# Can I Use Images on My Blog? Copyright Rules That Matter

> You can use an image on your blog if you took it yourself, if it is in the public domain, or if a licence covers your use, such as Creative Commons or a stock licence. Creative Commons usually requires credit with title, author, source and licence. Images in search results are not free just because they are visible.

- URL: https://kreativblogger.de/en/writing-and-seo/images-for-blog-posts/
- Language: en
- Updated: 2026-10-19
- Publisher: Kreativblogger (OnlineBuilders LLC, https://onlinebuilders.biz)

Images make a blog post easier to read and can bring visitors through image search. They are also the most common way bloggers get into legal trouble. One photographer's licence claim for a single picture can easily exceed what you pay for years of hosting. Almost every case comes down to the same thing: there was no licence.

The rules are clearer than their reputation.

## Every photo is protected, even boring ones

Copyright arises automatically. Nobody needs to register a holiday snap or add a © symbol for it to be protected. That holds across the roughly 180 countries of the Berne Convention, including the US and the UK as well as every EU member state.

How long protection lasts varies. Under UK law, photographs generally stay protected for 70 years after the photographer's death. Germany adds a twist: even simple photos without creative ambition get 50 years of protection from publication under § 72 of its Copyright Act, on top of the 70-year rule for artistic ones. Either way, any photo taken in your lifetime is almost certainly still protected.

So visibility on Google means nothing about permission. The image search results page is a catalogue of other people's property.

## Where to get images you can use

**Image sources for blogs**

| | Commercial use | Credit required | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Your own photos | yes | no | low, mind people and artworks |
| CC0 / public domain | yes | no | low, check the origin |
| CC BY / CC BY-SA | yes | yes | medium, credit must be complete |
| CC BY-NC | partly | yes | high for blogs with ads or affiliates |
| Free photo sites with own licence | usually | usually not | medium, read the terms |
| Paid stock | yes | per licence | low, keep the invoice |
| Google Images | no | irrelevant | very high |

Simplified overview. The specific licence text always wins.

Your own photos are the best option, and not only legally. They show you actually did the thing you are writing about. Your phone shot of a balcony garden beats a flawless stock image because it is real.

You do not need a professional camera for your own photos. Window light, a calm background and a subject that actually shows what the post describes beat expensive gear.

Creative Commons images live on Wikimedia Commons and can be searched through Openverse. Free, yes. Unconditional, no. Free photo sites like Unsplash or Pexels use their own licences, which generally allow commercial use without credit but restrict things like selling unaltered copies. Paid stock is the safest third-party source, as long as you keep the licence and invoice.

## How to credit Creative Commons correctly

Any CC licence with "BY" in its name requires attribution. Creative Commons recommends the TASL formula: Title, Author, Source, Licence, with links where possible. Complete credit under a photo looks like this:

> Photo: "Schlagwortkatalog" by Dr. Marcus Gossler, via Wikimedia Commons, licensed CC BY-SA 3.0

Everything linked. Miss a part, or misspell the name, and you are outside the licence terms, which puts you in the same position as having no licence.

Two variants deserve attention. "SA" (ShareAlike) means a modified version must carry the same licence. "NC" (NonCommercial) rules out commercial use. Whether a blog with affiliate links or display ads counts as commercial is debatable. My view: if the blog earns money, skip NC images.

## Fair use and fair dealing are narrower than people think

US fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 weighs four factors: the purpose of the use, the nature of the work, how much is used, and the effect on the market for the original. Commentary and criticism can qualify. Using someone's photo to decorate a post about the same subject usually does not, because it substitutes for buying a licence.

The UK has fair dealing, which is narrower still. It covers specific purposes such as criticism, review, quotation and news reporting, and photographs are excluded from the news-reporting exception altogether. Practically speaking, if you need a lawyer to argue that your use is fair, you should probably use a different image.

## People in your photos

Taking a photo yourself does not settle every question. If identifiable people appear, other rules apply. German law generally makes publishing someone's image subject to their consent under § 22 of the Art Copyright Act (KUG), with exceptions such as public gatherings. Across the US, using a person's likeness to promote something can breach state right-of-publicity laws. UK law has no single image right, but privacy and data protection can still bite.

The practical fix is simple. Get written consent from people you photograph for the blog, and consent from parents for children. Or photograph hands and objects instead of recognisable faces.

## AI images, screenshots, embeds

Purely AI-generated images are a moving target. The US Copyright Office has refused registration for works without human authorship, and German law requires a human's personal intellectual creation too. That does not mean anything goes. The tool's terms of service apply, and an output that recreates a protected work or a real person can still infringe.

Screenshots of software or websites may show protected material. For a review or tutorial that actually discusses what is shown, quotation or fair use arguments are stronger. As decoration, they are weak.

Embedding is where jurisdictions differ. Within the EU, the CJEU's 2014 BestWater decision treated embedding content that the rightholder had made freely available, via the platform's tools, as generally not a new communication to the public. US courts have split over the so-called server test. Either way, downloading an image and uploading it to your own server is a different act entirely.

**Before publishing any image you didn't take**

- [ ] Licence saved as a screenshot or PDF
- [ ] Commercial use allowed (no NC if the blog earns money)
- [ ] Title, author, source and licence credited if required
- [ ] No identifiable people without consent
- [ ] Editing allowed if you crop or retouch
- [ ] Alt text describes what is shown

## Prepare images for search too

Legal is only half the job. Compress every image before uploading, give it a meaningful file name such as `balcony-tomatoes-container.jpg`, and write alt text that describes what is in the picture. Alt text serves screen-reader users and search engines alike. There is more in [SEO for bloggers](https://kreativblogger.de/en/writing-and-seo/seo-for-bloggers/), and placing images well within a post is covered in [how to write a blog post](https://kreativblogger.de/en/writing-and-seo/how-to-write-a-blog-post/).

Platforms that take thousands of user uploads eventually need software that checks and documents rights automatically. That is a custom development job of the sort [OnlineBuilders](https://onlinebuilders.biz/solutions/software-development) handles. Your blog only needs a spreadsheet listing each image with its source and licence.

Your next step: go through your ten most-visited posts and note where each image came from and under which licence. Wherever you no longer know, replace it with your own photo. And if you blog from Germany, check your legal notice while you are at it, using [the Impressum guide for bloggers](https://kreativblogger.de/en/money-and-law/impressum-for-bloggers/).

## FAQ

### Is it enough to credit the photographer?

No. Credit is not permission. Without a licence, using a photo is infringement even with a name underneath. With a licence, you credit the way the licence requires.

### Can I embed Instagram or X posts?

Using the platform's official embed code is the safer route, and in the EU the CJEU has treated embedding freely available content as generally lawful. US courts are split on the question. Downloading and re-uploading someone's image is a different matter and needs permission.

### Are AI-generated images safe to use?

Purely AI-generated images often lack copyright protection, since the US Copyright Office and German law both require human authorship. But the tool's terms still apply, and an image that copies a protected work or a real person's likeness can still cause trouble.

### What should I do if I get a copyright claim?

Take the image down straight away, keep a record and do not ignore deadlines. Check whether the claimant actually holds the rights before paying, and get advice for large demands.

Photo: Dmitry Makeev, CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%81-44%D0%9C.jpg)