Copyright Status Of A Modified Image The Original Of Which Is Free

[Ahsaniqbalkmc 0]

There are lots of free images available on wikipedia.org that are free to use and have no copyright. This feature is especially beneficial for me because I am developing a website on Human Anatomy and it is very hard to find images related to human anatomy if wikipedia is not used. There are images from Gray's anatomy textbook, the copyright of which is expired and the images are now free to be used by anyone. My question is that suppose I download an image that originally belongs to Grays anatomy that has no copyright to it and is free to use, and then I spend my time on the picture modifying it to become useful for the purpose I want to use it for and the I post it on my website, What will be the copyright status of that Image? Will it still be free to use for every one or I have some rights now.

[vhortex 1]

Technically, the rules apply differently per country. As a rule of thumb, if the original source states that the image is free to use and distribute then it should remain free. There are also cases that the original source allows you to modify and add copyrights on the new image as long as you give a notice that the image was originally coming from them.

[mahesh2k 0]

Always prefer to search for creative commons images on the net. Some of the images on wikimedia are copyrighted to author or are to brand or some public agency. Unless and until mentioned as in public domain better not to use these images.I have found that most of the public domain images in US are also applicable as public domain in other countries as well. Some countries in asia have no public domain internet content laws so just follow the rule of US public domain content law because most of your hosted servers are likely to be in US. Just like Xisto or other popular free host which is hosted in United states. In your case it violates copyright of original image no matter how useful or better you do it to it. If you can do better to existing image then why not create yourself or buy clipart or image pack for the images that you need. If you can't buy online then use creative commons images with or without attribution based on the license of the image.

[Ahsaniqbalkmc 0]

In your case it violates copyright of original image no matter how useful or better you do it to it.

Starscream I could not understand what you meant by writing this sentence.If you are saying that modifying an image is violation of copyright law, then I would say to you that it is clearly written with the images that you are free to use the image for any purpose you want. I will take the meaning of this freedom of usage as that I am free to modify it as well.

I also want to ask you another thing. There are some images on wikipedia that are completely free like the images from gray's anatomy while there are some images that state that you are free to share or remix the work but you must attribute the original to the author. Now what are the pros and cons of using this type of images

[vhortex 1]

I also want to ask you another thing. There are some images on wikipedia that are completely free like the images from gray's anatomy while there are some images that state that you are free to share or remix the work but you must attribute the original to the author. Now what are the pros and cons of using this type of images

Con is that when the license changed, you must follow and obey it. Regardless how much changes you have done since distribution and modification are different fields. The safest way to get images are those available as Free for distribution and modification with a copy left license. No matter how many times the license change, a copy left license will take effect on the time you get the image. You can also make your own copyrights on the images as long as you left the original author/source a reference and sent a copy back.

The resulting license/copyright is the original authors license with yours on top of it. You can even sell it and have profits.

************

When getting images from public domain's, it is hard to know if the images was stolen from other sources.

************

Enforcing copyrights on images are way hard to do since each minute, thousands of images are being ripped and stolen without notices to authors. Unless you are very lucky on being spotted, there are slim chances that your image can be found. That also applies to original images being designed by you.

One of my images was in fact being used by 200+ websites by active grabbing. Some was modified due to missing watermarked copyright info on the image header.

[mahesh2k 0]

Starscream I could not understand what you meant by writing this sentence.If you are saying that modifying an image is violation of copyright law, then I would say to you that it is clearly written with the images that you are free to use the image for any purpose you want. I will take the meaning of this freedom of usage as that I am free to modify it as well.

If it is mentioned for allowed modification and derivative work without credit then i say go for it. But just because it is not mentioned under image or have no info doesn't mean it's not copyrighted or allowed to modify as you will. They may allow use anywhere but keeping their attribution intact in most cases. Have you checked that up ?

I also want to ask you another thing. There are some images on wikipedia that are completely free like the images from gray's anatomy while there are some images that state that you are free to share or remix the work but you must attribute the original to the author. Now what are the pros and cons of using this type of images

Pros of using wikimedia images is that your site will be considered as credible with such reputed or known images. And as these images are used in sites with credibility then surely it'll fetch you even more trust. By adding source info under the image makes professional impression. Other than that it also gives one more reason for google to crawl and align your website for the source of same image.

Cons ? i don't know. Using someone's image without credit is the big con which makes anyone look less professional and less serious about information and work. People will also feel free to copy his work if he copies images text from others. So there is no con directly if remixing/attribution is preserved by author. I'm not sure of questions raised by vhortex because i have never seen images which are changing their license from creative commons to restrictive ones.

To avoid glitches better search for creative commons attribution images. Because those who release into this license format rarely revert back to commercial or private license.

[Ahsaniqbalkmc 0]

If it is mentioned for allowed modification and derivative work without credit then i say go for it. But just because it is not mentioned under image or have no info doesn't mean it's not copyrighted or allowed to modify as you will. They may allow use anywhere but keeping their attribution intact in most cases. Have you checked that up ?



