Author Topic: Can watermark images be legally used in articles? (Read 17092 times)

rushay · « **on:** May 25, 2018, 04:10 »

I am sure this image was not purchased hence the visible watermark. Could this be considered a infringement?

http://www.thefamuanonline.com/news/view.php/1033479/Are-dreadlocks-appropriate-for-the-workp

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2018, 04:50 »

Yes, it is. It's funny because Getty will let you use images for free if you use their tool to embed the image.

rushay · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2018, 05:02 »

That's sh*tty, imagine when digital mediums are the only medium and everyone just embed a image.

unnonimus · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2018, 05:26 »

no, it is not an infringement to use a photo for editorial purposes. if you write an article and use a photo that the article has commentary on, then you can use any photo in the world, and you do not have to pay for it. it falls under "Fair Use" in copyright law. and you can get the photo on google images, and you can download the photo from a stock agency, even if it is watermarked, and you can get the photo from someone else's web page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
fair use
noun
(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2018, 05:38 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 25, 2018, 05:26

no, it is not an infringement to use a photo for editorial purposes. if you write an article and use a photo that the article has commentary on, then you can use any photo in the world, and you do not have to pay for it. it falls under "Fair Use" in copyright law. and you can get the photo on google images, and you can download the photo from a stock agency, even if it is watermarked, and you can get the photo from someone else's web page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
fair use
noun
(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.

As usual, you're only quoting the bits which suit your agenda, the 'under certain circumstances' limits fair uses more than you'd think. And Fair Use is only in the US (why are you always so parochial?) Here in the UK (for example) we have 'fair dealing', where the conditions are stricter than you would imagine:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
For example, as a teacher, I could use files for my lessons or for assemblies, but not e.g. to project during concerts to which the public was invited.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2018, 06:52 »

And he’s also just wrong. If it were an article specifically commenting on the photo, it would have fair use claim, possibly. Just grabbing a photo to use as filler or to illustrate the commentary is infringement.

dpimborough · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2018, 08:38 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 25, 2018, 05:26

no, it is not an infringement to use a photo for editorial purposes. if you write an article and use a photo that the article has commentary on, then you can use any photo in the world, and you do not have to pay for it. it falls under "Fair Use" in copyright law. and you can get the photo on google images, and you can download the photo from a stock agency, even if it is watermarked, and you can get the photo from someone else's web page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
fair use
noun
(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.

You should just stick to figuring out how to take photos and which lens to buy

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** May 25, 2018, 09:23 »

Again, perpetrating the “fair use” nonsense. If that is considered “fair use”, there wouldn’t be any need for stock agencies! Our images are for sale.

unnonimus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 25, 2018, 09:31 »

you said: " Just grabbing a photo to use as filler or to illustrate the commentary is infringement."

no it isn't. (not in the US). in the US you can use any photo worldwide for editorial purposes, for educational purposes, for commentary, etc. you will come into problems if you use the photo in advertising without securing rights.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** May 25, 2018, 12:16 »

Uh, no.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/1-2-million-lawsuit-shouldnt-steal-photos-twitter/

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** May 25, 2018, 12:57 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 25, 2018, 09:31

you said: " Just grabbing a photo to use as filler or to illustrate the commentary is infringement."

no it isn't. (not in the US). in the US you can use any photo worldwide for editorial purposes, for educational purposes, for commentary, etc. you will come into problems if you use the photo in advertising without securing rights.

I presume you are here as a photographer who is interested in selling photos, microstock or otherwise. Why are you so hell-bent on defending thieves and perpetrating this “fair use” nonsense? If you want to hurt your own chance of sales, that’s your right. But to keep defending people who are too * cheap to spend a couple of bucks to use an image is hurting those of use who are trying to make a living. What the heck is your problem.

Ug. Never mind, I see you are trolling other threads too. Just looking to cause a ruckus?

unnonimus · « **Reply #11 on:** May 26, 2018, 09:52 »

sean, you are wrong and I am right.

the article you referenced was not fair use, and was not an editorial use, it was a commercial use which clearly is a violation of the DMCA, and has nothing to do with the original poster.

"which were then taken and used by Agence France-Presse and Getty Images as their own,"

Noedelhap · « **Reply #12 on:** May 26, 2018, 10:35 »

In case of the dreadlocks article, it's infringement because the watermarked photo is used commercially to enhance the article. The writer/website should have paid for it.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** May 26, 2018, 14:09 »

Sigh.

