I'm sure this has already been stated before, but I'll reitterate. Copyright pictures are ANY pictures on the internet done by another person excluding those that say "not copyright". It doesn't matter if you are doing it for educational purposes. It doesn't matter if you think it won't discourage profit for the site with the picture. Even if the picture looks like it's to a dead site, it is still copyright by the owner of that site. If you cannot contact the owner of that site, it doesn't mean that the picture can be taken. It is still considered stealing (I hate that word for this sort of thing). As for taking a picture and giving credit to the owners, that still doesn't stop it from being considered "stealing" if the owner hasn't been notified or given approval. This is the same for written format from internet, articles, or books. If a person has published anything within the last 71 years profit or not, if it doesn't say "not copyright" it is still considered copyright. Good example, if I write a story, paper, or article and publish it on the net and find a year later somebody had copied my information (though giving me credit), that is still considered stealing and it is considered illegal. I typically make my own articles or when I do copy from other books word for word in posts, I make sure that the books are older than 71 years. As for taking it to court, I doubt there are too many people that will sue you because it's only suable if there is a loss of profit. Here's something you can do, and this is no joke: If you manipulate a picture or article by 25% (not resizing it), the original owner cannot claim it as copyright.