What are legal ramifications (if any) of using publically available images from the internet to create your own content?

[PingSpike]

But can they really legally use this content in their own works? Or are they just not gone after because they aren't making any signifigant amount of money on it?

I saw a rather hilarious video featuring judge judy done in flash that also had several images stolen from the movie robocop awhile back. Just an example, couldn't the author be open to a lawsuit from both Judge Judy for using her likeness and the makers of the robocop movie if he tried to profit from the piece? I haven't seen anything that sets a precident here but I'm not really that well versed in this matter.

 

[JRich]

Ebaumsworld?

 

[BigJ]

I think because it's a parody, humor, and art, that they are exempt from certain laws regarding likeness. Ripping contect from a movie might land you in hot water though. As long as you don't encroach on libel and slander when using a person's likeness, I think it's OK.

 

[pontifex]

probably because someone making a flash animation of judge judy with pictures from robocop aren't making money on it.

as i understand it, if you aren't using it for profit, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

 

[michaels]

I had a pic of Matthew Lesko up from his site and had a paragraph talking about how much of a douche he is and his lawyers emailed me! lol

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: pontifex
probably because someone making a flash animation of judge judy with pictures from robocop aren't making money on it.

as i understand it, if you aren't using it for profit, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

This is wrong. You can get in heaps of trouble even if you aren't using it for profit.

Some information here: http://www.eff.org/IP/

Good book (downloadable for free) here:
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

 

[PingSpike]

Thanks for the links Dirigible. The reason I'm sort of asking this is I've been thinking about creating my own content...and right now I was just thinking about using images as quick and dirty backdrops. Some of the stuff I can just snap a picture of on my own...but if I wanted a location that was a bit more exotic...say the inside of a 747's cockpit, I'd have to steal that from somewhere.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: pontifex
probably because someone making a flash animation of judge judy with pictures from robocop aren't making money on it.

as i understand it, if you aren't using it for profit, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

This is wrong. You can get in heaps of trouble even if you aren't using it for profit.

True. People ARE less likely to prosecute if you're not making money, or if it's just a dumb internet fad, though

 

[Lizardman]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: pontifex
probably because someone making a flash animation of judge judy with pictures from robocop aren't making money on it.

as i understand it, if you aren't using it for profit, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

This is wrong. You can get in heaps of trouble even if you aren't using it for profit.

True. People ARE less likely to prosecute if you're not making money, or if it's just a dumb internet fad, though

Don't forget how star wars kid turned out.

 

[Epic Fail]

do google image search of dot gov sites, most government work is public domain.

 

[phisrow]

If you are engaging in parody, critical commentary, or certain educational activities, you have fairly broad fair use protections(though only for limited portions of a given work). This doesn't actually stop some outfit's lawyers from being nasty, or even costing you tens of thousands in legal fees; but it should mean that you would win in court.

If you are just using images to make your life easier, you might want to stick to creative commons stuff.

 

[PingSpike]

How does one know if something is creative commons? Besides the gov example?