02-24-2012, 07:29 PM
Google and Bing do not own the images, and their use falls under "fair use". You'll notice that (for example) Google's image results page has much smaller images than the actual one you get when you click. You'll also notice that when you do click, you are directed to the original page (or as near to original as Google can get).
Some places, like the aforementioned Flickr grant themselves a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to do pretty much whatever they like with your uploaded images. They do not claim copyright, but allowing them to copy and freely use and distribute the image pretty much renders your copyright moot. You are still free to sell, grant (or not) permissions, etc, but it's kind of pointless once the image is distributed this way.
As for information that appears word for word on multiple sites, some content is made expressly for this purpose. Some is distributed free of charge (maybe by a drug company, etc), and some requires a subscription fee (e.g. some news services). Although the originator still technically retains copyright, they are not likely to come after you for copying and distributing, since that is the reason the content was created in the first place. However, you still need to comply with the rules of use - for example, company X making a generic copy of a drug that company Y also makes, could not take Y's info sheet and simply copy it while replacing Y's name with X.
Bottom line is that copyright is inherent in all materials found on the Internet, regardless of how the originator acts, what people think of the medium, the intention of the originator, or the user's final use of the "acquired" material.
Andrew
Some places, like the aforementioned Flickr grant themselves a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to do pretty much whatever they like with your uploaded images. They do not claim copyright, but allowing them to copy and freely use and distribute the image pretty much renders your copyright moot. You are still free to sell, grant (or not) permissions, etc, but it's kind of pointless once the image is distributed this way.
As for information that appears word for word on multiple sites, some content is made expressly for this purpose. Some is distributed free of charge (maybe by a drug company, etc), and some requires a subscription fee (e.g. some news services). Although the originator still technically retains copyright, they are not likely to come after you for copying and distributing, since that is the reason the content was created in the first place. However, you still need to comply with the rules of use - for example, company X making a generic copy of a drug that company Y also makes, could not take Y's info sheet and simply copy it while replacing Y's name with X.
Bottom line is that copyright is inherent in all materials found on the Internet, regardless of how the originator acts, what people think of the medium, the intention of the originator, or the user's final use of the "acquired" material.
Andrew