How to use this Page

How scary. Okay, heading over to my blog to remove pictures. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you so much for sharing this! I think it's easy to get lax with using photos, so good to be aware!

Wow, that's scary. I'm going to go remove pictures from my blog right now.

A friend from twitter posted your blog. Thanks for the information. I have to go through my blog now. I don't know how long it'll take, but I appreciate the information.

Wondering if this applies to including quotes on your blog. Last night on my I quoted Ted Geisel. Listed it as his quote and all, but should I take it down? Anyone know?

Which is why P&E requires authors to provide their own banners or cover scans for use on P&E in the new books section. We do try to always respect copyright even though others have used some of the editor's written work elsewhere and some of those should have known better, especially when it's a newspaper. So please take the guest blogger's advice and akways respect copyright.

This has worried me ever since I started blogging some even years ago so I have never used an image - and that includes videos -without the agreement of the creator. The one photo on I have used came from a friend and I have her agreement in writing.

Would popular .gifs widespread on tumblr from TV shows and films need to be taken down? I've seen that stuff duplicated and recreated all over tumblr, and people don't seem to care much, but I wonder how safe it is if you were to post one on your blog...

I think book covers on review blogs would be okay though.

It's really sad that an innocent blogger can get into so much trouble over a picture. But I understand where the owner of those photos are coming from :P

Great points here about copyright, and I'm sorry to hear that you had to learn the hard way. Just wanted to bring to your attention that (ironically) you've miscredited that quote to Oprah, when credit is due to Maya Angelou.

Roni, I'm sorry you had to go through all of that! Thank you for spreading the word to the rest of us.

I'm sorry this happened to you.

While the photographer was legally in the right to ask for a huge sum of money because you used his photograph, I think he is an absolute jerk to do what he did.

Well, Anonymous, I supposed I'll be anonymous as well and tell you that the photographer was asking for payment for the use of his services. We don't go to the gas station and use their gas then call them jerks when they ask us to pay for it. If we unknowingly pump gas, we still have to pay for it. It is sad that the blogger had to pay money that she didn't have, but as she says, she was in the wrong. My work gets stolen and used, and whenever I can track down who is stealing my images, I also ask for compensation. It is fair to be paid for my work and my time creating my work. I am glad that she is spreading the word so that others don't make the same mistake and break the laws.

Roni, thanks so much for sharing this. I'm so sorry for what you've had to go through. As an attorney, I can imagine how stressful and expensive it's been. It's making me glad I don't use Pinterest though I wanted to sign up.

This article is really worth reading, it has too much details in it and yet it is so simple to understand, Thanks for sharing the picture it has great detail in it and i really appreciate your true artistic work!


High School Diploma

Thanks for sharing this. I tend to stick to my own pictures and book covers (if I'm blogging a review). Boy, am I glad of that now.

Pinterest is very worrisome, and I have been considering not using it at all. It could get very tricky...

Yikes!!! Thanks so much for posting this. I had no idea either. I should tell my daughters about this. They're constantly posting pics to their Tumblr's. I'm afraid their allowance will not cover legal fees.

Thanks again!

Does anyone know if reblogging on Tumblr counts as infringement? I have only been on it a few months but read that reblogging is fine since it links to the original blogger. If that is not the case, I don't want to reblog ever again! Thoughts or knowledge on the subject?

Thanks for the great post! I'm going back through my blog now! And sorry you had to learn the hard way. I'll take your advice and learn from you.

I agree with Anon 1:45am. You use their work, you should pay compensation for it. The only thing jerkish about this situation is infringing on another artists work.

I'm sorry this happened to you, Roni Loren, and that you had to learn the hard way. This is something I learned during my first semester of college when we learned how to use the Internet and find credible sources. We also learned a little about copyright and what we can and can't use without permission, so I've known this since my first days of college and have never forgotten that information. I use images that are explicitly free from free image sites or I take my own photos, photoshop them, and use them (which I love to do).

I've seen many writers ask these types of questions about pictures and song lyrics and quotes from other books, etc. My answer to them is to ALWAYS consult a lawyer. NEVER get your legal advice from some random stranger on the Internet or from someone who's not an Intellectual Properties attorney. If the layman giving you advise is wrong then YOU'RE going to be the one being sued, not them. But alas, most people ignore my advice, mostly because they probably can't afford to consult a lawyer or don't want to put in the effort to do so. I can't say I care, because I won't be the one getting sued, if it ever happens to them.

