[Direct answer]"Free download" only means that there is no payment required for obtaining the image, but it doesn't mean that you have obtained the authorization for commercial use. Equating the two is the most common misconception among businesses when using images. Although the image library page may indicate that the images are free to download, there are often restrictions attached: they are only for personal learning or non-commercial display, and users are required to retain the copyright notice, prohibited from modifying the images, and prohibited from using them in products and advertisements. Once the images are placed on product detail pages, used for paid advertising, packaging, or offline materials, they fall into the scope of requiring separate authorization. Whether it constitutes infringement depends on the specific authorization terms of the platform agreement, whether the images are still within the protection period, and whether the usage exceeds the agreed purposes. When the rights holder claims compensation, whether the enterprise can present the version of the agreement and authorization certificates at the time of downloading often directly determines the scope of liability and the amount of compensation.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

It's too easy to obtain images, which often leads to bypassing the authorization review altogether. Operations, design, and e-commerce teams each store images from search engines, stock photo websites, competitor pages, and chat groups. After uploading them to shared cloud storage, they repeatedly reuse them. After a few months, no one can remember which platform an image came from or what license conditions were specified on the original page. Risks tend to emerge at several critical points: 1. Rushing to upload new products and directly cropping retrieved product images to place them on detail pages before launch. 2. Reusing old stock images for WeChat public account posts without noticing that authorization requirements were tightened after a contract update. 3. Outsourcing design to advertising agencies, where contracts only stipulate delivery of finished products without guaranteeing the legality of assets. 4. Printing large quantities of store posters, display boards, and packaging, expanding the use of a single image from online to offline channels. Only when copyright holders send legal notices, e-commerce platforms handle complaints, or products are removed do companies finally seek authorization, only to discover that pages have been revised, contract versions have been updated, accounts have been deactivated, and even whether commercial use was allowed at the time cannot be verified. Another common misconception is regarding watermarks: believing that removing them absolves liability, or assuming that labeling images as "from the internet" exempts them from copyright. In reality, neither of these actions changes the ownership of rights.

II. Key points of dispute

One of the disputes is whether the involved images can be protected as photographic works or artworks. The composition, lighting, and shooting angles reflect the author's choices and usually demonstrate originality; however, simple mechanical replication, surveillance screenshots, or simple geometric arrangements may be considered to lack originality. The plaintiff must first clarify the source of rights: the original photographer, the attribution of works created during employment, the boundaries of rights transferred through a chain of transfers, or the platform's authority to authorize on behalf of others. If any link in the chain is broken, the claim may falter. The second dispute concerns the scope of rights granted by the platform agreement. The same image library often includes multiple licenses: personal non-commercial use, corporate commercial use, exclusive authorizations, buyout authorizations, and permissions or prohibitions on sub-licensing or use for sensitive purposes. Download pages, registration agreements, membership package descriptions, and subsequent update announcements may vary, and courts will determine the scope based on the version of the agreement in effect at the time of download. The third dispute concerns which exclusive rights were infringed. Uploading to a server for public viewing involves the right of information network dissemination, while printing on packaging materials involves the rights of reproduction and distribution. Cropping or altering the images for secondary publication may also infringe the rights to modify, protect the integrity of the work, or adapt the content. The fourth dispute concerns the validity of the defense of lawful source. If the enterprise can present purchase contracts, authorization letters, payment receipts, and supplier qualifications, and demonstrates that it did not and should not have known about the rights defects of the materials, it may seek to mitigate or exempt liability, but this typically does not affect the determination of cessation of infringement. The fifth dispute concerns how to determine the basis for compensation. The evidentiary burden differs greatly among various approaches: the plaintiff's losses, the infringer's profits, reference multiples of rights usage fees, and statutory compensation. Factors such as usage duration, click counts, print quantities, and authorized market prices are all considered in the determination. Single-image quotes often differ significantly from bulk cumulative results.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

