Thread: Copyright pictures

My pre-publication book contains several images of famous people.

They are used 'in the passing' as illustrations only. (For example, a picture of Mickey Mouse where I'm saying that Disney is one of the best marketing corporations. another is of Janet Leigh in the 'Psycho' shower scenne, mentioned because the word 'leigh' gets more Internet traffic because of her name etc. Another of Donald Trump, saying what a good brand-builder/businessman her is.)

These images have been 'lifted' from the Internet. I have not sought copyright clearance.

I know that this is technically illegal use, but do members have opinion and/or experience of what the ACTUAL repercussions can be?

Regardless of repercussions, it's wrong. It's not 'technically' illegal it is illegal, plain and simple. To use someone's property without permission is a form of theft. Selling what I write and the photographs I take has been my livelihood, my only way of making a living. If someone uses my work for their profit, it's the same as taking money from my pocket.

There are 'fair use' provisions in the copyright laws, but they don't extend to promotional use for profit. If you need to use those pictures, and if they are not in the public domain, buy the right to use them from the copyright owner.

As for the repercussions, they can be severe depending on who the copyright owners are and their attitude toward the use of their material. When it comes to copyright, the old saying that it's easier to seek forgiveness than to ask permission does not hold true.

Of course you're right. And actually, I agree with you completely!

My reason for asking is the plethora of 'lifted' photos, esp. of celebs on blogs.

I was wondering if there was a general disregard of copyright with so much copyright material, especially photos, being treated as public domain.

Anyway, great input and thank you!

There is a general disregard because there is a general ignorance of copyright law. The copyright holder is likely to forgive the non-commercial use of a picture in a blog, though that gets into the iffy waters of what constitutes relinquishing your rights to a property. It's somewhat like squatters' rights. If you allow someone to squat on your land without doing anything to establish ownership, such as charging a small amount for rent, eventually the squatter can file for adverse possession and claim ownership of the land.

Best thing is to use only what is yours, or what is in public domain, or what you can afford to pay to use.

Any publisher probably wouldn't touch it also.

Originally Posted by garza

It's somewhat like squatters' rights. If you allow someone to squat on your land without doing anything to establish ownership, such as charging a small amount for rent, eventually the squatter can file for adverse possession and claim ownership of the land.

I'm not aware of any country where not pursuing copyright claims can result in loss of copyright; I suspect you're thinking of trademarks.

Either way, using copyrighted pictures without permission in a book is a bad idea.

Trademarks definitely can be and often have been lost. Perhaps there is no such problem with pictures, but I'm not going to take that chance.