Alas, lesson learned in Roni Loren's case. Unfortunately, it's the hard way. I'm wondering if it cost more to pay for the use of the photos (and lawyer to solve it) than it would have been to consult a lawyer beforehand.

I have to agree with the "absolute jerk" comment above, although I would substitute "colossal" for "absolute," and possibly follow it up with something about his petti- and greediness. At any rate you're welcome to use any of my photos from my Flickr page for your blog posts, if that helps.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvinsloan/sets/72157626623623983/

As an artist AND a writer, I've had my illustrators used and posted without my permission, well, constantly. There's one on tumblr with tens of thousands of reblogs. Is there any credit to me on it? No. People have tried to fix it by adding notes to the bottom or links to my site, but the reblogs come from the journals who don't give credit. Worst of all, the image was altered (severely cropped), so it's not even an entirely complete piece! I've yet to report it (I've done that with other heavily reblogged pieces with no credit to me), but it bothers me so, so much when I think about it. Because when I post my own work, I get a dozen or two reblogs at most. That's it. Imagine if credit was on the picture getting circulated in front of THOUSANDS of pairs of eyes. Frustrating doesn't even begin to cover it.

Unless someone's benefiting monetarily from illegally using my illustration, or they've used it in promotional materials or invitations or something else much greater than a blog post, I would never, ever demand compensation. I've known professional designers who were also in a situation where their work was used without permission, but they usually warn first, and only sue if the person does not cooperate or has used it and made money.

Still, in an age of Pinterest (which I despise because, again, I get a lot of pins without credit) and Tumblr, it's good to make people aware that credit goes a long way. And better still does permission. (I do hold most of my art within creative commons licensing so people are free to use it for non-monetary gain but, again, for every generous, thoughtful person are ten people who take my work and do whatever they want with it.)

Tumblr is not simply a free stock photo site, and neither is Pinterest.

Great that you've shared this. It's a minefield out there knowing what's free to use and what's not. I take thousands of my own photographs and usually use those, but it is too easy to grab a google image. Strangely I've found some of my images on google images. How did that happen?

Anyway, I've been contacted by google a couple of times - once when I'd had a picture up a year ago. So there are a couple of scary groups whose job it is to scour the blogs etc for copyright infringement. So it's a great idea to take down even old blogpost pictures as you've done.

Oh I see the dreaded Captcha Codes, grr.

Denise

Im sorry it was wrong to post a copyrighted photo...but it was taken down and no harm was done. He wanted an obscene amount of money and got exactly what he wanted. Its called greed. You dont want your photos being displayed by others properly display that they are copyrighted oh and maybe keep them off the internet. Just saying. You dont want it shared then dont put it out there to be shared. Theses opinions are mine and solely mine. Sorry I think it is a bunch of bs. Going after someone for money when they put themself in the place to have their stuff displayed via internet.

Thanks for sharing! I rarely use photos, but this is definitely worth being aware of.

What always bugs me about this type of story is that it makes no sense for most owners of a photo to get upset that someone used it in a non-profit blog, because it basically serves as free advertising for the owner. I myself have discovered artists that I have gone on to buy prints from due to first stumbling across one of their pics on a blog. If that pic hadn't been there, I may not have ever discovered the artist.

Would I want someone taking my entire novel and posting it somewhere? Right now I don't mind (I have it posted myself on Authonomy) but when I'm a published author I wouldn't be as happy. BUT, I would be thrilled if anyone excerpted my novel in their blog posts, as I would see that as free advertising, not as ripping me off.

This question has always worried me as it's so difficult to get the definitive answer on what you can and can't use and there is no question, blog posts do look more inviting with some illustration. So, I really appreciate the post and am off to work out what is, and isn't, safe to leave up.

It would be so much easier if search engines had some simple device to show what was free to use and what wasn't. I've been working off the theory that I could use it if it wasn't water-marked but I realise, now, that this was a little naive.

Many thanks to Roni and all concerned for the post.

Anonymous 7:03 PM,

you said: "You dont want it shared then dont put it out there to be shared."
What makes you think that the photographer was the one who put it out there? Just the fact the the photo is available on the internet doesn't mean that the owner put it there; on the contrary, comments above show that photos are often copied without the owner's permission or knowledge.

Also, may I ask how you reached the conclusion that: "He wanted an obscene amount of money and got exactly what he wanted."

