Is it OK to upload Royalty Free photo for a parked page?

[PowerUp]

Hello, I'd like to know if it is OK to upload Royalty Free photos obtained from sites like Getty()Images onto my park pages if the parking service (such as Bodis) which provides us to custom our own image.

 

[GILSAN]

Hello, I'd like to know if it is OK to upload Royalty Free photos obtained from sites like Getty()Images onto my park pages if the parking service (such as Bodis) which provides us to custom our own image.

Sure you can. flickr is another great place to get photos from, which you can use at Bodis in case the custom images don't match your domains name.

GIL

 

[PowerUp]

Sure you can. flickr is another great place to get photos from, which you can use at Bodis in case the custom images don't match your domains name.

GIL

Have you read that Virgin is being sued for using a photo from flickr?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[GILSAN]

Have you read that Virgin is being sued for using a photo from flickr?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Very interesting article, though it appears it may not be Virgins fault and could also be the temptation of milking a high profile company. From what I understand you can use tons (though not all) of photos from Flickr without any problems. Correct me if I'm wrong.

GIL

 

[PowerUp]

Very interesting article, though it appears it may not be Virgins fault and could also be the temptation of milking a high profile company. From what I understand you can use tons (though not all) of photos from Flickr without any problems. Correct me if I'm wrong.

GIL

I don't know. But from reading the article, I gather there are 2 issues.
1. Getting permission from the people featured in the photos.
2. Commercial use.

Is parking a website deemed commercial use?

While individual domainers may not have the deep pockets, but the parking companies could be rich and therefore could be a target in the lawsuit since the parking companies do indeed financially benefit from the parked pages.

 

[GILSAN]

I don't know. But from reading the article, I gather there are 2 issues.
1. Getting permission from the people featured in the photos.
2. Commercial use.

Is parking a website deemed commercial use?

While individual domainers may not have the deep pockets, but the parking companies could be rich and therefore could be a target in the lawsuit since the parking companies do indeed financially benefit from the parked pages.

Large companies are always good targets for lawsuits and it appears that in the U.S. it's much more frequent than in Europe. I'm especially remembering the medical lawsuits that have resulted in astronomical medical costs for Americans in comparison to Europe.

Is parking a website deemed commercial use? that's a hellava question. I would think yes. Perhaps someone here at NP would enlighten us on this question.

Have you tried StockXchange at www.sxc.hu ? Thats another good alternative and relatively cheap.

GIL

 

[mbuna]

If an image is in a royalty free collection you may use it. I would not use anything from Flickr unless the author expressly states that the images may be used for any reason.

Copyright laws state that you own the copyright on your work, even if you do not state it with the work.

Just because someone posts a photo on a website does not mean that it is public property. I have successfully defended my photos from unauthorized use by others when they took them from my websites.

 

[enlytend]

Photos with people who are recognizable need an accompanying release before they can safely be used on a web site. Stock photo sites (like iStock or Getty) require that the photographer submits a copy of the release with the photo. Sites like Flickr don't.

Royalty-free photos from stock sites are USUALLY safe to use on a website - but not necessarily on something you plan to re-sell, like a template (you may need to purchase a different license for that)

You can sometimes find useful public domain photos on wikimedia commons - there are a lot of US govt images on there (if they were created by a US gov't employee as part of their job, they're in the public domain). But a lot of other photos there have limitations on their use, so read the accompanying license statements before you download!

 

[Kenny]

I think this would be better answered in the Legal Forum.

Moved

 

[Peter]

Some photos on flickr are released under the creative commons license.

http://flickr.com/creativecommons/

A part of this license is that you are free to use it in any way (except directly making money from them).

The following is a brief description that flickr give:-

Briefly...

Attribution icon Attribution means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit.

Noncommercial icon Noncommercial means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work - and derivative works based upon it - but for noncommercial purposes only.

No Derivative Works icon No Derivative Works means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.

Share Alike iconShare Alike means:
You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

Going with that I would say a parking page is acceptable as long as you credit the original photographer/artist when using the image.

Before you use an image from any such service ensure that you know what license the image is released under and what that license entails.

 

[r72gs]

Is parking a website deemed commercial use? that's a hellava question. I would think yes. Perhaps someone here at NP would enlighten us on this question.

From what I've read on this forum, a parked page does not count as first use in commerce regarding trademarks. It sounds as if the opposite may be true regarding royalty free photos.

I'd like to know the answer as well.....

 

[enlytend]

A parked page has ads from which you hope to profit - that's a commercial use.

Trademarks and copyrights are two different things.

Bottom line: Always read the fine print. Image licenses, Terms of Service, etc. ... yes its a lot of really boring reading but you should always know what you're agreeing to!

 

[OctaneInv]

If an image is royalty free, then YES you can use it, and not worry about it.

Royalty-free describes material (typically graphics such as stock photography and , but also sound such as music loop samples) that may be used for profit, without paying royalties

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty free

“Royalty-free” is a type of a stock photo license that provides for the unlimited use of a photo in any media

Source: stockphotography.uv.ro/en/dictionary.html

I had to investigate this issue previously, for my non-web based business. I'm not getting into details but we had some people nagging on us for using "their" sound in one of our public slideshows. We won the case as it was proven "Royalty Free" and deemed useable by anyone for anything!

Ryan

 

[Mike]

A photographer's work, just like the work of any other artist, designer, singer, etc. is protected. I don't think that their protection ends just because an image is used on a parked page.
Any parked page should be seen as a site that's commercially used, after all, the owner is generating (or attempting to) money.
So, if you combine these two "Protected Image + Commercial Use", yeah - i'd think that this could lead to problems. The question is just, who's to be held liable? The Domain owner that uploaded the image or the parking company that permitted the upload and didn't verify whether the image is protected ... or both?
Somehow i can see the parking companies put in a check tab where the domain owner needs to check off whether he owns the rights to the image...

IB