I am sure this image was not purchased hence the visible watermark. Could this be considered a infringement?

http://www.thefamuanonline.com/news/view.php/1033479/Are-dreadlocks-appropriate-for-the-workp

That's sh*tty, imagine when digital mediums are the only medium and everyone just embed a image.

no, it is not an infringement to use a photo for editorial purposes. if you write an article and use a photo that the article has commentary on, then you can use any photo in the world, and you do not have to pay for it. it falls under "Fair Use" in copyright law. and you can get the photo on google images, and you can download the photo from a stock agency, even if it is watermarked, and you can get the photo from someone else's web page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
fair use
noun
(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.

As usual, you're only quoting the bits which suit your agenda, the 'under certain circumstances' limits fair uses more than you'd think. And Fair Use is only in the US (why are you always so parochial?) Here in the UK (for example) we have 'fair dealing', where the conditions are stricter than you would imagine:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
For example, as a teacher, I could use files for my lessons or for assemblies, but not e.g. to project during concerts to which the public was invited.

no, it is not an infringement to use a photo for editorial purposes. if you write an article and use a photo that the article has commentary on, then you can use any photo in the world, and you do not have to pay for it. it falls under "Fair Use" in copyright law. and you can get the photo on google images, and you can download the photo from a stock agency, even if it is watermarked, and you can get the photo from someone else's web page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
fair use
noun
(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.

You should just stick to figuring out how to take photos and which lens to buy

you said: " Just grabbing a photo to use as filler or to illustrate the commentary is infringement."

no it isn't. (not in the US). in the US you can use any photo worldwide for editorial purposes, for educational purposes, for commentary, etc. you will come into problems if you use the photo in advertising without securing rights.

you said: " Just grabbing a photo to use as filler or to illustrate the commentary is infringement."

no it isn't. (not in the US). in the US you can use any photo worldwide for editorial purposes, for educational purposes, for commentary, etc. you will come into problems if you use the photo in advertising without securing rights.

I presume you are here as a photographer who is interested in selling photos, microstock or otherwise. Why are you so hell-bent on defending thieves and perpetrating this �fair use� nonsense? If you want to hurt your own chance of sales, that�s your right. But to keep defending people who are too * cheap to spend a couple of bucks to use an image is hurting those of use who are trying to make a living. What the heck is your problem.


Ug. Never mind, I see you are trolling other threads too. Just looking to cause a ruckus?

In case of the dreadlocks article, it's infringement because the watermarked photo is used commercially to enhance the article. The writer/website should have paid for it.

you said: "In case of the dreadlocks article, it's infringement because the watermarked photo is used commercially to enhance the article"

this is NOT infringement. the image is being used for editorial purposes. it is not a commercial use.

Nope.

That�s for that specific use of providing search results.  Please, just stop.

you said: "Otherwise, remember �fair use� applies to a tiny set of usages.  And this isn�t one of them."

the use is considered fair use because it is for editorial purposes, and the use of the watermarked version has been upheld in court to be fair use because the watermarked version  does not have commercial value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
"The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work"

in this case, the use of a watermarked image does not prevent the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. this is fair use.

I was going to ask where in the world do you get your ridiculous ideas on legal issues but now I see. You're quoting Wikipedia, which is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and historically considered unreliable for accuracy.

You are dead wrong on "fair use" as usual. Stop posting your pseudo-legal nonsense, you are not an authority.

edit removed

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html


Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses�such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research�as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use

edited from above post:

While fair use includes news reporting (the one thing you got right) in this case the photo is not part of the story but simply a companion to make the story pretty. We know that because it's stock. It's obviously not related to the story in any real way. There's no attribution, no comment, critique or parody it's just there to add colour to the article.

So it is not fair use. You have a tenuous grasp of the concept at best so stop making these claims as if you're a legal expert. You don't even preface your misinformation with "in my opinion" you state it as if it's fact which only leads to more misinformation. Stop it.

you said: " in this case the photo is not part of the story but simply a companion to make the story pretty."

no, the photo is part of the story.

you said: " in this case the photo is not part of the story but simply a companion to make the story pretty."

no, the photo is part of the story.

Oh my bloody god. A stock photo is a generic image. That's kind of the definition. An image used in an article just to provide colour is not related to the story.

FAIR USE:

A guy takes a photo of a dog being beaten and puts it online. It goes viral and news agencies pick it up and use the photo in an article. The photo IS the story. Fair use.

NOT FAIR USE:
An online newspaper uses a generic stock photo of dreadlocks to accompany a human interest story on dreadlocks in the workplace. The only relationship there is between the photo and the story is the photo happens to contain dreadlocks. Not fair use.

I realize you still don't get it. You never will. You will go on poisoning the internet with your blather but perhaps someone else will read this and understand.