AdSense rejected for copyrighted material — how to fix it
In most cases this is about images, not text. Photographs pulled from image search, album and film artwork, brand logos used decoratively, and embedded media are the usual causes. The fact that an image was easy to find and carried no watermark says nothing about whether you may publish it.
How to fix it
- Audit every image on the site. For each one, state where it came from and under what licence. Any image you cannot answer that question for is a liability and should be removed.
- Replace them from a source with a licence you can point to. Your own photographs first. Failing that, a stock library whose licence you have read, or public-domain and Creative Commons material with the attribution the licence requires.
- Remove distribution of media you do not own. Hosting or linking to full films, music, ebooks, software or paid courses is the most serious version of this and puts the whole account at risk, not just the application.
- Use brand assets only where use is nominative. Naming a product you are reviewing is fine. Putting a company's logo in your header, or using their artwork as your featured image, is not.
- Keep a record of where each asset came from. A one-line note per image turns a future dispute from a panic into a lookup, and makes the next audit take minutes.
It is almost always the images
Publishers reading this rejection tend to re-read their articles, because
"copyright" suggests text. In practice the text is usually fine. The problem is
the pictures.
The pattern is consistent: a site needs a featured image for every post, images
are searched for, the least-watermarked result is downloaded, and the process
repeats a hundred times. At no point does anyone form an intention to infringe.
That does not change what happened.
Google Images is an index, not a licence
The single most useful thing to internalise is that an image search result tells
you where a photograph is published, and nothing else. It does not tell you the
licence, who owns it, or whether you may use it.
Two related beliefs are worth discarding at the same time:
- No watermark means free. Most photographers do not watermark.
- Crediting fixes it. Attribution is a condition of some licences. It is not
a substitute for having one. Naming the photographer whose work you took
documents the problem rather than solving it.
Where safe images come from
Your own camera. Free, unambiguous, and — because it produces images of the
actual thing rather than a stock approximation — the same first-hand specificity
that keeps a site clear of "low value content". A phone photograph of the product
you actually tested is worth more here than a professional stock image of a
different one.
A stock library whose terms you have read. Both free and paid libraries
attach real conditions, and they vary. Editorial-only assets in particular may not
be used commercially, and a site running ads is commercial.
Public domain and Creative Commons, with the attribution the specific licence
requires — which differs between them and is not optional.
Logos and brand assets
Naming a product you are writing about is nominative use and entirely normal.
Reproducing a company's logo is a different act.
A logo in your header implies a relationship that does not exist. Album artwork
as a featured image is using someone's creative work as decoration. Neither is
made acceptable by a disclaimer in the footer.
The version that risks the whole account
Everything above concerns an application. Distributing material you do not own —
hosting films, music, ebooks, cracked software, or paid courses, or linking to
places that do — is a different order of problem. It is grounds for account
termination rather than a declined application, and it is the fastest way to lose
AdSense permanently.
If any part of the site does this, removing it is not a step towards approval. It
is the precondition for having an account at all.
Keep the receipts
When you replace the images, write down where each one came from and under what
licence. One line per asset.
That record turns a future takedown notice from an emergency into a lookup, and
it means the next audit takes ten minutes instead of an afternoon.
Frequently asked
- I found the image on Google Images. Is that not allowed?
- Google Images is a search index, not a licence. It shows you where images are published; it makes no statement about whether you may republish them. Almost every photograph found that way belongs to someone, and the absence of a watermark is not permission.
- Does crediting the photographer make it legal?
- No. Attribution is a condition of some licences, not a substitute for having one. Crediting a photographer whose work you had no right to use documents the infringement rather than curing it.
- Can I use album covers, film posters or book jackets?
- They are copyrighted works. Limited use in genuine criticism or review may be defensible in some jurisdictions, but a site that uses them as decorative featured images is not making that argument, and the review will not construct it for you.
- What about embedding YouTube videos?
- Embedding through the official player is generally fine — the platform handles rights and the creator can disable embedding if they object. Re-uploading someone else's video, or hosting a copy of it yourself, is not the same thing at all.
Check whether this is still blocking you
The free Monetific checker tests your site against this and every other mechanical requirement, and tells you what is still outstanding before you re-apply.
Run the free check