Copyrights, do you take it seriously?

[Goat of Departure]

If you've been to design class you probably know and have gone through a few lessons about design ethics and all that other stuff about copyrights. Now we're all at some point guilty of copying and possibly stealing somebody's work or idea, but when it comes to this kinds of things do you take it seriously?

There's been a lot of horror stories regarding copyright infringement and most of the time it doesn't end well for either the copier and the one being copied from. When you're designing websites or just plain graphics, sometimes we might need some images, do you just grab them from Google Images and hope for the best or do you actually buy the rights to the image before you use it?

 

[xTinx]

If I need to use images for a particular design, I go to sites offering stock photos or photos with a creative commons license. That way, you won't be sued for illegally downloading images and using it to further your own ends. Stock photos and those tagged under creative commons are free for everyone to use.

 

[Azareal]

Realistically, they probably won't go after you. There are likely to be thousands upon thousands of other sites using the exact same image on a countless number of pages. In short, it's just not worth going after each and every one.

If you were distributing them then, that might be a different story. Even if they go after you, they will probably just ask you to take it down. I'm not saying that violating copyright is a good thing, but with images in particularly.. The costs of enforcing it are astronomical.

If you're in doubt then, just ask the creator and tell them what you intend to do with it.
You'll be surprised by how many times they just agree.

 

[cyberpuppet]

I take it very seriously - but then I have photographs on a stock site and have written articles and know how much of my sweat went into them.

As far as stock sites and creative commons licences - please check the exact licence for each piece because the photographs I have on stock sites are most definitely not free to use.

As for enforcement there are several non profit groups that work to protect members copyright by pooling resources. These mean that even an ordinary individual can chase people abusing their copyright without it costing them a fortune in legal fees. If a site has advertising revenue coming in then someone is making money. As for if a huge number of sites are using it where did they all get it from - ten to 1 there is a single place most of them have in common and that site can be done for distributing.

For your own piece of mind please make sure everything you use is either in the public domain (just because it comes up in google results does not make it automatically public domain) or get the licence even if that means paying a couple of dollars (most stock sites will not be much more depending on exactly what licence you want although if you go exclusive that will cost).

 

[net_zen]

To avoid any unpleasantries down the line I either buy the rights for the images I'm using, and most times that's cheap, or I'm modifying said images into oblivion to the point no one will recognize them. This is especially important, I think, if you're developing for clients - some of them cover the costs of a purchase themselves but for those that don't I include it in the general expenses associated with the project.

 

[Kleineganz]

For my business site, I always pay for the rights of the images I use across the site and in my blog posts. For my personal sites, I generally just grab stuff off Google Images.

 

[Michael]

Not really, if they ask me to take it down, then I will. Mainly cause I don't want them to file a lawsuit.

 

[wallcat]

Copyright is something that I really worry about. It's not clear to me what the rules are. I remember when I was new to web development I use to email people to ask for permission to use their images. Photo gallery pages would include text on the bottom linking to where the images came from. Nowadays I notice that a lot of people seem to put whatever videos or images they like on their blogs with no concern to who they belong to. I put a video on mine and then realized that I was suppose to have permission for it (although on You Tube I think you can disable the sharing link if you don't want anybody to use it.) I'm not as strict on myself about it as I probably should be, but I do prefer to use as many of my own images as I can and will give credit where it's due. I suppose if I ever get caught out I'll just immediately remove the image and hope the case will be dropped.

 

[pwarbi]

When it comes to copyright infringement, I think we have to take it seriously because it only takes one company or one individual to throw a lawsuit at you and that could shut your site down, or put you out of business for good.

I wouldn't like it if a site used any of my work without at least giving me credit, so I make sure that I don't do the same to anybody else. There's enough material around these days that isn't copyright protected so in my opinion there's no excuse for using something that is.

 

[PenguinManiac]

The bigger your website grows, the more attention you should pay to copyright: some people are just waiting for an infringement to jump all over your site. This is why I accurately check any source before using it.
Nowadays, copyright laws are even stricter than before, considering how many scandals have occured on Youtube because of them, so I'd rather not play with fire and avoid using copyrighted material altogether, but if I have to, I'll promptly put tons of disclaimers at the end of the article (or even on the website's footer).
So, yeah, you can say I take it seriously.

 

[Tania]

I take copyright infringement pretty seriously. There are enough free image sites that allow commercial use, even unattributed, that there's no reason to use someone's images without their consent. The other problem is the damage caused to the creator if google decides the copier is the main page or has a higher ranking.

I've been the victim of it too often, so now I have zero tolerance for it. I found the important thing about handling it is to make sure that it always ends worse for the copier than the person they copied from. Now I used copyscape to protect some of mine, and it has been necessary. I have had work 'borrowed' - for example, an entire site copied and put on wordpress. I notified the author, left a public comment, and when the site was still up in a week, I notified wordpress who pulled his account. The real irony is that I had released a whole set of Creative Commons material on the same topic that he could have used without an issue.

 

[Fueledbycaffeine]

You always should, at the very least out of respect of the graphic designer or the photographer who made that image or that graphic. Being a hobbyist photographer, I also have been a victim of it (thanks to a few shady facebook pages) and the lack of tools you have is just appalling in that sense. I can't imagine just how often and how bad it is for professionals on those fields, and how much potential revenue is lost there on lengthy, hard work.

 

[spence88]

I take it seriously. There is a line, of course. But where that line is, depends on you. You have to draw a line somewhere. Maybe up to the point where your conscience bugs you?

With your example, if I take or use images from Google Images, I will find out if the owner reserves the right, requires permission to use, etc, then I will take the necessary actions afterwards. But I've already made it a habit that I will give credit to the owner regardless of whether it requires credit or not. I not only do that with my site, but also to everything else (like when uploading videos which contain wok of others to my YouTube channel)