Copyright violation?

I want to start a fansite on my favorite band/actor/whatever. Is it illegal for me to grab random images off of google to include in my photo gallery?

any image created by someone, or any scripts coded by someone other then your self is copywrite... i would ask before doing it., although no one ever ask's

1. It violates copyright: the photographer, publisher, media company controlling the rights, etc.
2. May violate the subject's right to display their likeness.

So, yeah, you're opening up yourself to potential litigation from several angles. It seems ludicrous to even ask "can I use images I google ..." No! Never without securing the rights. All rights.

As Xlordt said, it's best to ask before hand.

Providing you are not in direct commercial competition you could always offer to place a link on your site somewhere for the use of the Image - and maybe get to put your link on their site.

This may be a good way to start building relevant back links to your site thus helping your SEO progress. Bonus...

ATB

I always figured it was a copyright violation, so why is it that so many bloggers use images without getting permission from the owner? Do these people ever get in trouble, or is it usually just ignored?

You know everyone on the highway is doing 90mph but you get the ticket for doing 75. "Joe Blog does it" never flew.


Yes


Yes

Usually you'd get a cease and desist unless you're clearly making a profit from it.

I've said it before, it's worth repeating: the right to display one's likeness trumps copyright. Professional photographers have standard model release forms they use when photographing people to clear them of this liability. Damages from this can go far beyond any mere copyright infringement, especially if it becomes slander/defamation. Think about that the next time you put a photo of "generic smiling woman" on your pro-life website.

Regarding the right to display one's likeness, how much of these rights do bands and actors (the subjects the OP asked about) retain? It seems like many public figures have surrendered their rights in this area or the paparazzi wouldn't be so prevalent. Sure there is the occasional lawsuit but by and large the paparazzi are still around taking and selling photographs without the public person's permission.

You're right. Where the line is in becoming a celebrity is ambiguous .. also, there's definite privacy restrictions on this. Public officials are almost always fair game. That's why I said may violate the right to display one's likeness.

It usually does though

Licensing and rights of publicity too, see also the new thread on caricatures where I dug up a fun and exciting legal opinion ;-)_