Printing images found on Google - is it stealing?

lotuspadma

I know this isn't terribly important, but I really want to follow the second precept as much as I can. Thing is, a while ago I printed an image of the Buddha I found on Google. Copyright didn't concern me so much at the time, but I still tried and tried to figure out who created it and if there is coyright or not. But it's been in vain. Now I'm facing this dilemma in that I think it's wrong to have printed it without the author permission, and without knowing if he wanted it to be freely used or not. But I can't dispose of the image now, as that would be disrespectful, right? Either way, the kamma is done, I'm just trying to minimize the effects. What do I do now? Is this even stealing to begin with?

vinlyn

Did you profit from the photo? How did you use it?

Jeffrey

I never thought about that!

BhikkhuJayasara

I'm a photographer, I will say this.. if you are trying to sell it.. then yes it's stealing.. if you are having it for your own enjoyment, that is different and is not necessarily "stealing". If it is a photograph, it is copyrighted as soon as it's taken.

as for disposing of an image.. it's just an image friend

also remember that there is no such thing as guilt in Buddhism, that is living in the past. What is done is done, stay in the present moment and work towards moving away from unskillful deeds

lotuspadma

@vinlyn I glued it on my folder of Buddhist booklets and mannuals. It's just for me, just for decoration.

@Jayantha It's not a photograph, it's a painting. This is it>>> http://omret.net/buddha_deer_park.jpg
Might have to gather up the courage to do it, it's tought. I know we shouldn't live in the past, but if there's something we can do to somehow fix what's been done...

RebeccaS

People get sued for using images from Google all the time. Google just shows where the images are, they have nothing to do with their distribution which is the domain of the copyright holder.

If you still have a digital copy you can use google image search (where you search with an image rather than a worded search term) and try to find a match for the original.

To be honest, I think that just printing it out to use on a folder for yourself isn't really stealing, and I doubt that even the most fastidious copyright holder would be concerned, and I don't think you really have a reason to be.

federica

Some publishers splash a slogan over their images to prevent reproduction or use elsewhere. I consider any image that is publicly available, and freely distributable, is acceptable - providing you use it skilfully.....

Cole_

In the case of an artist's work, I hope that one would choose to support the artist, but that is their choice.

lotuspadma

@Cole_ But I don't know who he/she is. Their signature is hard to read. And it seems to be a common Indian name. It's Padnakar, or Padnekar, Podnekar, dunno...

karasti

For images, in many cases, no. Sometimes, yes Fair Use applies to images, and generally fair use covers things such as what you described. You are not profiting in any way from someone else's work, nor making it so someone else can profit, you are not sharing it publicly or claiming it as your own, nor impeding on the owner's right to do what they please with their own image generally it's not a big problem. It's quite a vast topic, but if you read through this it should help narrow things down for you:
http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/

Generally speaking, most of the time to prove image copyright infringement, the owner has to be able prove they suffered or reasonably could have suffered from the way you used their image. IE you used their image in a national story that you got paid for. You used the image in a product you made and profited from, etc.

Cole_

Overall, I sincerely don't think an artist would mind what you used it for. At least I wouldn't. There's no need to fret over it . In the case of religious subject matter, I would hope the original intention was not to gain profit from it anyways, but to spread a pre-existing idea.

karasti

Forgot to add that just because something is freely available doesn't mean the owner realizes it is out there and being used. It really depends on what you are using it for. For example, the bear researcher I know here, has had images of his bears used by the AP for stories about bears who killed or attacked people, making it appear as if the bear in the photo was responsible. The owner can request the AP cease and desist from using the image and they are required to. Likewise, if you take an image from google images and put it on a coffee mug and sell it? That would be illegal. If you take an image and put it as your FB profile photo, generally you will be fine but the owner can still ask you to not use it if they want to. If you print a photo and use it as the cover page for your binder at home? Generally that falls under fair use. If you made 100 copies and give them to your students to use as book covers for a class? that's another story.

