My colleague Chris compared Google Image search to Bing Bing Images vs. Google Images - Which Has Better Results? Bing Images vs. Google Images - Which Has Better Results? Bing’s image search once challenged Google, offering more features and a better design. With infinite scrolling and the ability to search for similar images, Bing was legitimately better than Google at image search just a... Read More , and found Google’s results to be better. If you feel the same way, don’t worry: you can use it to find rights-cleared images. While searching for an image, click Search Tools then Usage Rights.
I used clipart a LOT for newsetters and other documents. I don't always want a photo - clipart is often better at getting an idea across quickly, and I didn't need to worry about copyright because I assumed it was OK to use without permission as it was a part of the MS package. The BING option is terrible - very juvenile and hardly extensive with fewer than 50 options. And by-the-way, most of the online sites for "accessing clipart in MS Word 2010" still say to go to insert then click on clipart. Really - we hardly need such basic instructions when they aren't even correct anymore!
It’s not hard to find images to use online – just use an image search. This works well, but it’s worth noting that doing so isn’t necessarily legal. Most of the images you can find this way are owned by their original creators. This likely doesn’t matter if you’re only using something for private use, or even a school assignment, but if you intend to publish a work you need to make sure all rights are cleared.
I liked it for the simple inserting of visual effects for creating newsletters. Pictures do enhance communication and the ease of using a word document and gathering an image made this task easy. Now having to go outside of my document to find the extra spice my documents need makes this less fun. I have always used animated images that were less than artistic but were entertaining. Like others I will miss this service, but I understand progress is not always comfortable.
As an artist I resent some people's assumption that original art from my abilities and imagination, which I have sacrificed a lot to develop, should somehow default to public property. If we require artists to participate in a money economy their art belongs to them. Copying images and not following the copyright owners permissions to the letter is stealing, outright. And deep pockets like Disney has taught individuals that the hard way.
If you mean your own artwork, then you'd take a picture of it, upload it to your computer (make sure you know where you're saving it), then select Insert > Picture in Word, browse in the location where you saved the photo, click the picture, and insert. If you mean an image from the internet or something, you can just save it to your computer and basically follow the rest of the steps above.
Is there a potential downside? Yes. Just because a search engine sees something as Creative Commons doesn’t necessarily mean that it is. Here at MakeUseOf, for example, we’ve had at least one photographer threaten to sue us over an image he didn’t realize he himself licensed as Creative Content. He backed down when we pointed this out, and it’s one example resulting from thousands of blog posts spread over a decade, but know that this isn’t without risk.
This is TERRIBLE! Besides being able to edit vector images like Will mentioned (which is important for those of us who don't have graphic artists available to create custom images or the budget or time to buy that service ad hoc), you could also search for style "families" (different graphics that were all in the same style). There was a huge range of files and styles in the collection and it was much faster to find what you need than to do a Bing search. Plus, you knew that everything there was free and free to use, without having to worry about CC license issues.