Photo Rights on a Website: What You're Actually Allowed to Use
Any photograph published on a website is, in principle, protected by its creator's copyright, whether it comes from a professional photographer, a stock photo library, or a social network. Using an image without checking its licence or without authorisation exposes you to a risk of infringement, regardless of the site's size or the user's intent.
The real problem: easy access hides the absence of rights
The internet gives near-instant access to millions of images, which creates an illusion of free availability. In practice, almost all photographs visible online remain protected by their creator's copyright, even in the absence of a visible copyright notice on the image itself. The absence of a notice never means the absence of protection: copyright arises automatically when a work is created, with no filing formality required. This misunderstanding regularly leads project owners to grab an image found through an image search, without checking its licence, with a real legal risk attached.
Image sources and their respective rules
Not all image sources carry the same level of risk, but none of them exempts you from checking:
| Source | What needs to be checked |
|---|---|
| Paid stock photo library (standard or extended licence) | The exact licence type, whether commercial use is authorised, the duration, and any print-run or distribution limits |
| Free stock photo library (with a free licence such as CC0) | The precise conditions of the licence applied to each image, which can vary |
| Photo taken by a commissioned professional photographer | Whether an explicit rights transfer exists in the contract, without which the photographer remains the rights holder |
| Photo found via a search engine | Almost systematic absence of a usage right without a verification and authorisation process |
| Photo published on social media by a third party | The platform's terms of use generally do not grant a third party the right to reuse it outside the network |
| Photo taken by the company itself | Ownership generally acquired if taken by the owner-manager, or via a transfer clause in the employee-author's employment contract |
The case of a commissioned professional photographer
Hiring a professional photographer doesn't automatically guarantee a complete and unlimited right to use the photos produced. Just as with website code, paying for a photography service doesn't systematically transfer copyright: it's the contract, and its rights-transfer clause, that determines the exact scope of authorised use (web use only, or also print; limited or unlimited duration; modification allowed or not). It's advisable to clarify these points before the photo shoot, not after receiving the files.
Stock photo libraries: read the licence, not just the price
An image paid for on a stock photo library isn't necessarily usable for any purpose. Licences generally come in several tiers: standard licence (regular web use, limited print run), extended licence (broader commercial use, derivative products), sometimes with specific restrictions on certain uses (advertising, resale, use on a physical product). You need to check the licence attached to each image before publishing it, rather than assuming that a subscription to a stock photo library automatically covers every conceivable use.
Images generated by artificial intelligence
Images produced by generative AI tools raise legal questions that are still evolving, in particular around who holds the rights and the risk that a generated image reproduces protected elements from its training data. Each tool's terms of use generally specify the rights granted to the user over the images produced, but the area remains fluid and uncertain at this stage; particular caution, and for sensitive commercial use, a specific legal opinion, are still recommended.
What to remember
- Any photograph is, in principle, protected by its creator's copyright, with or without a visible copyright notice.
- The absence of a rights notice on an image never means it's free to use.
- An image found via a Google search or on social media generally can't be reused without verification and authorisation.
- Working with a professional photographer requires an explicit rights-transfer clause in the contract to secure the usage.
- Stock photo library licences vary and must be read precisely for each image, not assumed to be identical.
- AI-generated images remain a legal area in flux, to be approached with caution for commercial use.
Frequently asked questions
Can I use a photo found on Google Images? No, not in principle. Appearing in Google's search results doesn't mean an image is free of rights; it remains protected unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Are "royalty-free" images really free of any conditions? No, the term is misleading. Most of these images remain under licence with precise conditions that need to be checked case by case.
Does a photo taken by a company employee raise a rights issue? It depends on the employment contract. Under French law, a specific transfer clause is still recommended to secure the situation, since creating a work in the course of employment doesn't automatically transfer the rights.
What's the risk of using a photo without authorisation? Infringement, which can lead to a formal notice, a takedown request, and a claim for damages depending on how the image was used.
In summary
Easy access to images online never exempts you from checking their actual usage rights, whether the source is a stock photo library, a commissioned photographer, or a search engine. This overview presents the general principles of copyright law applicable to photos; for a specific situation or dispute, advice from a lawyer specialising in intellectual property remains the reference point. Websites designed by VeryAppi rely on image sources whose licences are verified before publication.
Frequently asked questions
›Can I use a photo found on Google Images?
No, not in principle. The fact that an image shows up in Google's search results doesn't mean it's free to use. It remains protected by its creator's copyright, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Using such an image without checking its licence exposes you to a risk of infringement.
›Are 'royalty-free' images really free of any conditions?
No, the term is misleading. Most so-called royalty-free images are in fact licensed, with precise conditions (commercial use allowed or not, attribution required or not, modification allowed or not). You need to read the exact terms of each licence, which vary from one image library to another, and sometimes from one image to another on the same platform.
›Does a photo taken by a company employee raise a rights issue?
That depends on the employment contract and any rights-transfer clauses it contains. Under French law, unlike in some other countries, creating a work as part of an employment contract does not automatically transfer copyright to the employer; a specific clause is still recommended to secure the situation.
›What's the risk of using a photo without authorisation?
Using a photo without authorisation from the rights holder constitutes infringement, which can lead to a formal notice, a takedown request, and a claim for damages. The amount claimed depends on how the image was used and the harm invoked by the rights holder.