions of people get away with.
Let me clarify. Under US Law a copyright holder can claim up to a maximum of $150,000 per infringement. This is not to say that they will do so, or that the courts will award that amount to them. It's reasonably complicated, but the amount awarded will be based on the possible damages the copyright holder suffered, and the amount of revenue the infringer generated from the infringement. The $150,000 is the maximum possible amount that can be awarded. From the US Copyright office:
So a "little stealing" is ok? If you don't make a lot of money off what you steal, then it is ok? And a lot of people shoplift without getting caught, so go ahead and do it because "I'm pretty sure he won't get caught". It's illegal. A thousand per image is not a high usage fee. It's not a fine, it's damages for stealing. My neighbor is a pretty famous photographer and sues anyone who uses any of his images (mostly famous musicians) on the web. He has spent far more than he has ever collected - and doesn't care. He sues everyone - from the smallest one page site to a large site. Maybe he only catches 1 out of 10 or 100 - but the one's he does catch learn a costly lesson on stealing something that didn't belong to them. The original poster didn't ask about the chances of getting caught, he asked if it was legal. It isn't and nothing you have posted contradicts that.
I was not trying to point out what he was doing is legal or not. I think the fact that millions of people do this "type of stealing" doesn't make them bad people for doing so. In fact, these people are probably not even aware they are "breaking the law"....and yes I understand your trying to tell arxidakas that what he is trying to do is legal. And yes that is the correct answer. What I'm trying to say is just don't even worry about it. This "type of stealing" is not too bad especially if hes a small fish like arxidakas trying to add something to his site. Even arxidakas, tried e-mailing the owner of the site to ask for permission. If arxidakas does decide to use the image from Site B, does that really make him a cold hearted "theif"? Does it make him your typical robber who steals much more value then just a small image from the net he came across? I believe I'm a good person. I believe in doing what's right. Something like this, I can't see anything too wrong with it , even if it is technically breaking the law. For example, your younger brother turns 18 and wants to celebrate his B-Day by drinking some alcohol at your home....are you going to deny him alcohol because he is breaking the law? Are you the type who follows every law out there? Have you never been in a rush and perhpas run a red that you knew you could still make? You know....when you see it turn yellow, and you gas a bit to make the light...yet in reality the law says right when you see the yellow, you are suppose to prepare to stop. There are so many other examples of GOOD MORAL people breaking harmless laws that I won't even bother typing. And for your neighbor....hes the type who has strong beliefs...and If he looks at the people using his images on the net to be "bad people stealing that deserves a lesson" and is willing to go through all the trouble (court papers, fees, etc) just to pay that person a lesson...well then...hes messed up in the head. For goodness sakes, It'll be a better reason if he was only taking the person to court if he knew he can make $.
well if i created a site c hosted the images there and wrote in that something like : the images are mine and are released freely and i claim no copyrights and then put the images to site A claiming I took them from site C...Would that make site A legal or at least from what I think noone could charge me any accusations since I was "tricked" Site c could be hosted on a free server (geocities or something else) and as a result noone could possibly found out that I did this... Yeah I know this is wrong but I just want an answer...no moral lessons
This could still be illegal. The copyright owner can take both you and "site C" to court since you are still using their images without permission, regardless if "site C" made as if the images were theirs. Many of the people running into issues with Getty images got into trouble after using images they got from other sites (not necessarily Getty images). Getty images doesn't care about that. They invoice you, and it's up to you to take on the source that misled you.
Crusader is correct. A website owner is responsible for the content on their site. You would still be expected to pay for damages. This is why you have to be careful even on images that you find on the net that are supposedly ok to use. You would be responsible for paying damages even if you bought a website with the images or paid a designer who "told you" they had usage rights to the images.
ok guys thanks a lot for the great info ! I guess I will follow the legal way since I don't want to risk even if it's one in a million
I'm not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge there isn't a requirement of the copyright holder having to send a "cease and desist" letter. If they feel strongly enough, and think they have sufficient proof, they can take legal action immediately. Also in the case of images, the photographer can demand usage fees (such in the case of Getty Images) without sending a C&D or any other complaint to the site.