Ms.Loren wrote only that "He wanted compensation for the pic. A significant chunk of money that I couldn't afford." The fact that she couldn't afford this sum of money doesn't necessarily mean that the photographer was asking an unreasonable amount for the use of one insignifcant photo; he may well have been asking for his usual fee for allowing his work to be used, many sucessful professionals can and do charge significant amounts for their work.

Since Ms.Loren does not deny her liability, I am assuming that the legal debate was to settle on a fair and reasonable amount of compensation. Perhaps the photographer was asking for too much, perhaps he was too angry about the unauthorised use of his work to see Ms.Loren's side of the argument, perhaps he even wanted to make an example out of this, so that it wouldn't happen again.

If the last is true, it certainly worked. If the whole thing had stopped with Ms.Loren's taking the picture down, if she hadn't gone through this worrisome and expensive process, would she be making such a point of warning others?

Fabulous post. Personally, I've never posted anything other than personal photos, book covers of guests (and mine, of course), and photos taken and provided by guests illustrating their blogs. I'm not tech savvy but even if I was, I wouldn't use any other images for these very reasons.

I find this whole thing completely ridiculous. I just deleted thousands of pictures from my blog because of this BS. What about all those sites that do nothing but post pictures found on the internet..why are the photographers going after them?

If you post a picture online you should EXPECT it to be copied and posted at other places. A blogger should not be able to be sued for thousands of dollars for posting a picture they found online.

I loved the thought of everyone posting free pictures that they have taken with their cameras for their own use. Or even free pictures they have used from different sites.
Ones that won't get us into trouble if we reuse them. I can see a page on Pintrest with "all these pictures that are here can be used by the permission of the creator."

Aah, if only someone would start the share page.

Moi? I'm an absolute computer illiterate and still trying to figure out how Pintrest and Good Reads work.

Any volunteers? We can spread the word and ask for free pins on FB.

Or maybe this is a stupid thought.

I think the photographer was greedy and should have been satisfied when Ms. Loren took down the photo. Personally, I think copyright laws are the terrible combination of way too strict and sporadically enforced--the online equivalent of a speed trap.

The photographer needs to find a better way to make revenue, rather than hunting down bloggers and suing them. How petty. Or get a different job. Or realize times are a-changing and the internet is a place where ideas are freely shared. The blogger wasn't stealing your work--she was promoting it. And her intentions were good. To the photographer: be a better human being and have some understanding for fellow artists who are also not rich and trying to share their vision with the world.

*sympathy cookies* Roni.

I admit that I'm a little perplexed that so many advocate copyright infringement on pictures/photos/illustrations. Just because it's on the Internet does not mean it's free to use.

As an author, I would be upset if someone was posting my novels, in part beyond fair use or in whole, without my permission. I would NOT look at it as someone promoting my work--especially if they also failed to attribute it properly.

So many authors get upset by literary pirates, why shouldn't artists get upset when people pirate their work?

One of my goals in writing is to be able to earn enough to support myself. Why on earth should I get a different job or feel complimented (or promoted) if someone steals my work? What's good for the artist is good for the author. Shouldn't the creator have a say in how and where their work is displayed?

I do want to note that I admire Roni for her honesty and for being willing to help others learn her experience.

I know a couple of fellow writers who were seriously concerned about posting pics on their websites because of not being able to properly credit the photog in question, and they took it upon themselves to replace the photos with ones from a royalty free photo service.

For me, I basically use photos that I've taken in the past three years, and recycle when I can.

I'm an author. I'd hate it if someone posted my fiction online without compensating me... after all, I make my living off my fiction.

Even if someone posts something and takes it down, I know from experience it will still be up. Bots or who-knows-what will have copied it and it will still be available online. Content spreads exponentially. Once on the internet, always on the internet.

Seems like we writers ought to be sensitive to this issue if anyone is.

Thank you so much, Roni, for sharing the details of your unfortunate experience...AND for the very good advice. I'm just launching a new blog and I'd been blithely (and foolishly) picking out photos from Google Images and thought "Oh, if I crop it, change it, just use this corner of it, it's OK to use, b/c it's not the same as the original, entire image."
Well, DOH!
Back to the drawing board, and to Flickr and Creative Commons!

DMac

Hi Agent Kristin. I was wondering have you every publish the works of an 18 year old?

THANK YOU for posting this! I've been wondering what to do, and had even started attributing pics.

Time to start finding CC replacements...