When handling inquiries about image authorization, Henglu Lawyers typically start by aligning three key aspects: the image itself, the agreement, and the intended use, before assessing the scope for legal defenses. For the image aspect, the focus is on restoring the original rights: retrieving the EXIF information of the image file itself, the RAW or layered source files, early public release pages, author signatures, and registration materials. However, a single compressed screenshot of the final image is difficult to use against the evidence provided by the other party regarding the original source and time verification. The agreement aspect is most prone to issues: it requires locating snapshots of the download page on the date in question, the version of the registration agreement, membership package descriptions, orders, and invoices. If necessary, legal letters should be sent to the platform to clarify the scope of authorization. Free downloads and commercial use rights are often placed in different clauses, with the former not constituting a basis for the latter. For the use aspect, a detailed list of the media's intended destinations is crucial: which SKUs it was used in, which versions of the product detail pages, which channels it was distributed on, the number of printed materials, and the dates of online and offline availability. Platform backend data and design source file versions should also be preserved. Both parties typically structure their arguments as follows: the rights holder submits proof of ownership, notarized evidence of the page, authorization quotes, or similar license contracts, and claims damages based on the scope and duration of use or references to license fees multipliers. The enterprise side often argues from the perspectives of a complete authorization chain, use within the agreed scope, insufficient originality of the images, lawful sources, minimal harm, and timely removal of the infringing content, while seeking to limit compensation to verifiable actual usage. Courts typically follow the following order of determination: first reviewing the rights basis and ownership chain, then comparing the alleged use to exclusive rights and whether it exceeds the agreement's scope, followed by examining defenses of lawful sources, and finally determining the amount based on usage scale, subjective intent, and authorization market prices. Unverifiable print or dissemination quantities, or images unrelated to the case, are not included in the calculation.

IV. Practical Suggestions and Legal Basis

The citation norms should be written in full and marked with the relevant sections: The Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) stipulates the rights content, ownership, and fair use scenarios of photographic works and artworks, and also clarifies the boundaries of the right to reproduce, the right to distribute, and the right to disseminate via information networks. It is the main basis for determining whether free downloads can be used commercially. The Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019 and implemented on November 1, 2019) intervenes when images contain others' registered trademarks or are used as indications of product sources. The Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 17, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) applies to situations involving design patterns in images. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019) handles situations such as unauthorized use of others' influential decorations or images that cause confusion. The procedures are determined by the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024) regarding jurisdiction, evidence preservation, and evidentiary deadlines. The filing fees are accumulated in stages according to the Methods for Payment of Litigation Costs (implemented on April 1, 2007). Operationally, it can be divided into six steps: First, stop adding new uses and freeze the existing version of the media library without modifying the backend data. Second, fill in the sources, agreement snapshots, and authorization scopes for each used image to form a database. Third, verify whether it belongs to personal non-commercial licenses. For products that need to be listed or advertisements that need to be placed, additional enterprise commercial authorizations should be obtained. Fourth, for outsourced designs, add clauses on the legality of the materials, ownership declarations, and recourse provisions to the contracts. Fifth, when receiving letters, first preserve the web pages and sales data, then evaluate whether to remove the content, respond to the letter, obtain additional authorizations, or defend against lawsuits. Sixth, verify the three-year statute of limitations and the stability of the other party's ownership. If necessary, raise defenses such as legitimate source, authorization scope, and lack of originality. For further understanding, please refer to the relevant materials.Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The most important habit to change is to use the images first and then talk. Once the images are uploaded, usage traces will remain in the details page snapshot, CDN logs, print records, and the advertising platform backend. Deleting the page afterwards won't erase these records, but might instead deprive the company of a basis for explaining the actual usage duration. Secondly, don't treat the platform's disclaimer as a protective charm: the tag "for learning and communication only, copyright belongs to the original author" precisely indicates that the platform does not grant commercial use rights. Companies still need to obtain permission from the rights holders themselves. Thirdly, keep the original and updated versions of the authorization documents. After the registration agreement is updated, the permissions of the old packages may change. A screenshot of the membership alone is usually insufficient to prove the scope of coverage. When dealing with legal letters, it's also important to avoid two extremes: don't ignore them altogether, leading to escalating complaints and product removal; but don't settle the case at full price based on the other party's quote without verification either. First, clarify the actual usage scope through a usage inventory, and then discuss the amount. For batch use of the same batch of materials, be sure to check each image individually, and don't let the authorization defect of one image implicate the entire product line.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is it legal to use photos from image libraries marked as "free to download" on e-commerce detail pages?

Generally, it is illegal unless the stock photo agreement explicitly grants the enterprise the right to use the images for commercial purposes. Free downloads address the acquisition cost, but the scope of authorization is determined by the version of the agreement at the time of download: most platforms categorize personal non-commercial use, enterprise commercial use, and exclusive licensing. Product detail pages typically fall into the category of for-profit use, often requiring payment or separate authorization selection. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), uploading photographic works to e-commerce pages for public viewing involves the right of information network dissemination. Using the images after cropping or color adjustment may also infringe the right of modification. Simply labeling the images as "from the internet" or removing watermarks does not change the ownership of the rights. There are three main legal scenarios: holding a written commercial authorization covering the intended use, the images having entered the public domain after expiring their protection period, or using the images as appropriate citations for introductions or reviews under statutory exceptions. In the event of a dispute, the party who can present a snapshot of the page on the day of download, the order, and the version of the agreement will have the best chance of defending their position.

