copyright infringement of images

[gnojham]

so, was just reading something pretty scary. not sure if i am overreacting.

i get images from google, typically i use search tool to find images marked for re-use.

was reading this article:

hxxp://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/

 

and another that have me worried. not that that i am yet churning out websites just yet, but i hope to be in the near future.

i am fine with using stock image sources, but im just wondering, how risky is it to use random images?

 

also, how do they even track the images? if i donwload an image, and save it with some other file name and then upload it to my site, is it still trackable? seems like a stupid question, but i have to imagine it is otherwise it would mean people are just downloading images and not changing the file names at all?

 

thanks

 

[Mike Friedman]

Anything is possible. That story sounds like an example of a douchebag company existing for one reason. That reason is just to sue people. It's like the patent trolls. 

 

It happens all the time though. If you visit a popular forum, you will likely find tons of users with avatars that are technically in violation of image copyrights. It just comes down to who wants to enforce them.

 

All of that being said, just use a stock photo site and buy the rights to the images you want to use.

[gnojham]

One of the articles i was reading (can't recall if it was this one or another) said Getty images for example required the site owner to have permission. So even if you bought the image rights and used it on a client site, the client would need rights. Yikes.

[gnojham]

I'm still curious about how they can track the images...

[Mike Friedman]

I'm still curious about how they can track the images...

 

This is one way.

 

https://images.google.com/

 

Hit the camera button and upload an image.

[Jill Carpenter]

Sort of related:

 

If you want to see if an image is being used all over the place you can add tineye to your firefox browser or just go to their site. 

 

It's fun to use on sales pages to bust who all are using the same stock images - or find if someone is trying to steal your images.

[yukon]

so, was just reading something pretty scary. not sure if i am overreacting.

i get images from google, typically i use search tool to find images marked for re-use.

was reading this article:

hxxp://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/

 

and another that have me worried. not that that i am yet churning out websites just yet, but i hope to be in the near future.

i am fine with using stock image sources, but im just wondering, how risky is it to use random images?

 

also, how do they even track the images? if i donwload an image, and save it with some other file name and then upload it to my site, is it still trackable? seems like a stupid question, but i have to imagine it is otherwise it would mean people are just downloading images and not changing the file names at all?

 

thanks

 

 

 

In most cases Google reverse image search will show a list of webpages that include a specific image.

 

However...

 

After reading the OP question I was curious how Google reverse image search would respond to a site that blocks Google bot from scraping images hosted on a site. I have one site where I block Google bot from only images.

 

I pasted one of my blocked images into Google reverse image search & got a page that has the text below (no images returned).

 

The URL doesn't refer to an image, or the image is not publicly accessible.

 

 

The URL I pasted into image search was an image URL (.png) so I know the 2nd part of the Google response was why Google didn't return an image.

 

I'm in no way suggesting anyone take images they don't have a right to but as you can see If you block Google bot from an image file type Google does respect that & doesn't return the image on a reverse image search.

 

Example, I can block Google from any specific image file type (ex: jpg, png, gif), it doesn't have to be every single image hosted on a site. So... for instance I could block Google from high resolution images (.png) & only display lower quality images on the SERPs (.jpg) since Google already scales SERP images down to thumbnails & to save on bandwidth when Google bot is scraping my site/s.

 

My advice is either buy image rights from stock photo sites or use public domain images.

[yukon]

Sort of related:

 

If you want to see if an image is being used all over the place you can add tineye to your firefox browser or just go to their site. 

 

It's fun to use on sales pages to bust who all are using the same stock images - or find if someone is trying to steal your images.

 

I just tested that tineye image search, they do the same as Google reverse image search. I tested the same image URL & get the message below:

 

 

URL could not be reached.

Suggestions:

Make sure that you are submitting a valid page or image URL

Check that the URL has been correctly typed, if applicable

Make sure that the URL is publicly accessible (e.g. not password protected)

TinEye may have timed out trying to access the URL, please check that it is reachable

The website's server may be down, or it may not allow access to bots

 

 

That makes me wonder If tineye image search is using a Google Image API.

 

BTW, the image URL is valid (copy/paste directly from live image traffic can see) so I know both bots are respecting my .htaccess code that blocks them from my self hosted images.

[yukon]

This is one way.

 

https://images.google.com/

 

Hit the camera button and upload an image.

 

 

That does work for the same image I tested with submitting image URLs to Google reverse image search.

 

I tested the same .png I'm blocking Google from on my site. I downloaded the image to my PC, renamed the image, uploaded the same image to Google Image search & Google returned one instance of the same image with the original file name. In this case I was the one who posted the .png on a niche forum.

 

So... technically downloading the image & uploading the same image to Google image search is the only surefire way of using Google image search for checking up on stolen images. The image reverse URL search is flawed for traffic since I can block Google bot from indexing images.

 

Keep in mind any image file type can be blocked & still rank the same page where the image is live for traffic.

[hughsaffar]

I am not sure how Google determines the usage right (guessing it should be EXIF), but under the Search Tools, you can select the usage type. For example 'Labeled for reuse with modification'

[gnojham]

...but under the Search Tools, you can select the usage type. For example 'Labeled for reuse with modification'

right, thats what i was talking about in the op

i will probably stick with stock images, i dont know if images marked for re-use means anything in terms of me not getting sued.

