Can you please point me to the verbage in the, say, IS terms of use where it is acceptable to take a watermarked image and use it on your website? I have gone over the terms and conditions of the sites I upload to and do not EVER remember seeing anything about anybody using images for free on their website. If this is something new, I have missed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

The section of US law that deals with fair use is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.

Here's the exact text of the law:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Parody is recognized as a form of criticism and commentary. Here's how a parody might be considered, in light of the four factors above used to determine fair use:

   1. Purpose and character; commercial or educational -- noncommercial, educational, or newsworthy parodies are generally given more protection as fair use under this first factor. However, many commercial parodies have also been deemed to be fair use, as the Supreme Court has held that "a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character".[2]

   2. Nature of the work copyrighted -- this factor has been said to carry little weight in parody situations, "since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works".[2]

   3. Amount and substantiality -- with parodies, a fairly extensive use of the copyrighted work is permitted. Copying is considered in relation to parodic purpose -- a parodist can copy as much as is needed to "conjure up" the original. Even the "heart" of a work may be copied for parody, if it's the heart at which the parody is aimed.[2]

   4. Potential effect on the market -- it is understood that an effective parody "may be so good that the public can never take the original work seriously again".[3] Thus, with parodies, the possibility of destroying the market for the original work isn't measured. Instead, what's analyzed is the potential of the parody to fulfill the market demand of the original work. Since most parodies don't compete with the original works they are parodying, this factor is usually not an issue.

Thanks for posting this site Ivan.  Great laugh! 

And yeah, that picture of my husband eating ice cream is really creepy.  He had me in stitches when we were doing that shoot! 

BTW, also saw the one of Kelly Cline giving the finger.  One of my favorite Christmas images, LOL!

Actually parody or no, they are using the website to make money.  Note Google ads down left column.

Did anyone catch the clown lifting the imaginary barbell on P. 10, and the remarks about that?  Priceless!

I saw the clown with the big giant feet in front of him...is that the one? I didn't notice an imaginary barbell. I will have to go back and look.

LOL, did you see the last picture on badstockart, haha, it's hilarious!

Badstockart has to buy images for the blog from now on. This is what they posted last.

"Well kids, we finally received our first scary legal email from one of our favorite places to find the best stock photography garbage. We had to remove many of our classic favorites. It’s sad, we know. We’ll have to start licensing all of our junk from now on, like this junk here."

Somebody didn't like having their picture on there...

Somebody didn't like having their picture on there...

For real.  I didn't mind having mine on the site, but I am glad they will be licensing them from now on. 

If they are going to make fun of us we might as well get something out of it

Badstockart has to buy images for the blog from now on. This is what they posted last.

"Well kids, we finally received our first scary legal email from one of our favorite places to find the best stock photography garbage. We had to remove many of our classic favorites. It’s sad, we know. We’ll have to start licensing all of our junk from now on, like this junk here."

Cool!

IMHO, the whole fair use thing is just a way for sites to get free stuff. I think it's ridiculous, when a person can get an image for $1 or $2. I am willing to wager badstockart makes money off of their site from the advertising...they can afford it. Call it the cost of doing business.

loved it :-) hilarious site!

What this site is doing looks like 'fair use' to me. Reviewers and parodists have pretty broad rights, especially if they are not using an image for profit.

Right!

Here's one more for the "Blue Collar Worker" search: (honest it was searching just for those three words)



No blue, no collar, not a worker?