Previous 1 2 3 Next 34 Replies Latest reply: Apr 13, 2012 2:26 PM by Sputnik Slim
Bcondie72 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

I need to know what I am legally able to use for images in my book? Any feedback is greatly appreciated.


iBook, Mac OS X (10.7.3)
  • MichiHenning Level 4 Level 4 (1,350 points)

    You must have copyright on the images, or you must have permission to use them, or the image must be freely re-usable or in the public domain. You cannot just take any odd image from Google and use it.

     

    See the thread below for a recent discussion.

     

    https://discussions.apple.com/message/18028562#18028562

     

    Michi.

  • K T Level 7 Level 7 (23,700 points)

    Your agreement says you must be able to show proof of rights to use should Apple ask.

     

    The bottom line is if you're not sure, don't use any asset - just because you find it on the 'net, doesn't mean you can use it. If you find an image that you want to use, see what the rights are...ask if not clear, and again, if you're not sure, keep looking until you have something you're free to use in your book,

  • Sputnik Slim Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Better not use mine!

     

    There are some sites that have rights-free images that you can purchase, but be careful with those too as all are not created equal...

     

    Rule of thumb is the more you pay, the safer it is to use the images...I think.

  • MichiHenning Level 4 Level 4 (1,350 points)

    Sputnik Slim wrote:

     

    Rule of thumb is the more you pay, the safer it is to use the images...I think.

    Sorry, but that is nonsense. There is one thing only that matters: whether or not you have copyright (or permission to use the image). There are plenty of images in the public domain that cost nothing to use. There are plenty of images that you can use without having to pay a cent, as long as you attribute the image correctly.

     

    There are images you can buy from professional image libraries, and the fee usually goes up as you want more rights to the image .But, to say that an image is safer to use because it is more expensive is simply wrong.

     

    For each image, you need to know whether or not you have the rights you need to publish the image, and that is completely independent of price.

     

    Michi.

  • K T Level 7 Level 7 (23,700 points)

    Sputnik Slim wrote:

    Rule of thumb is the more you pay, the safer it is to use the images...I think.

    At least pay is part of that equation....good point.

     

    We watermark our images and robots notify us if our content surfaces in any inappropriate scheme. A polite email to establish licensing and things are back on track.

     

    Anyone that trivializes this kind of responsibility is hitting the Red Bull a bit too hard You rule on this one, thanks.

  • Bcondie72 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Everyone, thank you! I have been unsure and have not published my book simply because I wanted to get this question answered. I have taken your advice and found a few sites that have free images. Stockvault was one of them. Let me know if I am on track. Thanks again.

  • Sputnik Slim Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I'm sorry, you are wrong. If you buy your images from a legit photo house, you are paying for a photographer that had to take the image and has entered into a contract with said image house. That costs money and the respectable image houses cost much more than guys that glean stuff from the net for free, then sell the images and call them "rights free". The legit houses have also taken the time to make sure they are not selling someone's coprighted image without their consent, and, they have a reputation to maintain. You pay more for the assurance that the image has been vetted, hence the higher cost I spoke of.

     

    Actually, what you said is nonsense (how's that feel?)   ".. the image must be freely re-usable or in the public domain.".  Advising bcondie to jump into the fraught filled world of trying to make sure they have a safe image (or 30) in their first iba book is exactly what they don't need to hear right now. I would imagine that one of the main hold-ups for the iba review process is checking things like 'are the images legal in this book?'

     

    In the film world, one needs to buy E&O insurance specifically to cover boneheaded mistakes like a new partner going on the internet and getting other people's content that has "slipped" into 'the public domain' when it has not, and then using that copyrighted content without permission. It happens.

     

    I stand by my rule of thumb and next time, if you wouldn't mind, lay off the hostilities. To start your reply with "Sorry, but that is nonsense..." is out of bounds. Why didn't you just call me stupid and be done with it?

  • K T Level 7 Level 7 (23,700 points)

    Bcondie72 wrote:

     

    Stockvault was one of them. Let me know if I am on track. Thanks again.

    I think you are - and I applaud you for being conscientious & level headed about it

     

    You'll be fine, I think. Good luck in the store.

     

    Ken

  • Sputnik Slim Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Yeah, it's pretty serious stuff that many seem to think is not all that important. I agonize over decisions to use an image that might be  similar even though I created it. To go clip something off the internet trusting someone on the internet who says it's OK could easily go very wrong.

  • MichiHenning Level 4 Level 4 (1,350 points)

    Sputnik Slim wrote:

     

    I'm sorry, you are wrong. If you buy your images from a legit photo house, you are paying for a photographer that had to take the image and has entered into a contract with said image house. That costs money and the respectable image houses cost much more than guys that glean stuff from the net for free, then sell the images and call them "rights free". The legit houses have also taken the time to make sure they are not selling someone's coprighted image without their consent, and, they have a reputation to maintain. You pay more for the assurance that the image has been vetted, hence the higher cost I spoke of.

    I think you mistanderstand what I said. I said that price has nothing to do with the image being safer to use. I stand by that. An image in the public domain costs nothing and is perfectly safe to use. An image that I might pay hundreds of dollars for from a professional image library might still restrict me to use the image in only a single publication. If I then use that image in a different publication, I'm in breach of my license agreement with the image library, despite having paid hundreds of dollars for it.