[Darren]

You need to be very careful when using Google's advanced image search for re-usable images. As they admit, themselves:

 

 

Note: Before reusing content, make sure that its license is legitimate and check the exact terms of reuse. For example, the license might require that you give credit to the image creator when you use the image. Google can't tell if the license label is legitimate, so we don't know if the content is lawfully licensed.

 

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/29508?hl=en

[MetaHelix]

If the site making money why not just pay for images, if it's not making money why bother with images at all. Images can be found using things like https://www.tineye.com/

[HeySal]

You need to be very careful when using Google's advanced image search for re-usable images. As they admit, themselves:

 

 

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/29508?hl=en

Of course, you need to read the rights on anything you use before you post it......but - it's also smart to get a screenshot of those rights so if anyone does ever contest your usage, you have proof that you acted on written permission to do so. 

 

Then too - if you have a 32 pix or better camera, it doesn't hurt to take your own.  Original content is original content.  I use my own photos whenever humanly possible. Not only do I not have to worry about copyright.........I also get the exact image I want and my viewers never end up wondering about me because they've seen the image all over hell and back. 

[Art Moran]

Aside from using public domain images, even places like Pixabay which I use often, makes me wonder if the person who submits the  'upload' on Pixabay did not own the image to authorize 'public domain' sharing rights... How the hell would I know?

 

Personally, I never just grab Google images - but to skirt buying tons of stock photo's I do use a lot of "so-called" public domain images from Pixabay, Morgue files, and Wikipedia, etc..

 

In fact, I just found this on Wikipediea: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Free_media_resources/Photography - if you click on say #3 General Collections and scroll down it lists like 100 sites that offer Creative Commons CC0 (Public domain) use photos. On this link alone there's 100's of CCO (public domain) photo listings.

[Jack Gordon]

For all of the information you could possibly want on this topic, Google the phrase "Getty extortion letter"

 

I was involved in one of these disputes some years ago, and they are intimidating and stressful, but in the end not that hard to "win" (if you define winning as not getting sued).

 

Better to be informed and avoid the problem altogether though.

[JamesAlmeida]

Ignorance is not an excuse. If your website is earning, why not pay for a paid images.

[Guest]

Aside from using public domain images, even places like Pixabay which I use often, makes me wonder if the person who submits the  'upload' on Pixabay did not own the image to authorize 'public domain' sharing rights... How the hell would I know?

 

^^^ This...Exactly!

 

The only really safe way is to use  a paid, stock photo site - I've been preaching this for years on end. I learned a long time ago that "Free" images are questionable at best and in many cases, you want to make sure they're free for commercial use, not just personal use. 

 

I also totally agree with HeySal - whenever possible, take your own images

[Jason S]

Another thing to remember is that Getty Images bought a lot of the smaller co's out there so make sure you have a license to use the image

 

As Getty has a tribe of workers troll the websites for images and sending out pay up letters

 

Jason

[Rob Whisonant]

Companies like getty have several tools and ways to track images. Plus, these tools do not honor any noindex, nofollow statements.

 

1. EXIF data contained inside the image file

2. The CRC checksum of the image

3. Pattern matching software that looks for specific patterns in the image

 

I'm sure there is more ways but these 3 will catch just about any image used.

[Art Moran]

^^^ This...Exactly!

 

The only really safe way is to use  a paid, stock photo site - I've been preaching this for years on end. I learned a long time ago that "Free" images are questionable at best and in many cases, you want to make sure they're free for commercial use, not just personal use. 

 

I also totally agree with HeySal - whenever possible, take your own images

 

Yeah, I've been considering using GraphicStock(.) com as they charge like $49 per month, but they offer an annual "unlimited" downloads plan for  like $99  per year.

 

I could kick my own ass for letting the New Year's deal slip away... it was LIFETIME  downloads for a one-time payment of $49 (*Hoping they run that promo again!)

 

[Edit]

 

Ok, so I was browsing Graphic Stock's business images, and recognized several I have downloaded and used, or already have on my hard drive from Pixabay. Now, Pixabay has people who have been long standing contributors and who (claim the rights) to distribute these images as CCO (public use) for personal and commercial use...and evenstill, I cannot help to feel;

 

If I downloaded these images under the fair use act or CCO (public use) rights being granted by the Pixabay 'contributor' - wouldn't the potential 'law suit' punish them... moreover than(lil' ol' ignorant)  me?

 

Seriously though, someone buys a stolen item from Craigslist... it doesn't make the buyer a thief... or - in a more relative example:

 

if a person (such as myself who) believes; the CCO (public use) license is valid over at Pixabay granted by the (so-called) contributor/providor/distributor... shouldn't that be a defense enough alone to determine; my lack of intent to support any copyright infringement issues, was genuine?

 

Hell. I am an artist too...I don't want illegal copies of my shit flying around the internet for free either!

 

Granted, these are all legal 'Mumbo-JUMBO's' that almost require a degree to understand, so while I get the fact, claiming ignorance is NO EXCUSE... I am NOT the one distributing these as Royalty FREE images or passing commercially licensed (public use CCO) rights to the public.

 

Again, I agree with Big Mike...Buying them is definitely the smart choice, and yet, if I am getting the same images from Pixabay that are being sold on Graphic Stock...WTH would I pay someone who is getting them from Pixabay? ..and in turn, charging me to remove their watermarks!!!

 

OK, I'm confused... should've went to law school....I just don't get it!