Finding images to use on blogs

A picture of a red butterfly resting on a leaf.

I recently transferred stewardship of the Leicester Sabres PR machine1 to a new council, and as part of the process had to explain how to construct blog posts on WordPress. The new PR rep asked some questions about how to find images to use on a website, and what the rules were about using images. I explained that she would have to either find images that were in the public domain or licenced with Creative Commons2. It is not legal to simply use an image and credit the copyright holder; you must have their explicit permission before using any image! She balked a little at the news, and so I briefly explained some of my tricks for finding suitable images. Since I figure they might help my fellow bloggers, I humbly present them here!

Take your own photographs

Simply create your own images, either by photographing things that you want to write about or by drawing the images you want to use. In one way, this is the simplest solution: you created the image, so you definitely know you can use it. In another, it’s the hardest: you need to be able to create the image. You can’t just take a photograph of a piece of artwork, since that’s making a copy of the artwork and therefore copyright infringement. It has to be original!3

A stylised photograph of a butterfly landing on a yellow and red flower.

Flickr

This is usually my first port of call. Visit Flickr, and simply enter what it is you’re looking for in the search box on the front page. Then, click ‘Advanced Search’, scroll to the bottom and tick the box that says ‘Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content’. The result of your search will give you images that you can use on your site. Flickr is a huge website with a lot of talented photographers putting images up completely for free, so this is a great way to do things.

deviantART

A drawing of a blue butterfly.

Like Flickr, deviantART lets creators tell their visitors that images are under Creative Commons licences. Unlike Flickr, DeviantArt lacks any sort of way to search based on this. As a result, Google is our friend; simply perform a Google search for what it is you’re looking for, with site:deviantart.com "creative commons" tacked on (if you’re lazy, click here). Doublecheck the copyright status of the image by opening the ‘details’ tab below the picture; if it has a Creative Commons licence, you’re good to go!

Alternatively, you can search via DeviantArt and then click ‘Resources & Stock Images’. The description of the image http://www.mindanews.com/buy-imitrex/ will generally have the terms under which you may use it. This is another useful way to find images you can use on the site.

Wikimedia Commons

A photograph of a butterfly on someone's fingertip.

Wikimedia Commons is a collection of media, including images, which are free for you to use either because they are licenced by their creators under Creative Commons or because they are in the public domain. Simply head over to the website, enter the thing you’re looking for, and look through the pictures to find one that you like. Below the photograph will be information about the copyright status of the photograph explaining how you can use it.

Other sources

If you’ve explored the above sources thoroughly and you don’t know where else to turn, there is a setting in the Advanced Search on Google Images which can find permissible images. I’m a bit hesitant to use it, though, because I don’t fully understand how they tell if a photograph is available for use; it’s worth a try, but make sure to read the webpage that Google finds before using the images!

Another potential source for images is organisations like NASA, which tend to make their images free to download and use as people see fit. This is provided that a specific credit is used, depending on the institutions and agencies involved in creating a given image. Other organisations involved in scientific research disseminate images, so if you know of one, look to see whether you can use their images. For instance, EFDA, the organisation responsible for JET and ITER, lets you use their images for “non-commercial, scientific, news and educational purposes provided that you acknowledge EFDA as the source”.

Hopefully this blog post will give people the tools they need to illustrate their blog posts whilst staying within the law. I hope you find it useful!


  1. It’s not a very big machine, if I’m honest. Mostly a Facebook group and a website. 
  2. If you haven’t encountered them before, this is a good explanation of the different Creative Commons licences and what they let you do
  3. A legal grey area arises if you take a photograph that happens to include a piece of copyrighted artwork, but which isn’t simply a copy. Or making screenshots of software, since they include the developer’s art assets. Do these count as making a copy and are they therefore against the rules? I haven’t found the answer to either of these problems — if you know the answers, please do comment below (preferably citing your sources!). 

Wargames companies and 3D printing

Something I’ve wanted to write a blog post on for a while is the transition from the old to the new. Let me expand on this a little bit. What’s happened is easy to explain: Before I was born1, there were independent shops that sold things. Maybe they sold vinyl records, or maybe they sold VHS tapes, or maybe they sold books, or maybe they sold copies of Dungeons & Dragons, but they sold things. Eventually, those shops died out as bigger companies arose and stamped them out. Companies like Waterstone’s moved into town centres and used their distribution networks to stamp out smaller, independent bookshops. Branches of HMV and Virgin Megastores basically replaced the independent record stores and video stores. And Games Workshop penetrated the market by selling traditional gaming materials more cheaply than indie stores could and switching to their own proprietary systems when the indie stores had faded away.

