Copyright laws balance the rights of creators AND users. They're not there to stop you using others' work.
This article is a good reminder that fair use does NOT mean simply taking someone else's work and deploying on your site, though I'm distressed that people are self-censoring because of the prospect of what, at least in some cases, seem to be malicious and overbearing threats of legal action that might very well not have merit or even proceed.
You may not be aware that the focus of copyright legislation is ensuring that creativity is NOT stifled by someone's copyright on their work. Yes, you read correctly. This follows an established principle in law that rights are to be interpreted as broadly as possible, and restrictions on rights as narrowly as possible.
Original copyright law from the 18th century sought to give copyright holders "complete monopolistic control over their work. However, the courts were immediately flooded by lawsuits by publishers unhappy with negative book reviews that included even a single quote of a work, and the courts recognized these statutes were untenable. " (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_Canadian_copyright_law)
However - and I'm not a lawyer, just a bit of a law nerd who has read extensively on this topic - there are tests to establish fair use (called "fair dealing" in Canada). They are pretty similar in Canada and the US.
The objective of the Canadian Copyright Act is to balance the interests of users and creators. User rights (that's us) are not "loopholes". You as a user of the work have rights, too, and they must be interpreted broadly. In Canada, as opposed to the US I believe, when someone claims infringement of copyright, that person makes their case, and the onus is on the defendant to prove fair dealing.
Briefly, and in my own words, the tests are as follows:
1.Was the use for a recognized legitimate purpose?
Research, private study, satire, parody - these are all legitimate use and do not infringe copyright.
Neither do criticism or review, or news reporting.
2. How much of the work was used, a portion or the whole work?
3. Was the use transformative, producing a substantially new piece of work, and did this require some form of creative skill?
4. Does the use affect any commercial value of the work, such that the copyright holder would suffer financially were the use to supplant the original?
I'm not making any recommendations, but you can see that there is a LOT of leeway here.
What I've done to this point, besides the obvious solution of taking my own photos, is to use very small parts of images composited to create complex and layered illustrations. You could also use tracing programs to draw your own versions of images.
The points I want to leave you with are:
1. Don't just take someone's work and use it
2. Get creative and use computer technology, old-fashioned artistic skill and your imagination to transform anything you use.
I hope these ideas help.
DISCLAIMER: this above is for your interest only and does not constitute legal advice. You are encouraged to do your own research and come to your own conclusions, and to consult a lawyer if you have any concerns.
DR.