     

    What matters is not the price, but the license that governs the use of the image.

     

    Sputnik Slim wrote:

     

    Actually, what you said is nonsense (how's that feel?)   ".. the image must be freely re-usable or in the public domain.".  Advising bcondie to jump into the fraught filled world of trying to make sure they have a safe image (or 30) in their first iba book is exactly what they don't need to hear right now. I would imagine that one of the main hold-ups for the iba review process is checking things like 'are the images legal in this book?'

    If an image is in the public domain or freely re-usable, then it is just that--freely reusable. I never claimed that establishing this is easy.

     

    It can be easy though. Wikimedia makes it easy to figure out for each image under what conditions you can re-use it. But you have to understand what the licenses mean, in particular the consequences of using a "share-alike" license. As with a commercial image provider, you need to read and understand the contract. That's the case for any image source, Wikimedia, commercial provider, or otherwise.

     

    Sputnik Slim wrote:

     

    In the film world, one needs to buy E&O insurance specifically to cover boneheaded mistakes like a new partner going on the internet and getting other people's content that has "slipped" into 'the public domain' when it has not, and then using that copyrighted content without permission. It happens.

    Whenever I use content that I haven't produced myself, it is necessary for me to exercise due diligence in making sure that I can use that content without infringing on someone else's rights. That's just how it is. No surprises there.

    Sputnik Slim wrote:

     

    I stand by my rule of thumb and next time, if you wouldn't mind, lay off the hostilities. To start your reply with "Sorry, but that is nonsense..." is out of bounds. Why didn't you just call me stupid and be done with it?

    No hostility. I didn't call you stupid because I don't think you are, and because it would impolite even if I did.

     

    But I stand by what I said: the price of the image has nothing to do with how safe it is. For example, I could pay lots of money to someone who sells me an image and the appropriate license, only to find out later that they guy who sold me the image didn't have the right to sell it to me in the first place. Even though I've been taken for a ride, it is still me who is now in violation of the copyright owner's rights…

     

    Just because it's expensive doesn't mean it's safe.

     

    Michi.

  • MichiHenning Level 4 Level 4 (1,350 points)

    K T wrote:

     

    We watermark our images and robots notify us if our content surfaces in any inappropriate scheme. A polite email to establish licensing and things are back on track.

    Section 3 (f) of my agreement with Apple says that I cannot add digital watermarks to my content without Apple's approval. It also says that Apple shall not unreasonably withhold such consent.

     

    This seems a bit strange. Why would Apple say that I can't watermark images without me asking them first if Apple then pretty much promise to give permission anyway?

     

    Michi.

  • MichiHenning Level 4 Level 4 (1,350 points)

    Sputnik Slim wrote:

     

    Yeah, it's pretty serious stuff that many seem to think is not all that important. I agonize over decisions to use an image that might be  similar even though I created it. To go clip something off the internet trusting someone on the internet who says it's OK could easily go very wrong.

    The main danger here I think is with protection of designs and artworks. The intent of the law is that it shouldn't be possible for people to create an image of something that is someone else's original creation or design, in effect misappropriating it in the process. You also need to be careful about images of people without getting their permission. It is worse when a publication targets different countries because they often have quite different copyright and intellectual property laws.

     

    Wikimedia has useful summaries of the laws that apply in most countries regarding the use of images, "fair use" provisions, public displays, and the like.

     

    For things that you have made yourself, images of yourself, nature photos, and the like, there usually is no problem. On the other hand, if you want to publish a book about designer furniture, you probably had be very thorough in checking rights for each image.

     

    Michi.

  • janinefromleek Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    MichiHennning is right and Sputnik Sam is wrong.

     

    Saying the more you pay for an image the safer it is is like saying the more you pay for your meal the better it will be. Whilst this can be true, it's not fact. Some of the best food I ever ate was off a street vendor in thailand - compared to a crap meal I ate at a fancy restaurant.

     

    Theres just as high a chance that someone has stolen an image and labelled it as "public domain" as they have put an image on fotolia and claimed they have a model release when they haven't and are charging 100 dollars for it.

     

    Due dilligence is all you need, not one very naive rule of thumb

  • Sputnik Slim Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    OK, next time you get your wrap and a bottle of water off a cart rather than eating in a 4 star with indoor plumbing, just remember that they refill those "safe" bottles of water as many times as the vendor finds empties in the garbage/street. And also, that is the only time they wash their hands (by accident). So chow down on your "safe" dining experience.

     

    "Theres just as high a chance that someone has stolen an image and labelled it as "public domain" as they have put an image on fotolia and claimed they have a model release when they haven't and are charging 100 dollars for it."

     

    Actually, you are 100% wrong. No, there is not. There is not "just as high a chance" for reasons that I have stated. When I post here I am trying to help people, please stop intentionally muddying the waters (there is your cart bottled water again).

     

    "No hostility. I didn't call you stupid because I don't think you are, and because it would impolite even if I did."

     

    To say "Sorry, but that is nonsense." to another poster's response who has taken the time to try and help someone would be at best, impolite, if not down right rude, hence my comment. I'll just bet that you would not say that to me in real life; why here?

     

    A lack of diligence and a casual attitude toward obtaining and using images that you didn't create for your ebooks can be a disaster. In this case, you simply won't get your book published. Worst case you'll get sued if something gets thru and the owner sees it.

Previous 1 2 3 Next