It's happened - I've received a cease and desist letter. When I use images off Google Images, I am always careful to tick the box which states 'Reuse with modification'. This means I go under the Creative Commons license of ShareAlike, which means I can modify photos as long as I credit the original artwork. I thought this was all good. Two years ago, I carefully selected an image off Google Images that was fine to use. However, in the last two years, the photo I've used has been bought by Getty Images, who have changed the licenses of this particular image. Now Getty Images are going about trying to sue everyone who has used that image who thought it was fine to use. It's scandalous. Anyway, I have objected to this letter, and sure enough, the admit that they bought the rights to this photo AFTER I had used it. This means I have not been breaking any rules, and they won't get a penny from me. I had the correct licenses, so I wasn't doing anything wrong. However, it doesn't mean I'm out of hassle. I have 14 days to change this image (which is one of my app icons) otherwise they will press charges. This comes just as I go on holiday, so its a lot of hassle for me. So the moral of this story is that even if you have the correct licenses for images, the image can change rights at anytime, and if you don't have to time to object, you'll get a hefty fee. It's always best to take the photo yourself!

Or pay for an image from any of the numerous stock photo sites...

Even that is risky. When you buy an image, you have to pay for an amount of time. If you forget about it for even a few days, these guys are right up your tail. It's ALWAYS best to take the photo yourself. Always. Do we read the Terms and Conditions every time we buy something?

I agree, we have to be careful.. I like to use Flickr and ask the author to use the image while citing the source. Also, paying at particular stock image websites.

>It's ALWAYS best to take the photo yourself. Always. Maybe, but far from always being possible, lest we turn ourselves into photo agencies. >When you buy an image, you have to pay for an amount of time. I wouldn't buy from such a site, there are plenty of them to choose from.

My point is that with any image you get (whether you buy it or not) online, you need to be careful. I'm not arguing that online images aren't for use. I'm not arguing for anything. My point is that any image can change it's license at any time. That's where I found myself - using an image that was OK to use, but then the license changed. There's nothing wrong with getting images online, it's just that you need to remember that licenses can change, or the original photograph is bought by another photo agency. In my case, I'm a photographer by hobby. It's easy for me to go out and take some photos. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but for my type of apps (where it's based on one location) spending half a day when its sunny is not too much to ask for, especially when one is an amateur photographer.

Great reminder Thomas - Sorry you're having to go through this ordeal, especially before holiday. Even with the stock photography sites, it's an excellent reminder to check the TOS. On this similar note... Is anyone aware of font-legalities in the US (or abroad)? Or, if there's an easy way to find out what fonts are OK to use royalty-free? [I understand the majority of us on BT may not be lawyers]. However, it would be great to find out if your cool ICY-COLD-ARIAL font is free to use, or protected under a license.

What's the icy cold arial font?

Pardon me, just a silly example. {silly joke lost in board submission} Rather, any cool,funky font I have collected several from previous machines.. going back to the days of my trusty old Macintosh G4. I'm just not up to speed on the legality of what fonts are free to use in any capacity, and where to go to find out.