Anyone taking ^^’s advice can feel free to send them the bill from your subsequent lawsuit.

Otherwise, remember ‘fair use’ applies to a tiny set of usages. And this isn’t one of them.

unnonimus · « **Reply #14 on:** May 26, 2018, 15:13 »

you said: "In case of the dreadlocks article, it's infringement because the watermarked photo is used commercially to enhance the article"

this is NOT infringement. the image is being used for editorial purposes. it is not a commercial use.

unnonimus · « **Reply #15 on:** May 26, 2018, 15:26 »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors

"the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favour of the defendant, Arriba Soft. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the statutory four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution as the original artwork was." ... the court found that the thumbnails were fair use."

the use of watermarked images is Fair Use as explained above.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** May 26, 2018, 15:30 »

Nope.

That’s for that specific use of providing search results. Please, just stop.

unnonimus · « **Reply #17 on:** May 26, 2018, 16:10 »

you said: "Otherwise, remember ‘fair use’ applies to a tiny set of usages. And this isn’t one of them."

the use is considered fair use because it is for editorial purposes, and the use of the watermarked version has been upheld in court to be fair use because the watermarked version does not have commercial value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
"The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work"

in this case, the use of a watermarked image does not prevent the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. this is fair use.

memakephoto · « **Reply #18 on:** May 26, 2018, 16:43 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 26, 2018, 16:10

you said: "Otherwise, remember ‘fair use’ applies to a tiny set of usages. And this isn’t one of them."

the use is considered fair use because it is for editorial purposes, and the use of the watermarked version has been upheld in court to be fair use because the watermarked version does not have commercial value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
"The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work"

in this case, the use of a watermarked image does not prevent the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. this is fair use.

I was going to ask where in the world do you get your ridiculous ideas on legal issues but now I see. You're quoting Wikipedia, which is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and historically considered unreliable for accuracy.

You are dead wrong on "fair use" as usual. Stop posting your pseudo-legal nonsense, you are not an authority.

edit removed

unnonimus · « **Reply #19 on:** May 26, 2018, 16:51 »

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use

memakephoto · « **Reply #20 on:** May 26, 2018, 16:56 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 26, 2018, 16:51

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use

edited from above post:

While fair use includes news reporting (the one thing you got right) in this case the photo is not part of the story but simply a companion to make the story pretty. We know that because it's stock. It's obviously not related to the story in any real way. There's no attribution, no comment, critique or parody it's just there to add colour to the article.

So it is not fair use. You have a tenuous grasp of the concept at best so stop making these claims as if you're a legal expert. You don't even preface your misinformation with "in my opinion" you state it as if it's fact which only leads to more misinformation. Stop it.

unnonimus · « **Reply #21 on:** May 26, 2018, 17:12 »

re: "We know that because it's stock. "

Copyright laws are written by the federal government through the legislative branch. The judicial branch interprets the laws.

anything that a stock agency says is not law and not interpretation of law, and has no legal precedence whatsoever.

American citizens are under no obligation to follow the desires of stock agencies unless the stock agencies are in compliance with federal laws.

the use of this dreadlock photo is fair use. we know this because the news article is about dreadlocks, and the photo is dreadlocks. under the fair use doctrine in the US, the photo can be used without permission from the copyright holder, and without payment to the copyright holder. in addition, the watermark on the photo is transformative and fair use, as upheld in court.

unnonimus · « **Reply #22 on:** May 26, 2018, 17:16 »

you said: " in this case the photo is not part of the story but simply a companion to make the story pretty."

no, the photo is part of the story.

cathyslife · « **Reply #23 on:** May 26, 2018, 17:21 »

Quote from: memakephoto on May 26, 2018, 16:43

Quote from: unnonimus on May 26, 2018, 16:10
you said: "Otherwise, remember ‘fair use’ applies to a tiny set of usages. And this isn’t one of them."

the use is considered fair use because it is for editorial purposes, and the use of the watermarked version has been upheld in court to be fair use because the watermarked version does not have commercial value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
"The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work"

in this case, the use of a watermarked image does not prevent the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. this is fair use.

I was going to ask where in the world do you get your ridiculous ideas on legal issues but now I see. You're quoting Wikipedia, which is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and historically considered unreliable for accuracy.

