"It's on Google, so it's free" — and other myths about image usage rights.

"Please use this image — I found it on Google." It's the most common request from a new client. The surface looks clear: the image is online, anyone can see it, anyone can download it. Therefore anyone can use it.

The depth is more complicated. In almost every case, that image has an author. The author has intellectual property rights. Using it without permission can constitute a copyright violation and may lead to takedown requests, retroactive licensing, or damages claims.

"Visible" doesn't mean "public domain"

The word "public" has two meanings that get blurred in everyday language:

• "Publicly posted" — the image is online, visible to anyone. This is a technological status.
• "In the public domain" — the image has no rights-holder or the economic rights have expired. This is a legal status.

Only public-domain status gives you, in principle, broad freedom to use without a licence — and even then, subject to other possible rights (image of persons, works of art, trademarks, protected buildings). Otherwise, use depends on a licence, written permission, or a clearly applicable legal exception (quotation, education, news reporting). For a recent photograph, or one whose author has not died more than 70 years ago, you should assume that economic rights still exist.

Image categories and their actual status

For practical orientation, seven categories that cover almost any image you might use:

• Original images (shot by you or your team): maximum control over the source, the safest status — provided you have also cleared rights for other possible elements in frame: persons, works of art, trademarks, packaging, protected buildings, private interiors.
• Licensed stock (Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, Getty with a valid subscription): right to use per the licence terms. Read the restrictions — editorial vs. commercial use, maximum reproductions, licence duration, territory.
• Creative Commons (CC0, CC BY, CC BY-SA etc.): varies, read the licence. CC0 = dedication to the public domain, typically no attribution required — but verify what the source was entitled to dedicate, and whether third-party rights may apply. CC BY = free with mandatory attribution. CC BY-SA = free with attribution; adaptations must be distributed under the same or a compatible licence.
• "Free" sites (Unsplash, Pexels): operate under their own terms, distinct from Creative Commons licences. Terms can change — check the current version before any major use.
• Images from Google Search results — copyright belongs to the original photographer. Use without a licence can constitute infringement. Appearing in a search doesn't change the legal status.
• Images from social media (Instagram, Facebook, TikTok): rights remain with the author or rights-holder — who may or may not be the person who posted. Native platform functions (share, repost) may be permitted inside the platform but do not amount to a licence for download, editing, ads or use on other channels.
• Images from press articles — rights may belong to the photographer, photo agency, publication, or another holder. The credit line under a photo isn't a licence to reuse. Embedding through the publication's official tools may be permitted under certain conditions, but should not be confused with the right to download, edit, and re-upload.

What an actual problem looks like

This is not hypothetical. Professional photographers use automated tools (TinEye, Pixsy, Google Reverse Image Search) that find unauthorised uses. The typical process, when unauthorised use is detected:

• Automated warning email — "remove the image or pay retroactive licensing". The cost can be meaningfully higher than the standard licence.
• Formal letter from a lawyer — formal damages claim + possible takedown. The amount depends on jurisdiction, author, scope of use, duration, visibility of publication, and demonstrated harm.
• Court action — rare, but it happens. For large-scale commercial uses (ad campaigns, packaging, OOH), the risk increases significantly.

Costs can range from retroactive licensing and administrative fees to significant damages claims, especially for commercial uses with high visibility. Beyond money, there's legal time, reputation (it's easy to be the subject of a "brand X used uncleared photography" story), and relationships with photographers in your industry if you work in visual fields — real estate, hospitality, fashion, lifestyle.

The subtle traps — things many people don't know are protected

A few categories we've seen considered "neutral" but which are in fact protected:

• Architecture — works of architecture (not every ordinary building, but most identifiable architectural projects with a known author) are protected under Romanian Law 8/1996. Freedom of panorama in Romania exists but is restrictive: commercial use of an image of an architectural work permanently sited in public space becomes problematic when that work is the main subject of the frame.
• Stadiums and sports venues — may carry contractual restrictions through tickets, accreditations, organiser rules, or exclusive broadcasting / photography rights. A fan photographing from the stands is one problem; an agency using the photo commercially is a bigger one.
• Works of art — paintings, sculptures, public installations. All have distinct copyright. Photographing in a museum is one thing; using the photo commercially is another.
• Logos and product packaging — double protection: trademark + copyright on design. Use in a context that implies endorsement (or that can be interpreted that way) is the riskiest.
• Portraits of people — even if the photograph is your own, commercial use may require the photographed person's consent. Depending on context, the right to image, privacy, and personal-data rules may all apply. Public figures at public events = partial exception.

How we work

When we write a project brief, we include a section dedicated to image sources. Every external image proposed passes through three filters:

• Verifiable source — who is the author, what is the licence, where did we obtain it.
• Use category — editorial vs. commercial vs. ad. The licence terms must cover the actual use.
• Audit trail — we keep proof of licence for years. If a claim comes in three years later, we can prove we had the right.

For content produced by us through our content marketing services, economic usage rights are assigned to the client per contract — for the channels, duration, and purposes agreed. We deliver original images that are yours, no surprises two years later.

For content that can't be produced (inaccessible locations, historical contexts, events we weren't present at), we use licensed stock or images with written permission from the author. We never "pull from Google".

How we respond when the client insists

Common scenario: the client found a perfect image on Google. They want it used. Our steps:

• We explain the risk in writing (email, with a clear structure: what the image is, what its legal status is, what the potential cost is).
• We propose alternatives — similar images in licensed stock, or we produce the variant ourselves (with a small budget supplement, if needed).
• If they still insist — explicit written sign-off, documented in the brief, with explicit mention that the risk stays with the client.

We never refuse curtly — we explain. But neither do we compromise the agency's reputation for a hypothetical "saving" that can cost much more six months down the line.

Conclusion

The internet created the impression that public visibility = public availability. Not true. Photographers, designers, architects and artists have rights that transferred without modification into the digital era.

For a serious brand, verifying rights isn't bureaucracy — it's protection. The cost of a valid licence is almost always less than the cost of a dispute.

And, beyond cost, it's respect. The photographer who made the image you want to use travelled, waited for the light, edited, published. Using it without permission puts you on the wrong side of a relationship which, if asked properly, might have been free. Many photographers grant free licences for non-commercial uses with attribution. They just need to be asked.

Note: this article is an educational overview, not legal advice. For concrete situations with commercial stakes, consult a copyright specialist.