Where the pictures on your site are allowed to come from

The mistake nearly everyone makes

Someone needs a picture of a kitchen, searches for one, saves the result and uploads it. The image belongs to a photographer who never agreed to any of that.

Appearing in a search result says nothing about permission. Neither does an image being easy to download or appearing on many sites.

Photographers and agencies use automated matching to find copies, which is why these letters arrive years after a page was built.

Automated matching is what makes this catch up with people years later. An image is found on your page long after whoever placed it has left the business.

Where images can legitimately come from

Photographs you took. Photographs you paid somebody to take, with the rights agreed in writing. Stock images bought under a licence.

Images released under an open licence, provided you meet its conditions, which usually include crediting the creator in a specific way.

In every case you should be able to name the source and find the licence. If you cannot, treat the image as unusable.

A photograph taken by an employee during their work is usually yours. One taken by a contractor often is not, unless the agreement said so.

• Photographs you took yourself
• Photographs you paid for, with the rights agreed in writing
• Stock images bought under a licence covering your use
• Images under an open licence whose conditions you have met
• Images supplied by a client or supplier who has the rights
• Anything you can name the source and find the licence for

Free stock still has terms

Sites offering images at no charge still attach conditions. Some prohibit commercial use. Some require attribution. Some exclude images containing recognisable people or brands.

Licences also change. An image downloaded under old terms can be relicensed, and your evidence is the record you kept at the time.

Save the licence page and the date with the file. That record is the whole defense if anybody ever asks.

Save the licence page and the date alongside the file. Terms change, and the only evidence of what you agreed to is the copy you kept.

What a claim looks like

Usually a letter identifying the image, the page it appeared on, and a demand for payment, often far above what a licence would have cost.

Removing the image does not end it, because the use already happened. That surprises people.

This is why keeping licence records matters more than it seems. Being able to show a purchase ends the conversation quickly.

Most are settled by paying something. The point of keeping records is to be able to show the use was licensed and end it at the first reply.

Photographs of people and property

Copyright is about who took the picture. Using someone's likeness in marketing is a separate question with its own rules.

If a recognisable person appears in a photo used to promote your business, you generally want their written agreement.

The same caution applies to somebody's home or business premises appearing in a promotional context.

Using somebody's likeness in marketing is a separate question from who took the picture, and it usually needs their written agreement.

Logos and other people's brands

Manufacturer logos, certification marks and client logos are all controlled by their owners, and most publish rules about use.

A client logo wall usually needs each client's agreement, whatever the industry habit suggests.

Removing a logo when a relationship ends is part of the same discipline as removing an expired credential.

The simplest safe habit

Use your own photographs wherever you can. They are more persuasive, they cannot be claimed against you, and every competitor cannot use the same ones.

Where you buy, keep the receipt and the licence. Where you use an open licence, keep the terms and add the credit.

Pages here are written from a conversation about your business, and the images you supply are the images that publish. Nothing here is legal advice.

Your own photographs are also more persuasive than any library image, which is the argument made in before and after photos.