best place to get photos for sites?

[seeker]

I have bought a few DVDs with photos, and know a couple of sites that offer photos for free, but I was wondering which site(s) would you recommend for photo content to use in my websites?

Hopefully not expensive and definately licensed, and with a lot of choice.

Thanks!

P.S.

Or If you know of any good dvds with stock photos that are copyright free, please let me know, the ones I have are too limited for my new sites.

 

[diederik]

www.istockphoto.com

 

[David G]

www.istockphoto.com

That site offers photos for $1.50. It seems quite costly to me for only 1 photo.

What about downloading free images using http://images.google.com/ and checking to see if they are copyrighted. Often a copyright notice will be embedded in the image. It appears very few are stated as being copyrighted.

Another idea is for about $10 you can buy a CD loaded with tens of thousands of images and graphics on eBay and have ownership rights according to what I have seen.

 

[Anthony Ng]

What about downloading free images using http://images.google.com/ and checking to see if they are copyrighted. Often a copyright notice will be embedded in the image. It appears very few are stated as being copyrighted.

ARE YOU KIDDING??! :shocked: :shocked2: :shocked3:

 

[seeker]

Thanks for the link.
It's a great site for content, but a little on the expensive side If you want to add many photos per site.

As far as images from google, I think even without a (c) notice, as far as I know, photos are auto copyrighted by their owners the moment they take them, so I dont think it is an option unless i want a court case, which i don't...

 

[David G]

ARE YOU KIDDING??! :shocked: :shocked2: :shocked3:

I think images being automatically copyrighted (without an embedded copyright icon) is a relatively gray area compared to text and content which are more protected, IMO (I may be wrong of course).

Plus, it depends on the type of website. For example, many educational and government web-sites really do not care about trademarks and copyrights, many do not have any copyright notices at all, and some even actively invite free duplication and have public notices saying it's OK to do so.

Another issue is that if you take a photo of people walking down the street how can you claim that as a copyright when you never even got permission from the people in the photo or stores in the background to use their images?

If this is all so shocking does it seem odd Googles Image site is so popular and Google even offers such a service in the first place?

P.S. I think if you did lots of tough to do research you will find a high percentage of photos and graphics on websites in general (small or mid-size sites in particular) are NOT original and have been 'borrowed' from elsewhere.

 

[Anthony Ng]

I think images being automatically copyrighted (without an embedded copyright icon) is a relatively gray area compared to text and content which are more protected, IMO (I may be wrong of course).

Plus, it depends on the type of website. For example, many educational and government web-sites really do not care about trademarks and copyrights, many do not have any copyright notices at all, and some even actively invite free duplication and have public notices saying it's OK to do so.

Another issue is that if you take a photo of people walking down the street how can you claim that as a copyright when you never even got permission from the people in the photo or stores in the background to use their images?

If this is all so shocking does it seem odd Googles Image site is so popular and Google even offers such a service in the first place?

P.S. I think if you did lots of tough to do research you will find a high percentage of photos and graphics on websites in general (small or mid-size sites in particular) are NOT original and have been 'borrowed' from elsewhere.

:shocked4: :shocked5: :shocked6: LOL! Okay ... seriously though, I guess I'll post a fairly good FAQ here for other newbies (I honestly don't think RealNames belongs to one of them and therefore I'm that shocked). Although it's from Canada, this is basically applicable to most developed countries (not China perhaps):

What is covered by copyright?

To be frank, I SELDOM visit websites which "borrow" images from elsewhere: they are probably amateurs (regardless of size) with less than reliable information of any use.

And by the way, Google is a search engine.

 

[David G]

=nameslave ....to be frank, I SELDOM visit websites which "borrow" images from elsewhere: they are probably amateurs (regardless of size) with less than reliable information of any use. And by the way, Google is a search engine.

How would you know the image was 'borrowed' or not original, extremely unlikely, right?

Plus re Google being a SE, I am sure they realize many (perhaps most) users use www.images.google.com to find and copy images (which do not have the C icon embedded). After all, that is likely the main reason it is so popular a site and why Google offers it, though G will not admit so of course.

Another issue, is why would one not bother to embed the 'C' Icon if they really cared about copyright protection.

Plus, how about answering my question re photos of people walking down a street or photos of objects and buidings, without getting permissions, yet claiming you own the copyright...I don't think so.

 

[Mr Webname]

Suggest a read of the following thread might provide a "sober" view of "borrowed" images:-
http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=51409

 

[David G]

Suggest a read of the following thread might provide a "sober" view of "borrowed" images:- http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=51409

This is like comparing apples to oranges if I am understanding that case correctly. That woman apparently gave permission to one photographer but not the other website who copied it, from what I gather.

When I say image copyrights are a gray area vs text and content I am referring to issues such as you taking a photograph of say a street or sports scene, or of an item/product not owned by you and without specific permission, but claiming your copyright. Obviously if it is in fact your product or owned by you then your photo is also your copyright.

Are you and Nameslave saying in not so many words that if you took a photograph of my car, or my street with my house in the photo, or some misc product owned by me or anyone else, and put it on your webpage that you would own a copyright (without getting the owners permission) by virtue of you taking the photo....I don't think so?