I did have a law firm show up in my stat counter re: a photo I'd used. Nervous perspiration ensued.

I have to be honest I'm quite surprised by how many authors seem to think that this is unfair and the photographer is being outrageous. As if the guy doesn't have the right to deserve a living. It's only free advertising if the poster links back to the photographers website. I have never seen this in all the author websites I've visited. I'll bet that these are the same authors who screech so loudly about ebook piracy. Seems like it's ok to infringe someone else's copyright but how dare anyone infringe their copyright.
nonny99

This is all so confusing. Do I understand it is okay to use CC license and royalty free pics? I use my own photos a lot on my blog, so I imagine some of them have been copied to other blogs. If I were a professional photographer, I would definitely want compensation for a photo or at least attribution. I think we also have to keep in mind music on trailers should not be used without permission and/or attribution.

If you have a bit of drawing or graphic design experience, I suggest just making your own graphics.

Whenever I post something on my blog, I just make a quick sketch/doodle and give it a dash of color in Photoshop with a brush set to look like a watercolor. Takes about 15 minutes and has a loose style I like - and avoids any copyright unpleasantness.

If I am not mistaken, CIPA is not involved in this matter.

sure can. no filters here :) rochester public library (nh) is a filter free zone (except in the children’s room, but with parental permission, children may use the adult internet comps as well)

Strangely, I find myself falling on the side of NCRL (and filtering) in this case.

I guess I believe that libraries should have the right to filter, but that they should never be forced to filter.

I do believe that there are better solutions, but when you consider the size and staffing at these libraries (tiny / nil), not to mention budgets and technical expertise, these solutions may be very difficult to implement.

We need our very own Jessamyn in WA State, and then these things wouldn’t happen.

One of the concerns at my college is that addicted people might use the college computers to go on gambling sites. Also, in times of tightened funding (sigh), there is the P.R. issue….

I am in two minds especially as filtering is a big issue in Australia with a Government proposal to filter “undesirable” sites and we Australians lacking a constitutional protection of free speech.

I have no problems with a workplace having filters after all computers are supposed to be used for work. We had this problem in a workplace I was employed at with staff looking at porn sites, which was IMHO unacceptable.

Surely a library is a bit like a work place in this respect, use of the computers must be related to the work of the library. I know a University library where the on-line catalogues are clogged by students using on-line gambling, e-bay and other sites on the computers meant for library work such as search the catalogue or accessing things such as JSTOR. Library Staff cannot police the misuse of computers in this way so maybe filters would be useful in getting students to use the library as a research tool.

Besides if someone has a burning desire to research the porn industry or on-line gambling they can do it at home or maybe there is a way for filters to be lifted for authorised users (a serious study into porn would at least have to pass an ethics committee review).

I don’t however support filtering of my own personal use of my computers (yes I have more computers than hands)because it is inefficient and violates free speech. The Australian Government is keen to justify national filtering based on the worst sites on the net but the guns issues discussed in Jessamyn’s post is interesting as it demonstrates the “scope creep” of internet censorship.

IainS

[...] CIPA? [web link]librarian.net (06/May/2010)“…supreme court ruled that filtering for adults was [...]

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by qadmon_rss and kaorunokimi. kaorunokimi said: An ILS lawsuit? I'd sooo like to file one. http://bit.ly/QNhu3 [...]

Is it wrong for me to be excited about this? It is, isn’t it.

No, I think it’s normal to be excited about it. From what I have heard in the past, big ILS vendors [I've heard iii mentioned a lot] play hardball with libraries — and keep in mind that’s the public’s money — over stuff that is only quasi-legally enforceable and gives them substandard service and products that seem decades older than they really are. There has been very little effort to try to make ILSes into anything that approaches what libraries actually want (reliable, with data you can get out and features you can build on yourself) and a whole lot of effort and marketing into feelgood spokespeople and feature creep without improving the core product. I’m just happy there’s a library that was big enough to call them on their antics.

Oh man. To say I am unsurprised by this would be a giant honking lie. I shall be watching this with interest, oh yes!

Steve, it’s not wrong at all. They are a terrible, terrible company – awful to both employees and (more importantly) customers. I hope they sue them out of existence.

Excellent. *polishes pitchfork*

So when they get sued into oblivion, what happens to my local public library’s catalog? They run it for a while as-is (unsupported) until they manage to hire the staff to maintain an open-source catalog? Or they are forced to go running into the arms of III (who has a better product, but a reputation for insane pricing)?

