i am not sure, well as long as they dont find out...wait have you tryed saving them? if not try becuase they might have a lock on them or something?! ♥

Well to get an image of big enough quality (their thumbnails are less than 100px one way) and then to get a bigger picture it has the watermark on it so no. Since the watermark stays there, if you photoshopped the watermark away then yes that is illegal.

YES.

It is illegal to use those images without the express permission of the photographer. And if you have permission, then they will send you the copy without the watermark.

Like you guys said, it's illegal if you can see the watermark.

so any images with a watermark can not be used on fanpop!?

In general, images with a watermark cannot be used legally elsewhere. Watermarks are generally added to a digital image so that anyone viewing the image posted elsewhere knows "The person who posted this on site X is an idiot".

I think it's okay if the website is written on the picture you add. Just be sure there stands that you may copy it.

or if you drew it/photographed it and they are your watermarks then that is okay too, or if another person drew it/photographed it that you know and you had their pemission then it would be okay ♥

Well my friend sends me a lot of images of actors with the watermark jamd on the bottom, are they all illegal? Should I go delete them all?
For example there are some link, can anybody tell me if they are to be deleted or not?
Edit:Typo. Evil english language.

Can they be used in picks legally with the watermark?

I'm no expert on this sauley, but i think you might have to delete those, however, you might need someone else's opinion because i might be wrong and you'd end up taking down photos that might be fine.

Folks, the presence of a watermark shouldn't be taken to necessarily indicate the legal status of an image. It's more complicated than that! Anybody can put a watermark on an image to indicate some sort of claim to the image, which is often completely separate from legal ownership.

For example, the images that Saul_Mikoliunas linked to, above, were watermarked by "JAM'D" which is either an user on a site or (more likely to my thinking) a fan-created web site. Unless JAM'D is the working name of a professional photographer (whose career is dedicated to taking pictures of Cobie Smulders), "JAM'D" on the photos indicates where the pictures were found, not who actually owns the rights to use the photos. If JAM'D is a well-run site, it will have credits for the photographer and/or copyright holders to the images somewhere on its site, but posting them here takes them out of that context where there is (maybe) a credit. It's also possible - pretty likely, in my experience - that the site where you find pictures may not actually provide the proper credit. For instance, people online could easily browse Fanpop and find tens of thousands of images without credits. People copying those images elsewhere would be left with three choices: apply no credit because none was provided, assume that the user who posted the image should be credited, or assume that Fanpop somehow has the copyright. All three would be wrong in the majority of cases where no credit is provided, regardless of watermark.

Incidentally, the jamd.com web site does provide copyright credits to all their images. It's just that they add their corporate watermark to the images (which may or may not be completely legal, depending on their deal with the copyright holders).

That's all to say that my statement about watermarks earlier was too simplistic. A conservative view of copyright law is that images cannot be used without the express permission of the copyright holder. However, general practice online is that crediting the copyright holder is usually sufficient to avoid a lawsuit. All images should be credited, regardless of whether they've been watermarked by the copyright holder or anyone else.

Harold, you're like some sort of mentor to all of us. Now this is nicely meant. I admire your smarts.