Cole_

karasti said:

Forgot to add that just because something is freely available doesn't mean the owner realizes it is out there and being used. It really depends on what you are using it for. For example, the bear researcher I know here, has had images of his bears used by the AP for stories about bears who killed or attacked people, making it appear as if the bear in the photo was responsible. The owner can request the AP cease and desist from using the image and they are required to. Likewise, if you take an image from google images and put it on a coffee mug and sell it? That would be illegal. If you take an image and put it as your FB profile photo, generally you will be fine but the owner can still ask you to not use it if they want to. If you print a photo and use it as the cover page for your binder at home? Generally that falls under fair use. If you made 100 copies and give them to your students to use as book covers for a class? that's another story.

Karasti covered what wouldn't be ok to use it for fairly thoroughly and unfortunately works get used in the manners stated more often then not. Not only is the manner in which you used it more then likely considered fair use, it is also morally not of any significance in my opinion.

vinlyn

lotuspadma said:

@vinlyn I glued it on my folder of Buddhist booklets and mannuals. It's just for me, just for decoration.

...

Then in my view, there is no problem.

Dakini

lotuspadma said:

But I can't dispose of the image now, as that would be disrespectful, right?

How would it be disrespectful? That's not a precept. This just sounds like you're trying to justify keeping it. Not that there's anything wrong with using it for your own enjoyment--fair use laws cover that, as noted above. But what's this about not being able to throw away something you've downloaded?

BhikkhuJayasara

Dakini said:

lotuspadma said:

But I can't dispose of the image now, as that would be disrespectful, right?

How would it be disrespectful? That's not a precept. This just sounds like you're trying to justify keeping it. Not that there's anything wrong with using it for your own enjoyment--fair use laws cover that, as noted above. But what's this about not being able to throw away something you've downloaded?

I think he means like throwing away an image of the buddha would somehow be sacrilegious or he'd go to the hell realms for his next rebirth for it heheh. which is why I responded that it was just an image.

karasti

nah, Buddhism isn't Islam No one will come stone you or burn your house down and try to kill your family because you got rid of an image of Buddha. There is no reason for you not to keep it and use it for the purposes you described. Why would you want to get rid of it?

Zero

lotuspadma said:

I'm just trying to minimize the effects. What do I do now? Is this even stealing to begin with?

I don't see you have an issue but then no matter what I think, it is you who needs to resolve it within yourself.

karasti said:

nah, Buddhism isn't Islam

Please... I can see how this could be humorous however it appeals wholeheartedly to ignorance so on balance there are probably more amusing analogies available :shake:

music

^What zero said. Generalizations must be avoided. We are Buddhists, supposed to be non-judgmental and compassionate.

BhikkhuJayasara

karasti said:

nah, Buddhism isn't Islam No one will come stone you or burn your house down and try to kill your family because you got rid of an image of Buddha. There is no reason for you not to keep it and use it for the purposes you described. Why would you want to get rid of it?

how about how Buddhists reacted to those statues being blown up by muslims years back? trust me in buddhist countries throwing away the image of a buddha will most likely be met with scared superstition and possibly even anger and ill will... but it is just that, rituals, rites, and superstition are things we move away towards as we get deeper in our practice.

Cinorjer

Some things not to do: copy and paste an image that doesn't belong to you onto your own website or to use in any public manner, without getting permission. Even if you don't make money off the image. However, printing off an image to keep for yourself or using one as a screen background just for you? Don't sweat it.

I lot of Buddhist cultures do have this thing about destroying even damaged and worthless images of Buddha, so the temples end up with a sort of Buddha junkyard tucked away. I suppose it's like the quandry a Christian family has with destroying or throwing away an old damaged Bible. No rule against it, but it just seems wrong.

lotuspadma

@Dakini I'm not trying to keep it, I'm having trouble deciding if I should keep it or not. If I was certain it was not unwholesome to throw away, I would do it. Trust me, I don't mind getting rid of downloaded stuff. I gladly deleted my whole mp3 collection of gigas and gigas. But it didn't mean much to me, as the Lord Buddha does.

@karasti Uhh, because it wasn't freely given. Or maybe it was, but I can't know for sure, as the author's identity is uncertain. It's not what other can do that scares me, it's my crazy idea that destroying the image could mean bad kamma, spiritual regress...

@Cinorjer Exactly, I was once a Catholic and religious imagery is a big deal. Almost as if it is the person represented in it. But it's just that, a representantion.

