I know it's a no-no with Google to place AdSense ads next to photos or images you don't own the copyright to.

Really? Then it's high time Google followed through on this with all my scraped images and sites.

I can't see why Google would be against this since many sites use manufacturers stock images.

I know it's a no-no with Google to place AdSense ads next to photos or images you don't own the copyright to.

My understanding of that rule is that it's about using images next to ads period e.g. in a way that makes people thing the images and ads are associated with each other.

From the Getty terms of use...

Getty Images reserves the right in its sole discretion to remove Getty Images Content from the Embedded Viewer. Upon request, you agree to take prompt action to stop using the Embedded Viewer and/or Getty Images Content. You may only use embedded Getty Images Content for editorial purposes (meaning relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest). Embedded Getty Images Content may not be used: (a) for any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising) or to suggest endorsement or sponsorship; (b) in violation of any stated restriction; (c) in a defamatory, #*$!ographic or otherwise unlawful manner; or (d) outside of the context of the Embedded Viewer.

Images are licensed all the time to third parties so can't imagine G has an issue with legitimate use of such images but if you're using images that someone else owns the copyright to and you don't have their permission (license) to do so, then you're a thief and G supposedly has a no-tolerance policy where that is concerned.

@RedBar -- I'm betting you saw this but it's worth mentioning.

Google's Matt Cutts: Report a Scraper Outranking You [webmasterworld.com ]

I know it's a no-no with Google to place AdSense ads next to photos or images you don't own the copyright to.

No, you cannot place any image in such a way as to draw attention to ads (i.e. next to them) and you cannot use Adsense together with blatant breaches of copyright.

I know it's a no-no with Google to place AdSense ads next to photos or images you don't own the copyright to.

The actual rule is:

"AdSense publishers may not display Google ads on webpages with content protected by copyright law unless they have the necessary legal rights to display that content."

In the case of embedded Getty Images, you have "the necessary legal rights to display that content" as long as you're complying with Getty's terms and conditions.

Well, there's more than on rule applicable to the OP's question.

Publishers may not ask others to click their ads or use deceptive implementation methods to obtain clicks. This includes, but is not limited to, offering compensation to users for viewing ads or performing searches, promising to raise money for third parties for such behavior or placing images next to individual ads.

Yes, you're not supposed to place photos next to individual ads, but that has nothing to do with whether the photos are embedded Getty Images.

In terms of compliance with AdSense program policies, the OP is free to use Getty Images in the same way he or she would use images from any other source, as long as such use doesn't violate Getty's terms of service.

@EditorialGuy -- My point doesn't disagree with your point but both questions arise in the way the initial question was posed.

I know it's a no-no with Google to place AdSense ads next to photos or images you don't own the copyright to.

What about these?

1. It's a no-no to put photos next to ads (whether you own the copyright to those images or have a license to use them or you plain stole them) and,
2. It's a no-no to use Adsense on a site that violates someone's copyright protections.

I get the question which is really about whether Getty allows use of their images in a commercial setting and it seems the answer to that is a bit fuzzy because if you're using the image editorially in the context of a story, what happens when you put Adsense on the same page as the image. Now you have a commercial page but the image is serving an editorial purpose. You didn't embed the image in an ad or use it to draw attention to an ad but the image is helping to attract people to your page and to the advertising on that page. That's really the biggest question I see here. I see that as commercial use because the site itself is commercial in nature but others may disagree.

if you're using the image editorially in the context of a story, what happens when you put Adsense on the same page as the image. Now you have a commercial page but the image is serving an editorial purpose.

The definition of "commercial" used by Getty Images is as good (and as succinct) as any:

"What’s 'commercial use'?
Generally speaking, commercial use means a message intended to sell a product, raise money or promote or endorse something."

An editorial site with ads isn't a "commercial site," although there are times when it might use images commercially: e.g., in a house ad. It's important for users of licensed images (including embedded Getty Images) to understand the difference between "editorial use" and "commercial use": I remember a case a few years ago where a major newspaper used a licensed editorial image in its ad campaign and was sued.

You know, I think the term commercial has befuddled me in a way for quite a long time. Ask the IRS if operating a site that generates revenue from ads is a commercial activity and you'll get one answer. Some programs (image providers, content providers, etc.) specify that their content can't be used on "commercial sites" as opposed to "for commercial purposes." There are other examples of commercial restrictions everywhere you turn in this business. My solution has always been, "bleep your vague restrictions," I can take my own photo, write my own content, or purchase a license or do without. Call me the overly cautious type but when the language uses terms like "generally speaking" I get nervous.

And then where does editorial end and commercial start e.g. I write an article about the latest, greatest technical widget to hit the marketplace. The article is aimed at techies who might want to employ this widget on their server. It's got all kinds of technical facts, talks about the pro's and con's of using the widget and what it will mean for the industry going forward, how it's gonna revolutionize the world of widgetry, and then goes on to express how those changes are gonna be bad for humanity. I go grab a related image from Getty to help illustrate my article. Now Adsense displays an ad for that very widget next to my article. So in some sense, the question becomes, "When does the article become an ad in it's own right?"

Again, my tendency has been to just stay away from the item with commercial restrictions and not worry about it. I can see why this approach may leave some opportunities on the table and may be an extreme approach but it beats getting banned from a program or sued for copyright infringement. Lawyers are expensive, don't you know? ;)

I agree it's important to understand the difference between editorial and commercial use so any further insights on that subject you care to share would be most welcome.

From the Getty terms of use...

You may only use embedded Getty Images Content for editorial purposes (meaning relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest)

Setting aside AdSense for the moment,I think that is quite explicit. Authorised sites do NOT include general, run of the mill, content sites.

I believe the Getty expectation is for use only by ordinarily accepted news sites. No other.

"AdSense publishers may not display Google ads on webpages with content protected by copyright law unless they have the necessary legal rights to display that content."

What happens when there is a dispute over whether or not you have the legal rights?

@IanCP, see the other Getty thread [webmasterworld.com ] - I suspect Getty will make more money from people confused by the terms using images outside the restrictions, than they will from the ads and data gathering.

Setting aside AdSense for the moment,I think that is quite explicit. Authorised sites do NOT include general, run of the mill, content sites.

Getty's "Embed Images" page specifically states that "our new embed feature makes it easy, legal, and free for anybody to share our images on websites, blogs, and social media platforms." That language is repeated in the Terms of Use.

You can even use the photos on discussion boards, in chat rooms, etc. What you can't do is use the images or embedded viewer for "any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising)."

The Terms of Use are at:

[gettyimages.com...]

Yup, read the terms and even saw the examples of "commercial use" but the term "any commercial use" supported by an open ended example still leaves the term open to interpretation by anyone that doesn't have a legal background and I'm betting lawyers could argue it too.

"Commercial" is a term of art where legal issues are concerned and this regards licensing of a product so where this may be crystal clear to some (whether their interpretation is accurate or not), it's always been fuzzy to me. Commercial implies commerce and if you're making money from a website, that's commerce. I get the point you're making EditorialGuy but how do you separate an article/editorial from all the commerce that exists on the same page. I don't think "commerce" in this context is limited to advertising (per the language which is inclusive, not exclusive). It's a question that's puzzled me for quite awhile, as I stated before. I've literally had content providers call my sites commercial while others say they don't qualify as commercial. Seems commercial is in the eye of the person using the term. Not trying to disagree here. Trying to get some insight into the matter.