Then, the cycle began again. Only this time it wasn’t a new chain of high-street stores, it was companies like Amazon and Apple, and this time the war was more complicated. Amazon was able to maintain low prices by running at a loss for years in order to undercut the chains that had used very similar tactics to undercut the indie stores. Meanwhile, Apple’s iTunes Music Store (now just the iTunes Store) went from its launch in 2003 to the leading music retailer in the United States in 2008 and the leading worldwide retailer in 2010. Steam has revolutionised PC gaming, becoming the dominant force in that retail sector and leading to a dearth of PC games at most high street stores. Online, digital downloads combined with cheap mail order services lead to the loss of many high street stalwarts. At this point we have lost Virgin Megastores and Woolworths, HMV has begun to haemorrhage money, Borders is gone in both the US and the UK, Game has gone into administration (resulting in the closure of my local Gamestation) and Blockbusters is facing an uncertain future.

A photograph of some glyphs on the Necron Pylon from Forge World, picked out in gold paint.

This moves me onto the subject of 3D printing. You’ll note that I haven’t said anything about Games Workshop, despite mentioning them in my first paragraph. This is because Games Workshop are, for the most part, still afloat and still making games. But if you have been paying attention, there’s a clear pattern: Online, digital products are beginning to force the high street chains out of business, or at the very least are leading to huge reductions in their profits. And suddenly, 3D printing is right around the corner. Games Workshop has already involved itself in the 3D printing scene; unfortunately, they did this by sending a takedown notice to Thingiverse because someone called Thomas Valenty had uploaded two of his own designs that were intended to be used with Warhammer 40,000.

The first thing to note is that the Wired article that reported this takedown has a short series of thoughts on the legality of the situation, which will be even more relevant as 3D photocopiers, capable of copying items on demand, become more widely available. It turns out that patent law is probably more on the side of the consumer than it is on the side of the corporation in the case of manufactured items. Most patents only last twenty years, in marked contrast to the situation that we’re currently seeing in the music, movie and publishing industries where copyright lasts for a much longer period of time.

But, even if the law ends up being changed to screw the customers, Games Workshop are still even more screwed, because someone is going to work out how to do this legally. It’s like Napster and the major record labels; the major record labels finally managed to get Napster made illegal and then shut down, but in its place rose iTunes and Amazon, both of which were very successful due to the genius of taking a product and making it easier to buy than to pirate. Ditto for pirating PC games; it’s easier to buy them from Steam than it is to go through the rigamarole of torrenting them.2

Games Workshop are already beginning to look more shaky due to the rise of companies like Spartan Games, who sell a range of games that are very cheap to get started with; you can get a pretty decent army and the rules for under £50 in most cases, as compared with a rulebook that costs almost that much in Games Workshop’s situation. And, eventually, just as happened with the iTunes Store and Steam, there will be a company that makes its money by selling 3D printer models of the armies that they stock alongside cheap-to-purchase PDFs and iOS/Android/Windows 8 apps that contain the rules. It’ll completely undercut anything that Games Workshop is doing by being cheaper and easier than buying a hardback rulebook for £35 alongside an army that will probably cost about £100 on top of that.

An image of some painted Space Marines sitting on my desk, in front of a TARDIS-shaped USB hub.

I’m interested to see whether Games Workshop will follow the trend, or whether it will realise what no other high street chain has realised and actually alter its behaviour to fit this new way of doing things. I’m fascinated by the fact that every single industry has made exactly the same mistakes as every other, and that none of the high street chains seem to have reacted in time to prevent this happening even when it became obvious it would.3


  1. Perhaps this is somewhat cynical, but you know what I mean. 
  2. The reason that I’m reluctant to say that videogame piracy has been effectively beaten is due to the stupidity of games companies, who are currently crippling their products in such a way that the pirated versions are turning out to be better than the legal ones, due to both accidental and deliberate server failures. 
  3. Honourable mention to Waterstone’s, who are trying to make their high street operations relevant to consumers who are getting more used to buying digital books. 

Secondhand Software

RockPaperShotgun recently reported on a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union explicitly stating that any company that sells software transfers the right to distribute that software to the customer upon completion of a transaction. The ruling was summarised in a freely downloadable press release (PDF) which says:

Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible
– and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement
granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder
sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a
transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of
that copy.

A screenshot of some of the games in my Steam collection.

If you don’t know much about how software sales through services like Steam and Origin have worked up until this point, you might not fully grasp the enormity of the ruling, but this is huge news for anyone who’s ever bought software from a central service. RockPaperShotgun were, understandably, focusing on what this meant for the companies involved in videogames sales, but this also applies to online software stores like Apple’s App Store and Google Play. It means that any downloadable software is yours to resell, thus meaning that the second-hand market for videogames will continue to be alive and kicking1. Another excerpt says:

By its judgment delivered today, the Court explains that the principle of exhaustion of the
distribution right applies not only where the copyright holder markets copies of his
software on a material medium (CD-ROM or DVD) but also where he distributes them by
means of downloads from his website.

The point I want to make is that this ruling is, potentially, not just exciting for people who have bought software. I can’t see any reason why the ruling above would not also apply to, say, music that’s downloaded from the Internet instead of sold on CD. Or perhaps to books sold online instead of on dead trees. If I’m correct, then companies that offer downloaded content have to allow customers to transfer their purchases to other users in exchange for a fee from the other http://nygoodhealth.com user.

It goes without saying that this may not be a system set up by the companies themselves. I highly doubt that there are suddenly going to be tools built into iTunes that facilitate the creation of a second-hand sales channel, for instance. However, according to this, tools will have to be introduced to allow users to transfer books purchased under one iTunes account to another one:

Furthermore, the Court states that an original acquirer of a tangible or intangible copy of a
computer program for which the copyright holder’s right of distribution is exhausted must make
the copy downloaded onto his own computer unusable at the time of resale. If he continued
to use it, he would infringe the copyright holder’s exclusive right of reproduction of his computer
program.

If the original acquirer is no longer allowed to have a downloaded copy, they cannot sell a copy to a friend and just send that friend an email attachment; they must no longer be able to read the copy in question. This would mean that the user would, presumably, no longer be allowed to download that book from the iBookstore and thus it would need to be transferred to another account. I can’t imagine the publisher being happy with the original user re-downloading content they have sold to a third party, either.

One of the problems I’ve heard people espouse with electronic media is the death of secondhand markets for various things. I often find gems in various shops that resell old stuff, and I admit that I would be sad to see this go. Another important aspect of the secondhand is the charity shops (or, if you’re not from around here, thrift stores) that rely on secondhand goods to work. Although I think they’re still safe for the time being, it is nice to see that, in Europe at least, those who like to buy secondhand will still be able to do so even in this modern and electronic age.


  1. At least, it will be when companies implement this functionality and allow for the transfer of apps between different users’ accounts — whether this will be something that is quickly implemented, or whether it will have to wait for a European court case, is yet to be seen. 

Google Drive: the new document syncing service

As anyone who has been paying attention will know, Google released Google Drive today, which is their new competitor to other services. I already use Dropbox with a fervent evangelism, and I also have an account on Box, so I figured I’d take a brief look at what Google Drive is.

The first thing that it’s important to note is that Google Drive replaces Google Docs. That is to say, if you had any documents in Docs, they’re now in your Drive, and going to the old Google Docs URL will redirect you to the new Drive URL. I use Google Docs to edit fanzine articles with España Sheriff1 — when either of us has written an article, we upload it so that the other can go through and make suggestions. The everyone-can-edit model suits this workflow extremely well, and so I now have a number of fanzine articles saved in Google Drive (as well as a bunch of work from my undergraduate degree).

All told, there are several pieces of work in there, and I am not keen to cede the rights to those to Google. This means that the Google Terms of Service make me slightly nervous:

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.

Is this anything to worry about? It’s certainly been noticed online, but is it anything to worry about? Well, firstly, it’s important to note that Google do not take ownership of your files — they just give themselves a licence to do things with your files. This is an important distinction, as it means that the copyright still resides with you. The other important thing to note is that this licence is granted even after you stop using the product, but this appears to be in order to allow Google to continue displaying information in other services, rather than specifically relevant to Google Drive.

This brings me to the main point: This Terms of Service document is not specific to Google Drive, but is applicable to every Google service. Unless the segment of Google you’re using has more restrictive terms that supersede the ones outlined in this blog post, they already apply to you. This means, for instance, that these terms already applied to the documents I had in Google Docs. Or, indeed, to any email I have received since 2004, thanks to my Gmail account.

A similar outcry happened around a year ago, when it became clear that many picture sharing services owned any images that were uploaded to their servers, and Dropbox itself was implicated in a similar brouhaha when they updated their TOS in 2011. One of the things that arose from that (as well as a huge reaction from their users) was a blog post outlining why Dropbox needed the things outlined in their TOS. A lot of the permissions granted are there just so that you can have the experience you expect, and the same is almost certainly true of Google.

Google need to update their Terms of Service, just like Dropbox did, to make it clear that the information uploaded to their servers is not going to be used for anything outside of users’ expectations. I’m hopeful that the blog posts and news articles being written on this subject will expedite that process, and that the TOS will be made clearer very soon.2 I don’t intend to completely ignore Google Drive, but I would feel much more comfortable using the service if this issue was explicitly addressed by the company.


  1. Coincidentally, her latest blog post is about deleting files from Google Docs and moving them to Dropbox. 
  2. Separate TOS documents for Google Drive and Gmail would seem like a sensible idea!