I think it's best if I keep it away for a while, 'till I decide what to do. Thanks to everyone who took their time to answer!

karasti

Nah I'm not ignorant. I was just making a point (which is actually valid considering people are threatened with their lives for even being associated with someone who possibly burned or defaced anything to do with Islam). My Muslim friend would have said the same thing, and he was who I had in mind along with the recent story of the boy who was tagged in a Facebook photo and had to run for his life because the photo showed a Muslim image being burned. It did not mean to offend anyone.

karasti

Buddha was just a person, he wouldn't probably have even to be worshiped in the way he often is, lol. It just seems to me like holding onto a random scrap of paper printed off the internet out of fear is simply another form of attachment. I doubt you have to worry you will have a poor rebirth because you threw out a piece of paper you printed on your printer. If we aren't supposed to be attached to our own bodies, I doubt we are meant to be attached to a photo copy of someone else's.

JosephW

I knew I had a reason not to make all those poster projects in school, it was the Buddha speaking within me not to steal, not laziness... I knew good would come of not doing school projects!

lotuspadma

@karasti That's a heck of a good point! But it's not so much that I'm attached to the image, I actually have a slight delusion that the image is equivalent to the Buddha himself. It's probably because I've been trying to follow these etiquettes and trying to show respect to statues of the Buddha. Gets kinda confusing then.

@JosephW Lol, simply choose images from Wiki Commons or another free source.

Ficus_religiosa

Stealing is taking away something with an economical value which isn't yours, with the intent of keeping it as your own.

Copyright infringement is using the works of others' as if it were your own.

I think the "with an economical value"-part goes out of the equation in Buddhist terms.

You aren't taking away anything by duplicating the image and you aren't distributing it as your own by using it on your personal what-ever-it-was

karasti

I will be honest and say, I have a small Buddha statue. I do respect the image of Buddha but I do not consider it the same as I do something printed on paper. I don't put the statue above my head level because I have no where to do that. I most certainly do not bow or prostrate to it every time I see it because it is in the common area of our home and I'd spend all day bowing as I did chores and walked around my home, lol. I also do not place any of my dharma books on high shelves or anything. I don't throw them on the floor and step on them, because I respect all my books too much to treat them that way. But I don't treat them like they are worth their weight in gold. The teachings are the truth whether they are in a book or not. Me putting the book on a low shelf, on a chair, or in the console of my car doesn't take away the truth of the teaching, and me throwing away an old book, a wrinkled image, or whatever doesn't take away the respect I have for Buddha as teacher. I would have no problem throwing away the bible, the Quran, or any other book I have, either, if there was reason to do so. I just personally never got into that "my respect for the teacher/teachings is dependent on treating a material manisfestation in a particular manner." I understand what you are saying of course, it's just not something that I've ever personally really understood.

When I am with my teacher, I respect his wishes and do as he asks. I don't just reject it or anything, lol. I think for me it just comes down to respect versus disrespect and I don't think you have to qualify respect with particular detailed rules.

Zero

karasti said:

Nah I'm not ignorant.

I was just making a point (which is actually valid considering people are threatened with their lives for even being associated with someone who possibly burned or defaced anything to do with Islam).

My Muslim friend would have said the same thing, and he was who I had in mind along with the recent story of the boy who was tagged in a Facebook photo and had to run for his life because the photo showed a Muslim image being burned. It did not mean to offend anyone.

I didn't say you are ignorant - I said your statement panders to ignorance.

Going on to consider that you made a valid point is confusing as the point you made was vague, factually inaccurate, unbalanced and patently offensive - I wouldn't have expected you to stand by it.

Referring to your 'muslim friend' reminds me of the common 'black friend' to people who harbor misguided racist views.

lotuspadma

Just in case anyone gets to read this old thread, I eventually threw away the image and some mannuals on Buddhism that I found on the Internet. Even though most of it wasn't copyrighted (as far as I knew), it still bothered me. However I later came across this:

The five factors [that cause breaking] of the second precept are:
-article(s) with a concerned owner.
-one knows there is a concerned owner.
-the intention to steal.
-the effort to steal.
-the article(s) is (are) stolen through that effort.

I think a concerned owner means someone that has copyrighted the text, image, etc And since I didn't know if there was a concerned owner or not, it wasn't stealing. At least I don't think so. In anyway, what's done is done and now I need to look out for this neuroticism messing my head in this practice. That's life!