 

[Mr Webname]

Don't think either of us are wishing to develop an argument, merely trying to stop any members feeling the pain that this sort of copyright issue can bring.
If you wish to use photos that are not copyright/royalty free that is up to you - you might get away with it - or you might find yourself in the same position as laskos.
It is your right to engage in self-inflicted pain if you so wish

 

[seeker]

RN,just gave a pro photographer that I know a call and asked, and his answer regarding your example was that if he took a photo of your car or house, he has the copyright of the photo 100%. Now, if there are people in it, he needs something called a model release form...

Any one know of other sites?

 

[David G]

Don't think either of us are wishing to develop an argument....

No one is really arguing, it's just a friendly discussion, let's just discuss the issue as it is important.

Please answer the issue regarding you claiming a copyright on a photo you take of my car, my house, my product, even my wife or kids, without specific permission. I am sure only a very small fraction of images you see on the-web have such permission or are photos of the website owners own products.

I think if you sued for copying such a photo of my property or even possibly someone else's property, the judge would not side with you, regardless of copyright laws, and especially if too lazy to not embed a 'C' icon in the image.

 

[David G]

RN,just gave a pro photographer that I know a call and asked, and his answer regarding your example was that if he took a photo of your car or house, he has the copyright of the photo 100%. Now, if there are people in it, he needs something called a model release form...

That copyright claim may sound valid since it was his photo, but would fail in court, IMO, perhaps I am wrong. Why not simply embed a "C" icon to put the world on notice he claims a copyright?

I have little sympathy for those who do not bother with tm or copyright notices, be it on a webpage or an image. I would never publish a webpage without one myself.

 

[Mr Webname]

Please answer the issue regarding you claiming a copyright on a photo you take of my car, my house, my product, even my wife or kids, without specific permission.

Have you seen any photos from Reuters or other news agencies covering the 9/11 attrocities? Did the photographers ask permission of the people involved, running, falling etc? Do you think you can freely use these photos?

I am sure only a very small fraction of images you see on the-web have such permission or are photos of the website owners own products.

Even if you are right, this does not necessarily affect copyright issues ( see above).



I think if you sued for copying such a photo of my property or even possibly someone else's property, the judge would not side with you, regardless of copyright laws, and especially if too lazy to not embed a 'C' icon in the image.

I think you are mistaken but you are free to experiment.

 

[JuniperPark]

There is nothing "grey" about stealing photos for your COMMERCIAL use. You will be bitch-slapped of the photographer (ie copyright-owner) finds out.

You think $1.50 is too much to pay for use of high resolution, cataloged, indexed, retouched, model-released commercial use photograph??? You're joking, right?

"Newsworthy events" are specifically excluded from model release requirements, but no, you cannot steal photos of newsworthy events for your personal use either, except those shot by a government agency. The NASA photos are public domain, for example.

 

[David G]

Just curious, is your motorcycle avatar really you and your bike? If not, do you have permission to publish it?

I wonder the same thing about most of the avatars used at the forums? Are they all in the public domain or perhaps covered by copyrights somewhere?

P.S. Forgot to say I am asking this regarding Mr. Webname.

 

[David G]

Have been actually referring more to graphics rather than photos, again I go back to the issue of if you value it so much why not take a few seconds and embed the 'C' Icon in it.

I would never dream of using such an image with the copyright notice on display. Since most images on the-web are likely not truly owned by the website how can one assume they are in fact copyrights of that website without any actual notification?

 

[seeker]

You think $1.50 is too much to pay for use of high resolution, cataloged, indexed, retouched, model-released commercial use photograph??? You're joking, right?

It's not unreasonable i guess, but i dont want a high resolution super duper photo, just a nice collection of JPG's.

Let say i am developing around 100 sites (which I am), and quite a few of those specialized ones need on the average about 30 photos. Some may need more.
I am just trying to see what more options are available.

 

[David G]

It's not unreasonable i guess, but i dont want a high resolution super duper photo....

Right, very few webpages need top quality high resolution photos for a fee. A small website with only 30 photos would need to spend $45 at the site mentioned earlier. Multiply that by a 100 sites and it's a lot of money. Still another point is the high quality photos will take much longer to load than avg quality jpgs/gifs, slowing down your site considerably.

As I said before, simply go to eBay and for pocket change you can buy all the graphics and photos you want (probably not top quality high-res, but fast loading), many of them even come with ownership and even resale rights. For example, just found these eBay offerings:

25,000 VECTOR CLIP ART & PHOTO IMAGES about $8.
100,000 WEB IMAGES -Websites-projects about $8
Clipart - brand new and sealed - over 25,000 images about $10.
WEB Clip Art LIBRARY 100,000+ Images Fractals GIFS CD BIN $10.

Plus thousands more, including targeted ones such as all London or LA or Vegas or sports only, etc. Amazingly cheap and easy availability.

Zillions of graphics you see on the-web originate from sources like that so it's tough to automatically assume they are covered by copyrights lacking an actual C icon in the graphic or photo. For example, I would venture a guess that many of the Avatars used here by members could be claimed as a copyright by the originator but are wrongly thought to be in the public domain.

Please do not misunderstand me about this as I strongly support most copyright and trademark law. I am definately not saying it is OK to copy all images/graphics you see on websites in general, only saying it's a grey area lacking actual TM and Copyright notices on the sites. Again, it goes back to the old issue as to why the publisher is too lazy to embed the 'C' icon in the graphic so we know it is claimed as a copyright.