Pros of using wikimedia images is that your site will be considered as credible with such reputed or known images. And as these images are used in sites with credibility then surely it'll fetch you even more trust. By adding source info under the image makes professional impression. Other than that it also gives one more reason for google to crawl and align your website for the source of same image.

Cons ? i don't know. Using someone's image without credit is the big con which makes anyone look less professional and less serious about information and work. People will also feel free to copy his work if he copies images text from others. So there is no con directly if remixing/attribution is preserved by author. I'm not sure of questions raised by vhortex because i have never seen images which are changing their license from creative commons to restrictive ones.

To avoid glitches better search for creative commons attribution images. Because those who release into this license format rarely revert back to commercial or private license.

What is the best way to add source info to the source image. Should it be a link or just a statement like ""Author of the image"/wikipedia" would be enough.
I have edited some images and I have added statement like "Original Image: Autor/wikipedia" or "Image source: Wikimedia commons: into the image. Now people can see it but surely search engines cannot. For The images that required attribution, I added the name of "author/wikipedia" in the caption of the image.
Is this type of attribution good enough for all the pros you mentioned?

[mahesh2k 0]

It depend on the type of license sometimes. Some license explicitly ask for the link while some licenses are fine with simple attribution. Most of the creative commons attribution can be with simple notice without link. But flickr users who are releasing the work under creative commons are asking for linkback. Which in my opinion is fair because they want to showcase their talent and unless people link to it, that's not possible. So for case of flickr and other photography sites it's better to get link under the image or at the end of article in credits section or paragraph. If you paid for your image then there is no need to give any attribution as it is covered in stock item license. For wikipedia, if content is under public domain you should only give the simple notice with name of author. If the author is releasing the content other than GPL or creative commons then you should better give them link. It's good if you link to professional writers because that way search engines also view for credibility between both sides. Wikipedia commons images should be rewarded with their name instead of 'wikipedia commons tag'. You should only mention name of author and the year or his work for credit. No need to mention it is from wikipedia unless it is wikipedia released image from GPL license.

[Ahsaniqbalkmc 0]

It depend on the type of license sometimes. Some license explicitly ask for the link while some licenses are fine with simple attribution. Most of the creative commons attribution can be with simple notice without link.
But flickr users who are releasing the work under creative commons are asking for linkback. Which in my opinion is fair because they want to showcase their talent and unless people link to it, that's not possible. So for case of flickr and other photography sites it's better to get link under the image or at the end of article in credits section or paragraph.

If you paid for your image then there is no need to give any attribution as it is covered in stock item license.

For wikipedia, if content is under public domain you should only give the simple notice with name of author. If the author is releasing the content other than GPL or creative commons then you should better give them link. It's good if you link to professional writers because that way search engines also view for credibility between both sides.

Wikipedia commons images should be rewarded with their name instead of 'wikipedia commons tag'. You should only mention name of author and the year or his work for credit. No need to mention it is from wikipedia unless it is wikipedia released image from GPL license.

I use all my images from wikipedia so I think the new attribution format should be something like
Image Source:"image name" "author name", "date of creation"
OR
Original image:"image name" by "author name"

Which one will you suggest to me?

[mahesh2k 0]

Both are fine for the credit and you can use it at the end of the post or below the image. If it's URL that you're going to use then it's better to give credit at the end of the page with the format one from it. If it's no image then you should give credit under the image, this will be enough. By the way all the images in wikimedia are available for copying or for distribution ? I'm just not sure so asking you.

[Ahsaniqbalkmc 0]

By the way all the images in wikimedia are available for copying or for distribution ? I'm just not sure so asking you.

I read wikipedia articles alot because knowledge related to medical sciences is not found easily elsewhere, and I must tell you that I have never seen a picture on wikipedia that says that "this picture is under the copyright law and you are not allowed to reuse it" or something else which has the same meaning. Yes there may be pictures that are not allowed to be reused but I have never seen one by myself. Images that are from old sources like Gray's anatomy textbook etc. are completely free to be used by any one for any purpose. Some images are under the creative commons license and needs attribution.
(You know all this, don't you)

[yordan 10]

I have never seen a picture on wikipedia that says that "this picture is under the copyright law and you are not allowed to reuse it" or something else which has the same meaning.

Even if the sentence says "you are not allowed to reuse it", this does not mean that you can feel free to change the image and sell the modified image.

[mahesh2k 0]

I must tell you that I have never seen a picture on wikipedia that says that "this picture is under the copyright law and you are not allowed to reuse it" or something else which has the same meaning. Yes there may be pictures that are not allowed to be reused but I have never seen one by myself. Images that are from old sources like Gray's anatomy textbook etc. are completely free to be used by any one for any purpose. Some images are under the creative commons license and needs attribution.

Many images are uploaded by users without further info and it needs maintenance. Some users do job of uploading images and leave wikipedia cause they just wanted to see the source image so that it could help others. Wikipedia village pump can answer your question on what to do with those image. If in doubt log in to wikipedia and ask them about it. I'm sure someone will answer your query if not open thread on other forums where people deal with images.