Steve: It’s not an either-or scenario. You also have the option of engaging with a support vendor for an open-source system, who can do everything from just giving you casual support, if you need it, to a full migration + hosted service. Both Koha and Evergreen have commercial support options; for example, Koha has vendors like Bywater Solutions, Catalyst, and PTFS, and Evergreen has vendors like Equinox, Bywater Solutions (again!), and PTFS-Europe. We have a support contract with Equinox, for example, and it’s really refreshing to see a company respond quickly and authoritatively to a support request.

[...] This post was Twitted by LibClare [...]

[...] This post was Twitted by LbrGoddess [...]

I’m not a big fan of the current Sirsi company management, but this is unfair:

There has been very little effort to try to make ILSes into anything that approaches what libraries actually want (reliable, with data you can get out and features you can build on yourself)

Sirsi Unicorn (or Symphony, as they renamed it to appease Dynix customers) is extremely reliable at the core, you can get your data out and you can change stuff and build on features yourself. It just takes a lot of unix knowledge to do so. And a lot of time. And institutional support. All of which are in short supply in public libraries.

That ILS software feels 20 years out of date is fair. Of course it does. The core of Unicorn is 20 years old, and other vendors aren’t doing any better. The problem that Queens Borough has with Sirsi is with sales and marketing, not with the software.

It’d be great if the open source ILSes force the traditional ILS vendors into improving, but the ILS market is a lot broader, with needs that vary far more than most people realize. The library in Buckland, MA has very different needs than the library at the World Bank.

I get what you’re saying Lissa — but I think until there’s some sort of a simple export for data it’s fair to say that this isn’t really a feature that the ILS offers. I’ll concede I may have been hyperbolic on the reliability factor, but not having a big red EXPORT button seems to be more of a case of ill-intent than the fact that this isn’t a feature libraries have been clamoring for for decades. It’s like, to me, cable TV. If there really were a market-driven set of economic factors affecting cable tv, we’d all have a la carte pricing. We don’t and I think it’s more because it affects the cable companies’ bottom line, not that it’s difficult or even expensive to provide this option.

That said, yeah QBPL is mostly arguing that claims were made that were not followed through on, so it will be interesting to see how that goes in its own right.

I have to ask what you want this “big red EXPORT button” to do? Our library is in the process of migrating to a new ILS and I haven’t had any trouble exporting anything (currently on Horizon). I didn’t have much difficulty exporting when I was on Unicorn (though I did have API training).

The problem is often importing on the other side and doing the scripting work necessary to put it into a format that the new vendor (or open source software) can make use of. As well, the problem can be that you often need detailed knowledge of your underlying data structure to extract your data properly.

I’d question whether data extraction (and importation) can ever be easy since only bibliographic records have a true standard.

Well, there is a big red export button for bibliographic data, the MARC Export Wizard. On the Util toolbar, been there for at least 8 versions. Getting patron data out requires API training (and then it is trivial).

I do think you’ve hit the hammer on the head with the pricing issue, though. Libraries just don’t have enough money to sling around to get what we all claim we want. That, or we’re all willing to settle.

People talk about III, which stuffs its data into a proprietary format. Unicorn doesn’t. It uses Oracle or CISAM. Both are well-documented. Sirsi doesn’t get credit for this, and they should. It is a very unixish system.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I just wish the case had been filed by someone with a stronger case, better lawyers and without a terminal case of St. Dynix Syndrome.

there is a very simple and reliable “export” button in sirsidynix’s online “director’s station.” it’s not as powerful as API, but it’s a lot easier to use. it is also a very expensive “add-on.”

Having never actually used Dynix products as a librarian, I can’t speak for how good or bad the product is. Queens seems to think that the ILS can do everything but sing “God bless America”.

From what I heard Dynix wasn’t that great. Someone at Queens should have checked references and listservs before signing. My boss says that he would send anyone asking for Dynix references his Dynix problem file (all 275 pages).

I knew when I heard the news of the merger that the Dynix software was going to disappear. If it was that obvious to me, a reference librarian from Montana, it should have been obvious to all those high powered librarians in New York.

[...] bookmarks tagged dangerous America’s Most Dangerous Librarians saved by 2 others     NiwaAMV bookmarked on 11/12/08 | [...]

[...] America’s Most Dangerous Librarians [...]

[...] America’s Most Dangerous Librarians [...]