That really is out of the scope of this support forum. Copyright law is the realm of high priced lawyers, especially for web sites, since they can be viewed internationally, and copyright laws vary by country around the world.
Beyond that, common courtesy says you should ask permission and then give credit on your web site once you have received that permission.
“It depends” is the correct answer. I, for example, would never ask permission before using an image from the section of a corporate web site that offers pictures for Media to use freely. At the other extreme, a professional photographer’s work on his own web site or photos of a restorer of antiques’ work both are likely to get you in trouble.
Lastly, were someone to complain to your web host that you were displaying copyright material, you could be banned for life from that web host. That is part of their Terms and Conditions.
Some real world examples: some law firm has contracted with a newspaper in Las Vegas to sue every web site that has used text or images from that newspaper. I know someone who was involved in one of these lawsuits for publishing a single article from the paper, complete with a link and credit.
Second, a fellow from Italy restores 1960s era shortwave radio receivers, and he constantly searches the world for anyone who is using his photos of these restorations, and threatens them.
Thanks for the reply, I have been very hesitant at using pictures unless it is one that I have taken myself. Is there any particular website that I should be looking at that offers pictures for others to use freely?
Additionally: should your site be personal, and not for profit, the chances that anyone will bother you — or ever notice your website — are minimal, and even then you could argue ‘fair use’. And if they did you could always withdraw the picture.
Weirdly, around ten years ago, the sort of people who want to be paid whenever there is any transaction argued that whilst they couldn’t claim copyright ( to be paid to the current owner of the work of art… ) on behalf of the original artist who happened to die 500 years previously, the copyright applied to the photographic image of the art currently in their possession. This was rejected by US courts on the grounds that no further original artistry was involved in duplication.
[ Bridgeman ]
Stopping Fine Art from being circulated is one thing: what of currently produced work ? It is as bad manners to copy pictures off another blog as to copy their posts. With proper *living* artists or photographers who make money from their work, only with their permission [ although really, any true artist would welcome exposure — it’s not as if they are overwhelmed with publicity, poor things ). With random stuff you get off Danbooru, and other useful image sites which have fairly small legal rights to show works — being art aggregators rather than galleries, it’s lottery odds against anyone caring. Again, these are ( sometimes brilliant ) works ‘…whom there were none to praise and very few to love.‘ and any further exposure has to be a good thing.
