[Macworld]

Post your comments for The finer points of finding free images here

[waaronw]

Thank you, James, for the article and the useful links. I do wish you could have delved a bit deeper into the "commercial" vs "non-commercial" uses of these images. I think it's important to realize that there really aren't universally accepted definitions of these categories, and the expectations of artists can vary widely. For instance, is it a commercial use to include an image on a blog alongside Google ads? Some would say yes, others no. In fact, Creative Commons recently sponsored an in-depth survey to try and judge what people considered commercial use, the results of which I am eagerly awaiting. It's complicated, and as a user of any of these images - in particular ones released under licenses that are not very well defined - one should be prepared if the owner of the image disagrees with the use of the image.

[mrob]

How Google Images is not mentioned in this article is a head scratcher.

[Felix001]

@mrob

"How Google Images is not mentioned in this article is a head scratcher."

Seems to me the story's advice "So when you find that perfect image or piece of vector art on a Web site, and they say it?s free to download, be sure to check for license and restriction notices before using the artwork." pretty much covers Google images as well as any others.

Or are you referring to the public domain images Google's crawlers have indexed?

[dewey123]

As a commercial advertising photographer, we try to make it very clear what is concidered commercial, or "editorial" as opposed to non-commercial. The purchasers, i.e ad agencies, marketers etc are the ones that seem to think there are wide and varied definitons to this. There is a broad range of "USAGE RIGHTS AND FEES" however that we use for commercial usage. If an image is used to help sell, promote market or advertise anything, then it is commercially used. If an image is used to help convey a story or an article and used ONE TIME in ONE PUBLICATION in ONE SPOT, then that is editorial. A commericial image is negotiated as to how much it is used and a price that is fair for that use.

On a blog site, the image could be concidered editorial use, and no charge or a comparitively small fee charged; even if there are google ads on the page. However, if an image is used in connection to the google ad, or for the google ad, then that is commercial, and there should be a fee charged, and it will be more than editorial usage.

Bear in mind a very key point, everyone. As a photographer, I hold Copyright on every image I make. If I catch you using one of my images for anything, by Federal law I can sue you for Copyright infringement and take you to federal court and collect upwards of $14,000,000. The minimum as set by the Federal Government is $1500 per image, and per infraction. So please, please educate yourself on Image Usage, Usage Rights, Copyright and what is really "free".....since in reality there is no such thing.

Register as a Corbis or Getty Image user,(it's free to do), find a image you like, and go through the 'price image' process, and see for yourself what we potentially can make from an image, repeatedly if we are lucky!

http://www.gettyimages.com

http://pro.corbis.com/

[mrob]

I think if you are trying to make a living as a photographer that posting your pix on web sites that practically beg people to steal them isn't a good business plan.

And good luck collecting on 14 million in damages.

This whole "debate" smacks of the music industry's battle--which they appear to be losing as well.

[rab777hp]

google images is not a source for images, it is not a web site, it is a search engine, which can take you to web sites, once there, you can do whatever leg work mentioned above, in checking licenses, etc.

[rab777hp]

If someone uses your licensed work without respecting you license, and they are discovered, you can sue, people win money in damages from this all the time, just the ones you hear about are the stalemates of suing and counter-suing.

[Philbert]

"This whole "debate" smacks of the music industry's battle--which they appear to be losing as well."
Not even close. I think you're confusing copyright and DRM which are completely different things.
"And good luck collecting on 14 million in damages."
If the images are registered with the copyright office (which is easy to do in bulk), don't think it doesn't happen.
http://seattlepi.nws...olawsuit09.html
-phil

[mrob]

Potato, potahto.

[rab777hp]

???????

[dewey123]

"I think if you are
trying to make a living as a photographer that posting your pix on web
sites that practically beg people to steal them isn't a good business
plan."

Couldn't agree with you more, but photography is one of the least understood 'businesses' out there, and we are some of the largest parties that makes it worse, as you mentioned. It isn't a good plan, but as a photographic educator as well, very few professional photographers actully has a plan to begin with.

As far as the $14,000,000 goes, that would be difficult, but attainable. There are several case law suits that have attained that ammount, although rare, this is concidered the cap. It isn't easy your right, since even our own court system and judges don't fully understand and cannot standardize "usage and value" of, well, art and imagery. It's intellectual and creative property, and everyone knows how hard it is to define a realistic value on that. At the very least, I know that I can get you for $1500, and it's easier to get that in court!

It is a lot like the music industry, only there are no true organized unions or associations that pull that much clout like the music companies like RCA, Sony, Virgin, etc. Those corporations drive everything, rights, pricing usage etc. As a contrast, it's some of the artists that are driving the changes in getting their work into as many venues as possible, like RadioHead. We don't have that; we have the opposite! We have ASMP, PPA, APA and others trying to represent us/members, lobby for us and continue to educate everyone on value, usage, fees and pricing. We as photographers need to get on board and learn for our selves what our imagery is worth.

Truth be told, there are more people that will rationalize buying a cheap image or free image that is of truly poor quality and style/design/creativity than people that would think it though and license an image of high production, creative and visual quality. I, as a business, market to them, and get paid a lot more for it, and work less. Work smarter:not harder.

[mrob]

Best post of the thread.

Good luck to you!

[dougoftheabaci]

You forgot everystockphoto.com which searches Flickr's CC images, Stock Xchang... And a few other guys. One-stop-shop.