You are dead wrong on "fair use" as usual. Stop posting your pseudo-legal nonsense, you are not an authority.

edit removed

Exactly. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Is that where you got your law “degree” from unnonimus? 😂 Please just stop.

memakephoto · « **Reply #24 on:** May 26, 2018, 17:22 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 26, 2018, 17:16

you said: " in this case the photo is not part of the story but simply a companion to make the story pretty."

no, the photo is part of the story.

Oh my bloody god. A stock photo is a generic image. That's kind of the definition. An image used in an article just to provide colour is not related to the story.

FAIR USE:

A guy takes a photo of a dog being beaten and puts it online. It goes viral and news agencies pick it up and use the photo in an article. The photo IS the story. Fair use.

NOT FAIR USE:
An online newspaper uses a generic stock photo of dreadlocks to accompany a human interest story on dreadlocks in the workplace. The only relationship there is between the photo and the story is the photo happens to contain dreadlocks. Not fair use.

I realize you still don't get it. You never will. You will go on poisoning the internet with your blather but perhaps someone else will read this and understand.

memakephoto · « **Reply #25 on:** May 26, 2018, 17:36 »

Furthermore, the only way ANY stock photo could be used without payment as fair use with any news article is if the photo itself is the centre of the story.

Imagine you took a photo of a model and sold it through i-stock to a company that uses it in an ad campaign. It's discovered, through that use, that the model is a wanted fugitive. That makes the photo news and news agencies can use it without payment because it's the centre of a breaking story. That's fair use.

You still don't get it do you?

unnonimus · « **Reply #26 on:** May 26, 2018, 18:33 »

you said: "the only way ANY stock photo could be used without payment as fair use with any news article is if the photo itself is the centre of the story."

wrong.

http://archive.cmsimpact.org/sites/default/files/documents/pages/principles_in_fair_use_for_journalism.pdf

"USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF STARTING OR EXPANDING A PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF NEWS"

"The use of copyrighted material to promote public discussion and analysis can qualify as fair use. "

"The use of textual, visual and other quotations of cultural material for purposes of reporting, criticism, commentary, or discussion constitutes fair use. "

unnonimus · « **Reply #27 on:** May 26, 2018, 18:50 »

copyright law is designed to give the copyright owner the right to earn money from his work. its all about protecting your right to profits.

however, it has been determined that some uses are more worthy than your right to profit. the general education of humanity, the newsworthiness, and the right for people to create new works have more legal precedence than an individual's right to profit from his creativity.

the original post falls under the case of newsworthiness and supercedes the copyright holder's rights.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** May 26, 2018, 19:08 »

“Imagine you took a photo of a model and sold it through i-stock to a company that uses it in an ad campaign. It's discovered, through that use, that the model is a wanted fugitive. That makes the photo news and news agencies can use it without payment because it's the centre of a breaking story. That's fair use.”

Yes. This. The story is literally about the image itself.

unnonimus · « **Reply #29 on:** May 26, 2018, 19:19 »

imagine that a guy wants to write a story about dreadlocks. he gets a copyrighted image with a watermark on it of a person who has dreadlocks, and uses it to illustrate his news story. that is fair use.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #30 on:** May 27, 2018, 05:24 »

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
"Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors to resolve fair use disputes, as discussed in detail below. It’s important to understand that these factors are only guidelines that courts are free to adapt to particular situations on a case‑by‑case basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination, so the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict." Oddly enough Courts often apply a test of reasonableness. So it could end up being tested in Court....good luck

memakephoto · « **Reply #31 on:** May 27, 2018, 07:57 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 26, 2018, 19:19

imagine that a guy wants to write a story about dreadlocks. he gets a copyrighted image with a watermark on it of a person who has dreadlocks, and uses it to illustrate his news story. that is fair use.

If what you are saying were actually true one would have to question why stock agencies even allow editorial images or any images for that matter. There would be no money in it if anyone could use a photo with even a tangential relation to a news article for free under the fair use clause. Why are there editorial photographers at all? Why are there paparazzi? Why would anyone chase down celebrities in a car to get a photo if anyone could use that photo for free by associating it with a "news" article.

And if it were technically legal, which it's not, it still raises ethical questions. News agencies don't report the news for the good of the world, they do it for money. News is a business and I would not trust any news source that believes they should be able to use photos for free while generating income from their news articles.

