Research Buzz has a posting on how Google Image Search no w allows users to “filter their searches by a variety of use licenses including Creative Commons and GNU Free Documentation”. Using the Google Advanced Image Search you can select……

with plans to release a premium version for businesses in the future – so you will charge business for a tool to make piracy easy.

you’re just scum, no better than the pirate sites, torrents etc

It’s no wonder photographers are finding it more and more difficult to make a decent living – products like this further erode public perceptions of the intrinsic value of images, and further blur the lines between legal and illegal usage.

It’s contributing to the slow death of a seminal industry, and when it gets to the point that nobody can make a living as a professional in the photography business, we’ll see a huge reduction of the availability of high quality images.

Just because you can easily do something doesn’t make it right. Products like this just make it simple for people to go onto professional’s sites (like mine) and just take what they like.

Fair usage? If you want to be fair, ASK FIRST.

Huh? I think you misunderstand the definition of clip art. Not all clip art is free.

These guys are gonna get sued.

I’d bet that more than half of the Obama images in your above example are copyrighted material that you are not free to use in the majority of cases.

Just because you find something on the Web does not give you license to use it as you see fit.

Fair Use is an admissive defense for allegations of copyright infringement, and just because you’re writing a blog, making a presentation or illustrating an article does not give you carte blanche to use photos and illustrations without license from the copyright holder.

Even Creative Commons is not so cut-and-dry simply because it is relatively legally untested. Much of it allows use, but non-commercially. Some people have very different ideas about what commercial use is.

Even attributing the original author doesn’t necessarily prevent you from still infringing on someone’s IP rights.

I suppose they made an effort with allowing searches by usage rights, but who’s to say those rights are correct, present or assigned by someone with the authority to do so?

Negative points to the author for leaving the setting at “ignore licenses” for the purposes of his illustration.

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Just because something’s on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s free.

The Internet is a great and wonderful tool. But the abuse of intellectual property WILL ruin the legal uses of the Internet for everyone.

There’s too much money at stake for people to sit idly by while their work is stolen or misappropriated.

And the backlash will be huge. We all know that p2p software can be used for completely legitimate purposes, as can this software.

But the more it’s abused for illegal purposes, the more people will seek to restrict its use at all.

And for the last time, not everyone (in fact, much to the opposite) who owns and creates intellectual property for a livelihood is filthy rich and playing dial-an-extortion with old ladies based on questionable evidence.

Kincaid, how would you feel if I scraped all your posts and re-posted them on my own site with ads? How long would it take for the DMCA takedown notice to arrive? Would you sue?

At the end of the day, it’s not about whether you’re using the work to make money or not.

It’s whether you’re infringing on the rights of another to do it.

If you think it’s so beneficial to have a picture in your blog or presentation, you should either be willing to license one appropriately (there are a bazillion sites out there that will sell/license you a photo legally for basically nothing), or go out and make the picture yourself.

If it’s so easy to get professional/acceptable results with modern day cameras, by all means do it.

There should be no need to steal the work from others.

Maybe it does the opposite? maybe it helps ensure you use content legally?