Q2: What documents should be kept to prove that the images have obtained commercial use authorization?

The three types of evidence that need to be preserved are those that can restore the authorization chain and scope. First, agreement-related documents: download the page snapshot of the download date, the registration agreement and membership package description, license certificates, order invoices, and announcement of agreement updates. Pay special attention to whether it clearly states that the content is for corporate use, can be used in products or advertisements, whether it allows sub-authorization, and whether it prohibits derivative works. Second, file-related documents: original image files, EXIF information, author's signature or platform authorization statements, rights holder authorization letters, and material guarantee clauses in outsourcing contracts. Third, usage-related documents: backend listing records, design source file version numbers, placement channel lists, and printing orders and quantities, which ensure that actual use is limited within the scope of authorization. According to the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024), electronic data should be preserved in its original form and submitted within the evidence-presentation period. Timely notarizing or certifying the page snapshot with a trusted timestamp can avoid verification difficulties after the platform is revised. A single membership screenshot is usually insufficient to prove specific commercial uses.

Q3: How are the acceptance fees for image infringement lawsuits and lawyers' fees separately calculated?

The two sets of standards are unrelated, so don't mix them up when estimating costs. The case acceptance fee is collected by the court in accordance with the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs" (implemented on April 1, 2007). For property cases, the fee is calculated based on the amount of the claim, with the plaintiff paying it in advance upon filing the case. The losing party will ultimately bear the cost or share it according to the proportion of responsibility. For cases where the plaintiff only requests to stop using or delete the images without claiming high compensation, the cost will be relatively limited. Notary fees, page preservation fees, and evidence-gathering fees for purchasing physical items are charged according to the standards set by the relevant institutions. Lawyer fees are not subject to government-set pricing and are agreed upon based on the contract, with three charging methods including per case, a percentage of the claim amount, or hourly rates. While the claim amount for image-related disputes is often not high, the workload of individually checking the materials and comparing the agreement versions when using the images in bulk will increase significantly, leading to changes in the charging method. Before taking action, it's important to calculate the possible compensation range supported by the court, along with the acceptance fees, notary fees, and lawyer expenses, and then determine whether it's more cost-effective to negotiate, supplement authorizations, or defend against the lawsuit. Don't just focus on the quoted prices in the other party's letter.

Q4: Does the three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement start from the date when the infringement was discovered or from the date when the infringing use actually occurred?

The starting point is not the discovery of the use of a single item, but the date when the rights holder knows or should have known that their rights have been infringed and the date when they know the obligee's identity. According to the general rules on the statute of limitations in the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (implemented on January 1, 2021), infringement claims are typically subject to a three-year statute of limitations, which starts from the date when the above-mentioned two conditions are simultaneously met. For continuous online use, in practice, it is necessary to determine whether the behavior is continuous and when it stops separately. It cannot be dealt with in a one-size-fits-all manner based on the first online date or the date of accidental discovery. If the statute of limitations has passed and the other party raises a statute of limitations defense, the rights holder will face the risk of losing the case. Therefore, after discovering the batch use of images, it is not advisable to remain in oral negotiations for a long time. Procedurally, according to the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024), the first-instance ordinary procedure generally lasts six months, and the summary procedure lasts three months. If it is necessary to verify evidence or calculate compensation, the cross-examination stage will prolong the period. It is recommended to record the online date, discovery date, letter-sending date, removal date, and case filing date in a ledger one by one.

Q5: When the party whose image was used sends a letter demanding compensation, what is the first thing to verify in terms of authorization?

The first thing that needs to be verified is not the other party's quote, but the original license documents covering the image and its intended use in the company's possession. The process is as follows: compare each image listed in the letter with the media inventory, identify the source platform, download time, and agreement version to confirm whether the terms explicitly permit commercial use by the company, whether it can be used on product detail pages or in advertisements, whether derivative works are prohibited, and whether the authorization is still valid. Next, retrieve the order invoices, authorization certificates, and media guarantee clauses from outsourcing contracts to determine whether liability can be transferred to suppliers. Before deleting the pages, first safeguard the active pages, backend listing records, sales, and print volume data. If possible, obtain notarization or trusted timestamp certification. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), deleting the images only affects whether the damage will continue to expand, not changing the factual nature of the existing use. If the authorization is indeed missing, evaluate whether to obtain a new authorization, send a clarification letter, negotiate compensation, or defend against lawsuits, while simultaneously verifying the three-year statute of limitations and whether the other party's ownership proof is complete.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.