Ultimately, I think you realize you're wrong. I think you knew it several posts ago but are maintaining this farce because you don't want to admit you're wrong. Which makes you a troll. I won't waste anymore of my time on you. What I might do though is track down your portfolio and start using your images for free. As fair use of course.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** May 27, 2018, 08:30 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 26, 2018, 19:19

imagine that a guy wants to write a story about dreadlocks. he gets a copyrighted image with a watermark on it of a person who has dreadlocks, and uses it to illustrate his news story. that is fair use.

No, it isn’t.

unnonimus · « **Reply #33 on:** May 27, 2018, 14:49 »

you said: " one would have to question why stock agencies even allow editorial images or any images for that matter."

whether something is editorial comes from use. stock agencies do not know how the buyer is going to use the image, and it is therefor it is wrong for a stock agency to declare an image as for editorial use because the stock agency is at the point of sale, before it is used.

all photos can be used for commercial purposes, and all photos can be used for editorial purposes. again, it is the point at which it is used, not the point of sale, that makes the determination. some agencies do not classify photos as for editorial use only, so they do not create the market confusion as to whether something is editorial or not.

last of all, editorial use is only one of many conditions whereby a photo can be used under Fair Use. declaring a photo as 'editorial only' at the point of sale (which is what stock agencies are doing) is a mistake.

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** May 27, 2018, 15:00 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 27, 2018, 14:49

you said: " one would have to question why stock agencies even allow editorial images ...
whether something is editorial comes from use. stock agencies do not know how the buyer is going to use the image, and it is therefor it is wrong for a stock agency to declare an image as for editorial use because the stock agency is at the point of sale, before it is used.

You really haven't a clue.

The point of declaring a file as 'editorial only' is so that the buyer needn't waste their time considering that image if they need to use an image commercially. So the agency is helping to protect the buyer and photographer, as well as covering their own backs.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #35 on:** May 27, 2018, 15:51 »

“Last of all, editorial use is only one of many conditions whereby a photo can be used under Fair Use. declaring a photo as 'editorial only' at the point of sale (which is what stock agencies are doing) is a mistake.”

Good lord. Declaring it “editorial” is because it comes with a specific set of rights and usage allowances that is different from the commercial license.

Please, just stop.

unnonimus · « **Reply #36 on:** May 27, 2018, 16:26 »

you said: "The point of declaring a file as 'editorial only' is so that the buyer needn't waste their time considering that image if they want to use an image commercially."

only the buyer can determine what the use is. the seller cannot.

second, there are non-commercial uses that are not editorial only. the licensing system created by many stock agencies is confusing, and doesn't even apply to every country's laws worldwide.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #37 on:** May 27, 2018, 16:27 »

I give up.

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** May 27, 2018, 16:33 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 27, 2018, 16:26

only the buyer can determine what the use is. the seller cannot.

Many buyers would prefer not to be sued, and would be grateful for an advance headsup, though some take the risk and (presumably) hope they won't be discovered.
I've had to take up several editorial-only images from iS being used commercially, because I, also, would prefer not to be sued. I haven't the time, money or inclination for that circus.

unnonimus · « **Reply #39 on:** May 27, 2018, 16:38 »

you said: "because I, also, would prefer not to be sued"

why would you be sued? you can legally sell almost any photo that you take. you would not be liable if the buyer uses the photo in an infringing way, and neither would the agency that facilitates the sale. there is a near zero percent chance that you will be sued for selling stock photography.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #40 on:** May 27, 2018, 17:09 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 27, 2018, 16:38

you said: "because I, also, would prefer not to be sued"

why would you be sued? you can legally sell almost any photo that you take. you would not be liable if the buyer uses the photo in an infringing way, and neither would the agency that facilitates the sale. there is a near zero percent chance that you will be sued for selling stock photography.

Hey, can you give me the URL to your portfolio? I'm writing a news article but I don't like paying for images, so I would like to use one of yours for free. Completely editorially of course. Surely you don't mind?

unnonimus · « **Reply #41 on:** May 27, 2018, 17:19 »

you said: "Surely you don't mind?"

no I don't mind.

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** May 27, 2018, 17:31 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 27, 2018, 16:38

you said: "because I, also, would prefer not to be sued"

why would you be sued? you can legally sell almost any photo that you take. you would not be liable if the buyer uses the photo in an infringing way, and neither would the agency that facilitates the sale.

