Not Claire Danes, surely. It's Kirsten Dunst, isn't it?
I think the reason I haven't posted more is because I've been so nervous about posting images.
Are any of you frightened about being focused on by enforcement agencies or people representing people whose images these are? They're gorgeous. I know most before say, 1923 are okay to use, but some of the others, I'm seriously scared of being sued over. And I don't have the money to pay out in case I do get a cease and desist letter. I think that's why I've been very low key so far.
http://hankinslawrenceimages.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/fed-up-with-copyright-infringement/
I'm mostly very careful. I've always been rather confused by the way people tend to post images without a second thought, especially writers vocal about protecting their own copyright. I don't get it – why shouldn't others enjoy the protection I think I'm entitled to?
Please note that nothing of what I'm about to say constitutes legal advice of course, and you should consult a copyright attorney or similar etc etc.
But off the record:
You can either blog without pictures (it is possible, actually) or you can find pictures on the net that you are allowed to use. It's not impossible.
I try never to use modern photos I haven't take myself. I use old photos but usually only from sources I'm familiar with, such as Library of Congress, various archival/museal sources etc. (Flickr Commons always displays the terms very, very clearly so it's a good place to look). I almost never just pick even old photos off the net.
A lot of museums let you use their photos of their collection (of items I mean) if you credit them – usually they have a page where they explain how it should be done and how they want to be credited. I have used that for posts on fashion among other things, but for museums like V&A where I couldn't find any permission, I've only linked to the picture on the museum website instead of posting the picture (most American museums let you use them for your personal blog, and all European collections in the Europeana are OK with that as long as you source it - you can find info on the Europeana website).
One thing one needs to keep in mind is that copyright laws regarding photography differs across the globe. While according to American law a photography that simply faithfully reproduces an image (like a photo of a painting) doesn't gain any copyright of its own (hence, you are free to use photos of old paintings), this isn't true in all countries, most notably the UK (and Sweden, actually). Therefore, British museums claim copyright (and quite often forbids reproduction) for photos of their paintings on their website. You can see this mentioned on Wikipedia for such images. Wikipedia still considers they have the right to reproduce them under American law and so they do, but I'm not sure that I (being Swedish) or a Brit could get away with using those pictures. I try to avoid those where it might be an issue, but I think I might have skated on that at a few occasions. I suppose I counted on the NPG not coming after me with a blowtorch for using a picture from their collection as long as I do my best to credit them and make no money off it.
I have posted pictures of movie posters, books covers etc. for reviews and such, but I wouldn't post movie stills or something like that. I'm far too paranoid for that.
If I post a youtube video, I usually try to make sure that the uploader had the right to upload the material. You know; trailers posted by the studio, music videos by the band or label etc, or films people made themselves. I do sometimes err, but I certainly try.
ETA: The Graphics Fairy is a great source for imagery too – she scans out-of-copyright pictures and it's a good source for graphics. She asks you to limit the number of images you use on a single webpage (think it's 7, but I could be wrong), but there are lots and lots of useful goodies there.
I also take a lot of pictures myself. I actually tend to only write about places I've been too as I don't have pictures otherwise!