Photbucket or Google Image Post Downloads

Is it legal to download pictures from Photobucket or Google Images when they are open to public view? My site downloaded and posted a picture of someone, an unflattering picture, and she says that she was fired because somebody saw it on my site. We didn't even use the person's real name (just her usual username) to describe the photo. She has since taken the photo down from Photobucket and closed her account with them and we have removed the photo as a result of her threats, but she has made it very clear that she is looking for a way to bring this into her wrongful termination suit against the hospital that terminated her. She is also threatening to personally ruin my reputation and scholarship if we do not leave her alone.

Thanks for your help.

the people with the copyrights to the pictures do have a right to control the use of their work. That means unless they gave permission to use their artwork, you have no right to use it.

It is not inherently illegal to download pictures from Photobucket or Google Images.

However, the legality of your action depends on several factors, such as of

• the content of the picture (it is illegal to even possess certain kinds of images, such as child pornography, certain military installations, and certain invasions of privacy)
• changes you may have made to the picture
• whether you acted with malice (intending to damage the person)
• the use of the picture (a lot depends on this, including possibilities of fair use, libel, defamation of character, commercial use, and sponsorhsip)
• what copyrights are attached to the image (can affect damages and recourse)
• what the copyright holder wants

It is all very complicated and interrelated.

Let's consider a scenario. Suppose you found an unflattering copyrighted photo of someone on a web site open to the public and published it on your web site with a title that could be easily traced to that person.

In that scenario, copying and publishing the photo would be illegal, unless you had a defense such as fair use for the purpose of education, commentary, or parody. Sounds like not. Let's also supposed that the photo taken within the past few years and was not registered with the U.S. Copyright office (the usual case). That would mean you would not have to pay statutory damages, only actual damages.

It seems like it might be difficult to prove actual damages. The fact that the image was already publicly available would argue against damages. If she could prove malice, that would argue for damages.

Quote:

---

Quoting NoFlorenchRN

---

She is also threatening to personally ruin my reputation and scholarship if we do not leave her alone.

---

Do you have some special reason to not leave her alone?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

unless they gave permission to use their artwork, you have no right to use it.

---

Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project has a lot of information about when it is legal to copy and use images when you do not get permission from the copyright holder, though it is more oriented toward lawyers.

You can get a good overview of the Fair Use exception on Wikipedia.

so, just what use under fair use are you suggesting the OP might have as a defense to copyright infringement?

here are the basic exceptions for fair use:

commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship

take your pick. I'm not seeing any of them as even a suggested use of the OP. If none, that means there was an infringement.

Quote:

---

Quoting DavidForthoffer

---

It is not inherently illegal to download pictures from Photobucket or Google Images.

].

---

Oh, and to that comment; wrong. It is inherently illegal to download pictures from those sources unless you have permission or a claim under fair use.

and to this comment:

Quote:

---

Let's consider a scenario. Suppose you found an unflattering copyrighted photo of someone on a web site open to the public and published it on your web site with a title that could be easily traced to that person

---

.

all artwork is covered by copyright simply because it was created. So, unless you speak of art that is in the public domain, the art is covered by copyright. Whether it can be easily traced to the subject is irrelevant. The subject may not even own the copyright. The artist typically owns the copyrights but still whether it can be easily traced to anybody is irrelevant. Just because a crime is not easily traced or even known does not make it any less of a crime.

t

Quote:

---

he content of the picture (it is illegal to even possess certain kinds of images, such as child pornography, certain military installations, and certain invasions of privacy)

---

that could add crimes to the situation but as far as copyright is concerned, it is irrelevant

Quote:

---

changes you may have made to the picture

---

and what difference does this make?

Quote:

---

whether you acted with malice (intending to damage the person)

---

that, just like the first situation, brings in additional crimes (defamation, infliction of emotional distress) but it does not change the copyright issue

Quote:

---

the use of the picture (a lot depends on this, including possibilities of fair use, libel, defamation of character, commercial use, and sponsorhsip)

---

there are only two things that make a difference here; permission or claim of fair use. Other than those two exceptions, the rest is irrelevant

Quote:

---

what copyrights are attached to the image (can affect damages and recourse)

---

what do you mean? Artwork is automatically covered by copyright simply by virtue of its creation. Of course registering it allows statutory damages rather than actual damages to be sought but there is copyright protection at the moment of creation.