How would the buyer know they were infringing if the image weren't designated as 'editorial only' in the agencies where that works, or 'no releases' in the agencies where that is the designation?

Quote

there is a near zero percent chance that you will be sued for selling stock photography.

Au contraire, e.g.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/20/greeting-card-teasing-gets-this-farmers-goose

rushay · « **Reply #43 on:** May 28, 2018, 04:05 »

a response to my tweet from Pixsy ,
"Replying to @rushay @GettyImages
Hey! Fair use varies by jurisdiction but we would say no, this doesn't qualify. Fair use for news reporting is for topical news stories. Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions - Hannah

Noedelhap · « **Reply #44 on:** May 28, 2018, 13:00 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 27, 2018, 17:19

you said: "Surely you don't mind?"

no I don't mind.

Could you give me your portfolio URL then?

cathyslife · « **Reply #45 on:** May 28, 2018, 13:15 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 28, 2018, 13:00

Quote from: unnonimus on May 27, 2018, 17:19
you said: "Surely you don't mind?"

no I don't mind.

Could you give me your portfolio URL then?

Yes, please post it. We all could use some free images to use for whatever we think is “fair use.”

cathyslife · « **Reply #46 on:** May 28, 2018, 13:17 »

Quote from: rushay on May 28, 2018, 04:05

a response to my tweet from Pixsy ,
"Replying to @rushay @GettyImages
Hey! Fair use varies by jurisdiction but we would say no, this doesn't qualify. Fair use for news reporting is for topical news stories. Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions - Hannah

This article is kind of on this same subject.

https://blog.photoshelter.com/2018/05/he-said-no-fox-news-used-his-images-anyway/

noodle · « **Reply #47 on:** May 28, 2018, 15:31 »

This guy must be the biggest troll out there, and he’s just sitting back and laughing

ShadySue · « **Reply #48 on:** May 28, 2018, 15:40 »

Quote from: noodle on May 28, 2018, 15:31

This guy must be the biggest troll out there, and he’s just sitting back and laughing

He absolutely is and I'd block him, except I hate to think that some poor newbie might actually believe his drivel.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #49 on:** May 29, 2018, 09:04 »

Quote from: rushay on May 25, 2018, 04:10

I am sure this image was not purchased hence the visible watermark. Could this be considered a infringement?

http://www.thefamuanonline.com/news/view.php/1033479/Are-dreadlocks-appropriate-for-the-workp

The first answer from Sean was the right answer, the rest of this discussion has gone into and absurd distortion of the facts by one U person.

Allowed for non-commercial use, a small size image, obtained from Getty... with the Getty watermark embedded. Getty allows this for non-commercial use, like a news story. Since 2014

https://www.gettyimages.com/resources/embed

Yes it's legal.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #50 on:** May 29, 2018, 11:34 »

https://petapixel.com/2018/05/29/he-said-no-fox-news-used-his-images-anyway/

cathyslife · « **Reply #51 on:** May 29, 2018, 11:42 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 29, 2018, 11:34

https://petapixel.com/2018/05/29/he-said-no-fox-news-used-his-images-anyway/

Beat you to it. See reply #46. 🙂 I have a friend (also my former college professor) who worked for AP and traveled with Pres. Reagan as staff photographer. He posted it. His comment...”hope the settlement is huge.”

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #52 on:** May 29, 2018, 12:05 »

Quote from: cathyslife on May 29, 2018, 11:42

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 29, 2018, 11:34
https://petapixel.com/2018/05/29/he-said-no-fox-news-used-his-images-anyway/

Beat you to it. See reply #46. 🙂 I have a friend (also my former college professor) who worked for AP and traveled with Pres. Reagan as staff photographer. He posted it. His comment...”hope the settlement is huge.”

Yes to both and in that case list link, the lowest of low "appropriation artist" who there are a few doing this, they pay nothing and transform images. What a sack of...

CJH Photography · « **Reply #53 on:** June 05, 2018, 23:44 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 25, 2018, 06:52

And he’s also just wrong. If it were an article specifically commenting on the photo, it would have fair use claim, possibly. Just grabbing a photo to use as filler or to illustrate the commentary is infringement.

Plus the whole image is hardly "a brief excerpt." Low resolution images may be OK. This is an interesting article on the subject: https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Can watermark images be legally used in articles? (Read 17092 times)

dpimborough

memakephoto

memakephoto

memakephoto

memakephoto

memakephoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors