The Way We Work
February 22, 2010 by Guest Blogger

By: Tamara Rice

While most amateur bloggers make their fair share of internet and blogosphere faux pas before they learn the ropes, professionals can’t really afford to make too many mistakes — especially when it comes to copyright infringement and libel.

When I was a newbie blogger, I naively thought any photo on the internet that did not state its copyright status was fair game. I quickly learned the copyright ropes (and the importance of embedding photos rather than linking to them) when a “borrowed” photo on my personal blog was replaced with the words: “This photo was shamelessly stolen and used without permission.” I was mortified, but — fortunately — not sued.

If copyright infringement or libel occurs, a blogger might not always be lucky enough to get off with a warning. In addition to legal complications, copyright infringment has the potential to kill your Google AdSense account. What’s more, while being sued for libel might get you a lot of attention, it might also destroy your bank account.

So, to keep you informed, we offer up a handy guide to the libel and copyright standards of the internet in the US. These statements are based on commonly upheld interpretations of the law here in the United States, but should not be confused with the laws themselves, which you can read here.


Images, photos, etc., not expressly declared as “creative commons” should never be used without permission of the owner. Once upon a time something had to contain a copyright notice to be considered personal property, but not anymore. Private ownership is now to be assumed unless otherwise stated. No, simply linking to the original or crediting the owner is not enough and may not save you in a court of law if the owner decides to go after you. Regardless of the purposes of your use, you need permission from the owner, unless their permission is already stated or the item is  identified as creative commons. If you are altering a copyright protected image without permission, see our notes about derivative works of art.

Exception: Posting a book cover image, DVD cover image, software cover image, etc.,  in connection with a review of the product itself is an accepted practice and considered fair use if the image is already in circulation on the net. (Translation: Don’t post a leaked cover from a still-unreleased product. To be safe, get permission for anything that is not yet released.) If you link the photo to a site where the item can be bought, rest assured, no one is likely to bother you about their rights–even if your review was negative–because free advertising is the name of the game in this particular arena. (This does not always apply to using quotes or clips from movies, books, etc., so keep reading.)


Embedding a YouTube video (or any other video clip) could get you into trouble if you do not have permission from the owner of the rights — i.e., the distributor or the person who uploaded the video. Just as you would with an image, if you are embedding a video, you need permission. In addition, as anyone who frequents YouTube knows, sometimes videos on that site are here today, gone tomorrow — or gone the moment someone brings it to YouTube’s attention that a user has illegally posted copyrighted footage. If you have embedded a video into your blog that was illegally put on YouTube, it could be argued that you took part in the copyright infringement, even if you didn’t realize it at the time and even if the person who uploaded it gave you permission. Embedding isn’t a bad idea, just get permission and be confident that what you are embedding is not going to be later identified as copyrighted material. Use your head. When in doubt, just link and don’t embed.

Merely linking to a YouTube video — or a video on another site — is highly unlikely to cause a legal issue. You do not need permission to simply link to something, and even if you link to something that is later declared copyright infringement and pulled, simply linking (and not embedding) isn’t going to cause problems for you.  This is the perfect alternative to embedding, if you have any doubts about your right (or YouTube’s right) to host the footage in question.


Utilizing someone else’s creative property without permission is only considered fair use in clear cases of parody. That’s right, any creative use that is not mockery or parody is, technically, copyright infringement, and — even in cases of parody — it would not be advisable to earn money off of such works without a lawyer in tow. Many in Hollywood consider derivative works such as fan fiction to be beneficial to the popularity of the original, but not everyone agrees. Book publishers, for example, are much less inclined to see derivative works as flattery and free advertising and may be just a tad more likely to sue. Consider this discussion of the legalities of Lord of the Rings fan fiction, for example.  Also, altering any trademark, photo or work of art is also considered infringement if the intent for parody is not abundantly clear.


Reviewing and critiquing someone else’s actions or works of art is protected by laws of free speech and freedom of expression, except when defamation is involved. In other words, you can talk about how much you don’t like Bill Gates and Apple on your tech blog all you want, as long as what you say is factual, clearly your opinion, or clearly an attempt at humor that no one would take as fact. (Also, don’t publish anything that could get you accused of inciting violence.) If you make statements about someone else (or their products) that aren’t true, you might end up in court.


copyright laws and moneyYou can quote ALMOST anyone and anything for any purpose as long as you give proper attribution and your use of the quote does not damage the work’s commercial value. The key to this area of copyright infringement is not word counts, but the concept of damaging commercial value. Even if I quote an entire page from the book Twilight on my blog, Stephenie Meyer and her publisher are unlikely to care. However, if I quote a page that gives away a the climax of the book, making someone who sees the quote unlikely to buy the book — since I’ve given away the ending — I have potentially damaged the commercial value of the work.


Posting unaltered screenshots of software, websites, computer/video games, etc., is generally considered fair use (with proper attribution), as long as it does not damage the commercial value of the product. The use of screenshots for purposes of review, instruction, training, etc., with no financial gain on your part, is generally acceptable if you are not damaging the commercial value of the product. It may be wise to seek permission, but not necessary. Screenshots for such purposes are widely regarded as fair use.

Posting altered screenshots of software, websites, computer/video games, etc., falls under the category of derivative works. Making changes to a screenshot before you post it can put you into the gray area of derivative works. Merely pointing to areas of the screenshot with arrows isn’t going to amount to much, but any radical changes to the screenshot that could misrepresent the actual content of the game, software, etc., aren’t advisable unless an intent for humor/parody is clear.

If your freelance writing career involves publishing on the internet, protect yourself and know the laws. I’m not a lawyer, but my unofficial recommendation is a careful look at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). When in doubt, don’t take my word for it – be safe! Seek the advice of a copyright lawyer directly.

I’d also recommend studying the legal ramifications of the following important phrases:

  • Seriously Spain

    You’re completely incorrect about embedding YouTube videos without the owners’ permission. It is in YouTube’s TOS, that video uploaders agree to, that videos may be embedded by others without permission being asked.

    Some information is correct here, but this is not. You may also want to read this about embedding videos for people who live in the EU – completely legal without getting the owners’ permission –

  • copyright concerned

    Thank you for the informative article. I was wondering if you might be able to answer a question I have regarding screenshots and copyright. Last year I gave a blog permission to use my copyrighted photo, no problems there. However a competing blog has written a defaming & libel post about this blog and has taken a screeshot of their website with my copyrighted photo and posted it with the article that is full of misinformation. Would this be considered damaging the commercial value of my photo and thus copyright infringement?

  • Pingback: 3 Steps to Successful Website Video |

  • gerry

    Thanks Michael,It is very important to know that particular problem.I am wondering if what would be the reactions of other people if they read about legal fallout.

    I am so glad regarding that especially when I was read about legal fallout.

  • Tamara

    Thanks, Michael. It’s definitely a problem today. I was just reading something about legal fallout from internet gossip the other day — and not celebrity gossip, gossip about ordinary people. You have an interesting line of work! — Tam

  • Michael Roberts says “libel Sux”

    Great article Tamara,

    As one who works in the realm of Internet libel battles for living, I am noticing an increase in organized and concerted Internet defamation campaigns for the purpose of the shortselling of publicly traded shares. There are some interesting cases emerging.

    I’ve also seen a lot of heartbreaking cases of individuals who have been ruined in emotionally, socially, and financially as a result of a single sociopath with a poison penned intellect.

    If you would like any case studies for a follow-up story, by all means give me a call. Naturally, names and other identifying information would it be redacted.

    Cheers, Michael

  • Tamara

    Thanks, Johnny. It’s so true. For anyone who has a blog or website, it’s important to have control over your images to prevent them from changing or disappearing, even if they are creative commons, as you said. Now that you mentioned it, I’m pretty glad all mine changed to was that “stolen” text. I guess things could have been a whole lot more humiliating than that!

  • Johnny

    It’s also important to note that, similar to what you experienced, even if an image is labeled as CC, download the image and save it to your own server. Hotlinking is very much frowned upon and some blog/website owners are savvy enough to configure an alternate (and embaraasing) image to appear if you link to an image on their site.

  • Tamara

    John, that’s a great question.

    First let me remind you I’m not a copyright lawyer.

    That said, the legality is all about the nature of the pictures you are grabbing and how you are using them. These are the things that will determine if it falls under “fair use.”

    For example, it is standard practice to take images of specific products for the purpose of illustrating the product while you discuss/review it, as long as you are properly attributing the creator of the specific product.

    On the other hand, it would be copyright infringement (BAD) for you to:
    a) use images from their site simply to “decorate” your blog
    b) use images from their site that are more editorial in nature and clearly not meant to represent a specific product (i.e. a photo of a woman on a cell phone is not the same as a photo of a specific cell phone on a solid colored background — one is editorial in nature, the other is clearly just showing a product)
    c) use images from their site and not indicate that they are from that site through text (or link at the least)

    Here are some examples:

    Using a picture of a Fossil wallet sold on on a personal blog and indicating in text that it is a Fossil wallet and is sold on = fair use, even if you say it’s ugly

    Using a picture of a Fossil wallet on your blog to illustrate the many uses of leather and not saying that it is a Fossil wallet or that it is sold at = UNfair use, as you are neither discussing the product specifically or attributing the photo properly

    Does that make sense?

    And, Scott, you have the right idea. It is definitely up to you to protect and assert your copyrights. No one else will do it for you.

    As for text, I have heard of people registering content by publishing it through Associated Content. But this wouldn’t work for all types of text, just articles.

    As for images, I think the most popular way to protect them is through adding a watermark with your domain name or logo, etc. It doesn’t have to take up the whole image. But if it’s there, it’s less likely to be stolen. For artists and photographers, this is key.

  • Scott

    Very useful, thanks.

    Any pointers to good info on the other side of the coin (protecting content you create from being stolen and mis-used)?

  • johnV

    Very useful article you got here, Tamara. So let me thank you for it first.

    That done, I’ve got a question. I intend to develop a website on touchscreen devices. If I post an article about a particular product or a proprietary technology (e.g. Apple’s batteries), may I grab images from their site and embed it into the article without worrying about legal problems in the future?

    That is, would this be considered useful publicity for their product/technology?