Quote:

---

what the copyright holder wants

---

that would be permission or not. It is obvious the OP did not have permission so we know the owner did not want the OP to steal their pics.

We downloaded from a public site. She had the right to make her photos private, but she made them public. We posted it, period...how is it stealing when she put in the public? Yes we did it to make fun of her. She has been harassing our website, threatening to sue us for things we have said about her site. So I just needed to know if in fact, she COULD sue us for using a pic she put on photobucket. These pics are not artwork or intellectual property. People upload things from their phones to photobucket all the time, knowing anyone can see and use them and even facebook them. So how is that illegal, even related to civil law?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

...

---

It sounds like you disagree with a lot of what I said, but not with my conclusion --- that in the scenario I hypothesized (that might be more or less what actually happened) he violated copyrights.

Since our disagreement seem largely not NoFlorenceRN's concern, I'll discuss it with you via private message.

Quote:

---

Quoting NoFlorenceRN

---

how is it stealing when she put in the public?

---

I suggest you go to the U.S. Copyright web site and look at their FAQ to understand why that could be illegal.

Quote:

---

Yes we did it to make fun of her.

---

You should look up "libel" and realize that if you libel someone, they might be able to collect a lot of money from you.

Quote:

---

So I just needed to know if in fact, she COULD sue us for using a pic she put on photobucket.

---

Yes, she can. From the limited information we have, it seems likely she might win, though perhaps not very much.

Quote:

---

These pics are not artwork or intellectual property. People upload things from their phones to photobucket all the time, knowing anyone can see and use them and even facebook them.

---

Read that FAQ to understand why that is likely illegal.

Quote:

---

=NoFlorenceRN;507352]We downloaded from a public site. She had the right to make her photos private, but she made them public. We posted it, period...how is it stealing when she put in the public?

---

SHE posted it in view of the public. YOU took that image and used it for your own purposes. Your claim that she posted it in public has no more worth than a person that claims music on the internet is now in the public domain. You would be wrong in both cases.

Quote:

---

Yes we did it to make fun of her. She has been harassing our website, threatening to sue us for things we have said about her site. So I just needed to know if in fact, she COULD sue us for using a pic she put on photobucket.

---

Yes, absolutely.

Quote:

---

These pics are not artwork or intellectual property.

---

yes, they are artwork. Artwork does not mean a Picasso or Rembrandt. Artwork is a generic term for a created work.

Quote:

---

People upload things from their phones to photobucket all the time, knowing anyone can see and use them and even facebook them.

---

no, they can't, at least legally. The artwork (picture) belongs to the person that took it (in most situations). They can do whatever they want with the picture. That does not give anybody else the right to do anything with the picture.

Quote:

---

So how is that illegal, even related to civil law?

---

because the artist owns the image. If you take the image and use it for your own purposes, it is taking another persons property without permission. That is illegal.

I'll chime in to break the tie on this discussion. JK is 100% right. David is incorrect in every point that JK pointed out. "Found on the internet" doesn't equate to public domain. A person is not required to do anything ACTIVE to assert copyrights. A photograph has copyright as soon as the photographer takes it.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

JK is 100% right. David is incorrect in every point that JK pointed out.

---

If truth here is decided by voting, then JK and flyingron are 100% right and I am 100% wrong.
If truth here is decided by cites and logic, then I am 100% right, JK is 80% right, and flyingrong is 100% wrong.

I'll send you the PM I sent JK.

To further clarify: If OP had asked "Am I violating copyright laws?" then JK would have been 100% correct.
But OP had asked about "legality", which is a much broader question. For example, libel may be a problem for OP.

(assuming it is eligible for copyright protection. Not all photographs are, but I'm being nit-picky. Virtually all are. The exceptions are rare)

It's been a while since I opened my flickr account (and even longer since I used photbucket) but I seem to remember the terms of service explicitly stating that by posting a picture I am asserting that I have copyright in that picture and that posting it does not in any way give up any of my copyright. Facebook tried to change its TOS to claim an indefinite license in anything posted but the public outcry forced them to retract that change.

If you post it, nobody can copy it (unless you're in Denmark I think)

Quote:

---

Quoting LyonLegal

---

If you post it, nobody can copy it

---

In the United States, the Fair Use exception to copyright offers many ways a knowledgeable person can legally copy a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright owner.