Facts About Creative Commons Websites and Copyright Infringment

[clist]

After reading a lot of threads here on ELI and doing some independent copyright law research on my own I have come to the conclusion that basically using anything from the web (unless you have a proof of license purchase) is generally a bad idea.

To my understanding, purchasing a usage license from a reputable website (and having supporting documentation to prove it) is one of the few real ways to demonstrate "good faith" in court should a  copyright holder decide to threaten to take legal action against you for the [illegal] use of their work.

That being said, are there any Free / Creative commons sites that are safe?

Or are they all just a bad idea?

How about sites like Pixabay?

Also, does the DMCA (and/or having an agent) allow Pixabay and other Creative Commons websites to operate in a way that promotes a good service but a potentially bad legal situation for its users while exonerating them from litigation?

Share your thoughts, please.

[Matthew Chan]

I am clearly biased but I would never touch Creative Commons from anyone or any site. It is a non-starter for me.  I think most people who have been ELI any amount of time would agree with me.  Creative Commons is entirely based on the honor system.  Too much uncertainty for me.  Lots of dishonorable people posting and uploading images that are not be theirs.

Not worth the uncertainty or the risk. There are a number of low-cost sites like Canstockphoto or Pond5 to get images to fool around with Creative Commons.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I'm going to disagree with you guys. I think if you are careful about choosing your Creative Commons image providers, you CAN find images that are safe to use. You can also find images that are safe to use that are not under the Creative Commons license but are free to use because they are in the public domain OR the image creators have specified that they are free to use. Some of these require a photo credit, some do not. In many cases the sites rely on an in-house or small group of vetted contributors.

It's funny this post showed up today because I just completed a blog post that specifies free photo resources that I feel are safe to use as long as one carefully follows their rules and documents their sources. It's a long article and a big list, but I would welcome feedback:
http://motioncity.com/news/free-and-public-domain-photo-and-image-providers

Is it possible that you might end up using a photo shared by someone that does not own the copyright? Yes. But I would argue that it is just as possible that you could license a photo for a few bucks from a paid site and they don't have the actual rights to that image either. In both cases you will have to document how you came to use the image and why you believe you had the right to use it. A cheap stock company will offer you a receipt, but they are not going to indemnify you against any legal action. A photo sharing site is not going to indemnify you either, but I would argue that in the event of a claim, you would be able to make a strong case for using the image based on you documenting the site that provided the image.

[clist]

I'm gonna roll with Matthew on this one.

Knowing what I know now ~ Its just too risky.

I believe when you purchase a usage license you have a stronger argument if you find yourself on the receiving end of an extortion letter.

The opposition would have a hell of a time trying to convince anyone of your intent to recklessly download someones copyrighted material and use it without permission when you have a purchase receipt.

That receipt pretty much puts you into the "innocent infringement" category.

Which, as we know from the ELI forums, is not worth pursuing.

The truth is long as these shady extortion business models (and the firms that practice them) are around I strongly believe you are rolling the dice when you use any image that's advertised as "free to use" online.

$.02

[Matthew Chan]

Jerry is a long time ELI community member and very well informed. Even if there is disagreement, no one can say that Jerry's arguments are not grounded or well reasoned.

Let me say this. Everyone has to make their own choices. I am clearly biased but I do err on the side of caution to the point where my websites are often devoid of 3rd-party imagery.

As Jerry says, the few I do use, I try to consider carefully but I prefer images that come from myself, my friends, or entities I know.

For example, movie studios are not litigious towards people posting movie stills, posters, etc. They want their movies to be promoted. And in the few cases they feel that people are misusing their images, they generally send an email warning or notice.  None of this bullshit "no warning, pay or else I sue" stuff.

In many ways, it is safer to use images from larger companies like movie studios than smaller ones who seem so quick to demand money.

[clist]

So check this out.

I was drafting a blog post and needed an image of "money" to accentuate the post. Nothing special, just a generic "money" pic would do.

So, I searched for a "Creative commons - CC0 no attribution required" pic of money...

Boom!

Found one that fits the bill: https://pixabay.com/en/dollar-bank-note-money-finance-941246/

At first glance everything looks legit. User seems credible. Site seems legit. 20k downloads.

So, out of curiosity I ran the image through tineye to see how many hits would come up and viola...

1184 matches:  https://www.tineye.com/search/979c2d9c8d191b7b27e9c8ffc26aba12efa2510f/?extension_ver=

I'm not surprised. Its labeled as "free to use".

However there was one thing that stood out to me.

In the returned results (in tineye) you can tick the box that says: show only the (1) result found in stock.

So I did and it returns a hit at shutterstock: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/dollar-banknotes-1-currency-united-states-682215031?irgwc=1&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=TinEye&utm_source=77643&utm_term=

Out of curiosity I followed that link...

What I found next was very interesting.

The uploaders of the image appear to be 2 different people.

Different names, different countries...

Again, this goes to show you ~ you never know...

Who knows, 1184 people could be receiving extortion letters someday...

BTW: I ended up reaching in my pocket and taking a picture with my cel of a couple of bucks and then ran it thru some filters on Instagram and came up with a very nice high res shot...


Free of charge.

[Matthew Chan]

Wow, great example.  So much fraud out there. Even when one tries to be legit, you encounter suspicious material.