Sign in to follow this  
calvinnme

A question for people who put images in their posts

10 posts in this topic

How do you know they are copyright free? I'd love to do that with some of my posts, but most sites do not say whether an image is copyrighted or not. Thanks for your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

How do you know they are copyright free? I'd love to do that with some of my posts, but most sites do not say whether an image is copyrighted or not. Thanks for your time.

A lot of the ones I use come from TCM's database. So if I'm on Google, I will key in "Henry Fonda TCM" or "The Grapes of Wrath TCM" (as an example). I figure if the image comes up on Google and it's from the TCM database or Shop TCM, then it's an image they can use. Since I'm basically reposting those images back on TCM's message board with my text, it shouldn't be a problem. I don't think TCM's database and shopping pages will use images illegally. Make sense?

And one thing I do is I usually sharpen them on my computer using iPhoto, because it's surprising how many of the images are slightly distorted or unclear. I may even adjust the contrast and add some whitening around the images so they look a bit more artistic. So in a way I am recreating the image.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any issue, as long as you are not creating a product to sell or using it for marketing purposes.  In general, the Fair Use Doctrine covers small portions of published items for educational, critical, and commentary uses.  If you are finding images that are from personal collections and are unpublished, then that wouldn't be covered. 
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/fair-use-law.html

In the radio world, Fair Use has historically allowed for small samples.   For instance the occasional 20 second or so segment, chosen among a pool of various other segments, for bumper music rotation would be ok.  Or as an included sound byte in a news segment or otherwise informative piece would be ok.  On the other hand, a repeated use every day such as for theme music or product placement would require a royalty fee, or playing a song in its entirety would require a royalty fee.

There are a few websites which host vintage pictures, one of which is owned and operated by a lawyer.  As a hobby he basically scans in advertisements from old magazines and other published works, and calls the scan and cleanup work his.  If I am not mistaken, I think he sells prints of these as a side venture.  He says he probably wouldn't have a problem if others used his scans, but at least communicate with him first.  I messaged him but he didn't reply back to me in a timely manner,  so I kept looking, and with just a little effort I managed to locate even higher resolution pics elsewhere and without stipulation (it was obvious to me they came from different sources because they had source material flaws which were located on different areas of the same image).

In the broader scheme of things and unrelated, once something gets released out onto the Internet, it will always be out there.  The cat has been let out of the bag.  There is no undoing it, and people do need to be careful about what they put out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An awful lot of these pictures actually end up on a google image page..their homepage may say can't be downloaded, but that's just from that page... you can embed from google or Pinterest.  I use Pinterest to 'route' photos from other sites and from my own computer ..you can cut or edit a picture, send to pinterest, then just copy here...easy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Facebook there was a page I followed dedicated to a 40s child star. Someone from the group lived in Los Angeles, and he would go into museums on Saturdays to examine private collections. He found a lot of old photos featuring that star, many had never been published before. He made copies with his phone, which might have been a copyright infringement. Then he'd go home and clean them up on his computer and post them on that Facebook page. Those images do come up in a Google search.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

might have been a copyright infringement.

I don't see how it could be, unless they actually had every picture copyrighted...I would think the people in the museums would see it as expanding the interest in their exhibits--they know everyone can't come to LA to see it, and this gives the whole world a chance to view the museum's work.  Think of how many photographs of great artwork there are.. obviously, we can't all own them, and to me it's just a way of sharing...as long as the person isn't making a profit from another's work, what's the harm?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, shutoo said:

I don't see how it could be, unless they actually had every picture copyrighted...I would think the people in the museums would see it as expanding the interest in their exhibits--they know everyone can't come to LA to see it, and this gives the whole world a chance to view the museum's work.  Think of how many photographs of great artwork there are.. obviously, we can't all own them, and to me it's just a way of sharing...as long as the person isn't making a profit from another's work, what's the harm?

Only copyright infringement if it is a copyrighted/published work.  Otherwise infringement of one's privacy or unpublished work - a less punishable offense, as we see using the Google example.  They harvest images out of anything that can be crawled (ie. everything that has a publicly accessible link).  It is up to the owner to take recourse at that point.  That creates problems for many people, the only real way around it is for websites to bury assets on password protected pages, so they can't be harvested by search engines.  The Facebook example presents a systemic problem for personal privacy.

P.S. Didn't mean to go off on a privacy tangent, but that is where all this eventually leads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

On Facebook there was a page I followed dedicated to a 40s child star. Someone from the group lived in Los Angeles, and he would go into museums on Saturdays to examine private collections. He found a lot of old photos featuring that star, many had never been published before. He made copies with his phone, which might have been a copyright infringement. Then he'd go home and clean them up on his computer and post them on that Facebook page. Those images do come up in a Google search.  

Probably not under any obligations, being that it is a museum piece.  It might come back to their private collection policy.  Not sure if the owner would agree though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MovieCollectorOH said:

Probably not under any obligations, being that it is a museum piece.  It might come back to their private collection policy.  Not sure if the owner would agree though.

I need to correct my earlier comment. I said museum, but I should have said library. I believe the poster on Facebook found a lot of photos in the private collections at the Margaret Herrick Library. I've never been there, so I'm not sure what their rules are. When I lived in Los Angeles, I used to go to the UCLA special collections, usually to read old film and TV scripts. UCLA had a service where you could pay for photocopies of the scripts. If you didn't pay for copies, then you could look at them without charge in a reading room. I remember the reading room was freezing cold and sometimes it was easier just to pay to get copies of pages I could take home to read. Obviously, the material on those pages could not be used for profit; in those days you signed a form indicating you were using the materials for research and educational purposes.

Since I was not interested in photos, I never asked what their policy was about that. I think in the case of the guy on Facebook, he was just trying to fill in gaps. Like what was going on in the young star's life when she was not on screen, because she had periods where she wasn't making movies and was on stage or involved with the war effort. He was just trying to give people on Facebook a broader understanding of her life during those years. And most of the photos were great, because we had never seen them before and it was like a whole piece of history now being made available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2018 at 3:40 PM, calvinnme said:

How do you know they are copyright free? I'd love to do that with some of my posts, but most sites do not say whether an image is copyrighted or not. Thanks for your time.

You need the copyright to show a movie on TV. I wouldn't think you would need one for an internet profile. :unsure: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us