Safe to use random google images for tier 1 web 2.0s?

[sexyandiknowit]

These are kind of paranoid questions but... 1)I want to use google image scraper to put random images on my tier 1 web 2.0s. I always use proxies or VPN when doing this, but... a) Could the photo companies contact my proxy/VPN provider and get ahold of my personal information to send me a legal letter for using the photos? b) If my affiliate link is on the tier one site, is that enough proof for them to know that it was me who put the photos up?

 

[daddymax]

These are kind of paranoid questions but... 1)I want to use google image scraper to put random images on my tier 1 web 2.0s. I always use proxies or VPN when doing this, but... a) Could the photo companies contact my proxy/VPN provider and get ahold of my personal information to send me a legal letter for using the photos? b) If my affiliate link is on the tier one site, is that enough proof for them to know that it was me who put the photos up?

if your VPN or your proxies doesn't cover ur butt then whats the point in paying for them ?
VPN is 200% safe

 

[RankGeek]

Getting a legal notice for using images from Google search is truly a paranoid thought, mate. Millions of people do that each day, and unless the image is of some really privacy-crazy-brand, you are ok!

 

[dbyrn]

You can always use Flickr and search for Creative Commons photos.
D.

 

[dragonrage01]

Getting a legal notice for using images from Google search is truly a paranoid thought, mate. Millions of people do that each day, and unless the image is of some really privacy-crazy-brand, you are ok!

There are actually people or companies that have to pay 1000 to 2000 dollars because they used a logo/image that they are not supposed to.
However, if the person is just doing adsense with simple websites then it may not be a problem but who knows.

 

[RedRover]

Getting a legal notice for using images from Google search is truly a paranoid thought, mate. Millions of people do that each day, and unless the image is of some really privacy-crazy-brand, you are ok!

As someone who recently paid $1100 to Getty Images for copyright infringement for using one of their images on my site (a teeny-tiny image inside a thumbnail that was practically invisible to the naked eye!) paranoia isn't a bad thing. I know several people that have been nabbed by them as well - one guy got nailed for $6000.

I don't know if Getty Images uses software to find their images but my guess is that they do. I do know that they have a very large team of people to research whether the images they find are licensed or not. If the images aren't licensed they serve a cease and desist on the domain owner as well as charge a fine that the domain owner has the 'choice' to either pay or not pay and get sued by them and pay more.

If a person lives outside the US my guess is that person is safe. If you live in the US and have a scraped copy of a Getty Image on your site (including one of the 500,000+ Flickr getty images) or are using a pre-made template with a scraped image then in my opinion it's a risk. It wouldn't surprise me if Getty makes a LOT more nailing people for using images than they do selling the images.

Once you are caught there is no way I know of to get out of it - believe me I tried. They have documented screenshots of the image in use on your website, your domain ownership information proving you are the domain owner and some other things that basically show that you are the owner of the domain, the website on that domain was using the image, and there is no record of you purchasing the image.

 

[dragonrage01]

For tier 1, you may deny it. You can always say that you bought a lot of seo service in the Internet. The domain it is on is not in your name, not hosted by you, nothing in it that says you did it and etc. It just has a backlink towards your site.
You can even say they are framing you and your going to sue them for fraud.

 

[NicheFocus]

Your fine don't worry about it. You don't own the site so there's no chance of litigation. Worse case scenario is the owner of the image makes a complaint to the Web 2.0 site. The web 2.0 site deletes your account and any pages you have created for breaching their terms and conditions. However the chance of this is insanely low. Many many many people use Google images on their web 2.0s. Its the equivalent of me taking a google image and posting it on Facebook.

Ps. Im not a lawyer so don't take this as sound legal advice.

 

[MatthewWoodward]

Hi,

I would try to keep the pictures related/relevant/on topic that you use.

I actually do this in my spinning tutorial here http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...rly-advanced-article-spinning-techniques.html

I also use Google images as my source and am yet to have a problem!

 

[aka sam]

no need to worry. Do it and you wont be caught or contacted in your life time. Stay cool.

 

[dragonrage01]

Hi,

I would try to keep the pictures related/relevant/on topic that you use.

I actually do this in my spinning tutorial here http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...rly-advanced-article-spinning-techniques.html

I also use Google images as my source and am yet to have a problem!

that looks like a lot of work and may not even pass copyscape after the 15th or 20th article.

 

[mckanute]

Don't 100% trust VPN services, many do keep logs and won't tell you. On the other hand picking random pics from google is very random so just keep on. Someone suggested Flickr Creative Commons photos, i'll suggest that too

 

[brkseven]

If you're outside of the US you are unlikely to get sued, but many companies look like their main source of income comes from finding and squeezing copyright violators out of large sums of money.

In anycase I think it's a clever to at least first look into public domain images, that you can find on Google as well.

Or believe in luck!

 

[innozemec]

As someone who recently paid $1100 to Getty Images for copyright infringement for using one of their images on my site (a teeny-tiny image inside a thumbnail that was practically invisible to the naked eye!) paranoia isn't a bad thing. I know several people that have been nabbed by them as well - one guy got nailed for $6000.

I don't know if Getty Images uses software to find their images but my guess is that they do. I do know that they have a very large team of people to research whether the images they find are licensed or not. If the images aren't licensed they serve a cease and desist on the domain owner as well as charge a fine that the domain owner has the 'choice' to either pay or not pay and get sued by them and pay more.

If a person lives outside the US my guess is that person is safe. If you live in the US and have a scraped copy of a Getty Image on your site (including one of the 500,000+ Flickr getty images) or are using a pre-made template with a scraped image then in my opinion it's a risk. It wouldn't surprise me if Getty makes a LOT more nailing people for using images than they do selling the images.

Once you are caught there is no way I know of to get out of it - believe me I tried. They have documented screenshots of the image in use on your website, your domain ownership information proving you are the domain owner and some other things that basically show that you are the owner of the domain, the website on that domain was using the image, and there is no record of you purchasing the image.

how they prove that you actually put the image? It can always be a hacker...

 

[brkseven]

how they prove that you actually put the image? It can always be a hacker...

The one who has to pay up or get sued is the one responsible, not necessarily who put it up. However, if you can prove that someone else is responsible, as you said, a perfect example would be a hacker, and you had no reasonable knowledge of what happened, then you may still be sued and you would have to sue the third party and good luck with that!

In other words, you can't just say that it was someone else's fault and the copyright holders should go after them, if it's in your name, you're primarily responsible.

Just to give you an example of a case where it's unlikely that you would be held responsible, think about a well maintained website with a reasonable amount of security measures, including continuous monitoring, where a very skilled hacker breaks in and posts a copyright images. If you don't fix the problem within a reasonable amount of time, I don't know, maybe an hour, maybe a day, maybe 5 minutes depending on the circumstances, then they would almost certainly lose a case and wouldn't sue.

BTW, I'm not exactly a lawyer, take this info as my personal opinion and therefore with a pinch of salt!!!