I think for school no one cares. Read the terms of use. They are low res if you don't buy them. People do it all the time. I like Corbis myself.

oohhh its completely legal, i did it for all my school renderings.... i mean ur not profiting w/'em right?? ;-) c'mon dont be chicken and do it!!! or ut going to tell me u dont download music or movies from the internet???.... by the way i went to school in the Bahamas...

by the way u better use FLICKR... u get them in larger better quality

no, it's not legal unless you buy them. That's the point. They are 'royalty free', meaning you can buy them and use them however you want (regular pics in magazines, newspapers, etc., you can't use them how you want, you need actual permission).

The architecture community doesn't seem to care about copyright laws (how many times have people suggest on here to go out and take pictures of other people to use in your renderings - can't do that without permission from those you are photographing). I am amazed at how many high profile projects have obvious scans from fashion mags in them (thankfully this trend has almost died).

That said, everyone seems to do it in this profession (firms are way cheap!!).

The legal free way to do this is to use images from the Stock Exchange. It's a free stock photo site.

Trace- I was under the impression that anyone/anything that you personally photographed from a public place was fair game. else, how do tabloid paparazzi get away with it?

I read an article on this once...I will see if I can find it.

I would agree with trace, but with one small exemption...if you are making images as a student or making a work of art (indepenent of a commerical entity) then everything is fair game. I think once you've entered into the arena of commerce where the images are used for commerical proposes than you should pay for what you are using. To clarify this further I would say that if you have a paying client or if your work is commissioned with moneys you should uses these resources in creating your work.

I remember reading a thread the other day about someone's work being used without hteir knowledge after a communication breakdown, and someone had mentioned that it's hard to fight this legally in architecture, because essentially small changes in the design makes it a new and original design.....

so how does this way of thinking affect the use of copyright images, because as we all know, every image has to modified somewhat to use for architectural purposes. It could be as small as a colour shift, slight cropping, or removing the background. Does this work not constitute the creation of a new and unique image?

Foremost, in my opinion, anything while you are in school is fair game.

Another question we should be asking is how the hell "musicians" get away with "sampling" so heavily today? Is it a sign of the times?

typically, you can use any image you find, scanned, etc., as long as it is no longer recognizable as the original.

For photographing celebrities and other things, I think it has to do with being 'in the public'. Again, blurry lines and I really don't know where they are (although I have spent time trying to find out).

For music, you pay a fee to use the songs. For example, if you want to use a current hit you'll pay a a few thousand on up to use it. Obviously, this will depend on how valuable the song is to the record company (or whoever the owner is). How unsigned artists use them to become signed artists is something I have no idea about.

All this is blurry, though. It's a matter of how ethical you want to be (or possibly how anal) and whether the images will possibly reach a large audience.

rationalist - yes, that site is amazing. It has been a favorite of mine for years.