4 ms·

I'm guessing that nobody is really checking that. Imagine you are using an unsplash image on your website and it was "stolen" and copyrighted... (here in German

I'm guessing that nobody is really checking that. Imagine you are using an unsplash image on your website and it was "stolen" and copyrighted... (here in Germany) you will get in big trouble. Relying on unsplash can be a risky bet.

danso 10y ago
Why would you guess that? They talk about attribution (rather, the non-need of it) and that they use curators: https://unsplash.com/faq https://unsplash.com/faq
- seanwilson 10y ago
  How do they make money then if the site is costing $20K a month to run?
  - danso 10y ago
    There's another submission from a few months back that got on to the front page that is about how much things cost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519085 The original URL has moved to here: https://crew.co/backstage/dispatch/what-does-unsplash-cost/ https://crew.co/backstage/dispatch/what-does-unsplash-cost/ So how do they make actual revenue? They wrote a second post, How side projects saved our startup: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786642 https://crew.co/backstage/blog/how-side-projects-saved-our-startup https://crew.co/backstage/blog/how-side-projects-saved-our-s...
- therealmarv 10y ago
  Ok, my assumptions where maybe not fully right but legally this gives you no protection. They don't know the photographers personally and everybody can upload to unsplash. And saying "hey, the image was on unsplash so it's free" is something different than saying "here is the bill I paid the image broker/agency for using that image royalty free". Be careful is the only thing I wanted to say. If you want to be 100% on the safe side you make your photos or you know the photographer. Image brokers base their business on trust that copyright is not violated. And unsplash: be careful.
  - danso 10y ago
    This is true. IANAL but I was a paid photographer at various points. My understanding is that if you use a photo that you don't have the rights to accidentally you can still be liable. This post seems to concur: http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/ http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-a... The nice part of using going through a photo agency or pro photography that despite the extra paperwork and cost, you know you have the rights. When Virgin Mobile used a photo of a young girl that was licensed by the photographer as Creative Commons on Flickr, she and Wong sued Creative Commons, Virgin Mobile USA, and Virgin Mobile of Australia. They eventually dropped the other plaintiffs and went after VM of Australia: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120200060.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12... https://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ They seem to have lost the lawsuit: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Chang_v._Virgin_Mobile https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Chang_v._Virgin_Mobile But in any case, the user of the photo ended up paying the most legal bills, even though the photographer had given implicit permission. One thing that Unsplash has going for it is that all submitter of photos also have to log in with Facebook, so there's an extra barrier preventing someone from turning in a random photo. I mean, you can still do that while logged in, but that's work to impersonate someone. I just signed up an am about to upload a photo. Will let you know if there's a special thing that I have to sign. edit: signing up and uploading photo just tells you to read the Terms before uploading...I'm guessing there's something that protects Unsplash from a user uploading maliciously https://unsplash.com/terms https://unsplash.com/terms
    - cyberferret 10y ago
      > The nice part of using going through a photo agency or pro photography that despite the extra paperwork and cost, you know you have the rights. They say that you have the rights, but "pro" photo sites have also been found guilty in the past of either intentionally or not, misappropriating and onselling copyrighted images that they had no right to. Perhaps the terms of agreement will protect you as the end user (purchaser) of those images, but will it in all cases? Could the fact that you purchased copyrighted images in a commercial transaction actually make it worse as it opens you up to punitive damages or other legal action?

danso 10y ago

Why would you guess that? They talk about attribution (rather, the non-need of it) and that they use curators: https://unsplash.com/faq https://unsplash.com/faq

seanwilson 10y ago
How do they make money then if the site is costing $20K a month to run?
- danso 10y ago
  There's another submission from a few months back that got on to the front page that is about how much things cost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519085 The original URL has moved to here: https://crew.co/backstage/dispatch/what-does-unsplash-cost/ https://crew.co/backstage/dispatch/what-does-unsplash-cost/ So how do they make actual revenue? They wrote a second post, How side projects saved our startup: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786642 https://crew.co/backstage/blog/how-side-projects-saved-our-startup https://crew.co/backstage/blog/how-side-projects-saved-our-s...
therealmarv 10y ago
Ok, my assumptions where maybe not fully right but legally this gives you no protection. They don't know the photographers personally and everybody can upload to unsplash. And saying "hey, the image was on unsplash so it's free" is something different than saying "here is the bill I paid the image broker/agency for using that image royalty free". Be careful is the only thing I wanted to say. If you want to be 100% on the safe side you make your photos or you know the photographer. Image brokers base their business on trust that copyright is not violated. And unsplash: be careful.
- danso 10y ago
  This is true. IANAL but I was a paid photographer at various points. My understanding is that if you use a photo that you don't have the rights to accidentally you can still be liable. This post seems to concur: http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/ http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-a... The nice part of using going through a photo agency or pro photography that despite the extra paperwork and cost, you know you have the rights. When Virgin Mobile used a photo of a young girl that was licensed by the photographer as Creative Commons on Flickr, she and Wong sued Creative Commons, Virgin Mobile USA, and Virgin Mobile of Australia. They eventually dropped the other plaintiffs and went after VM of Australia: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120200060.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12... https://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ They seem to have lost the lawsuit: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Chang_v._Virgin_Mobile https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Chang_v._Virgin_Mobile But in any case, the user of the photo ended up paying the most legal bills, even though the photographer had given implicit permission. One thing that Unsplash has going for it is that all submitter of photos also have to log in with Facebook, so there's an extra barrier preventing someone from turning in a random photo. I mean, you can still do that while logged in, but that's work to impersonate someone. I just signed up an am about to upload a photo. Will let you know if there's a special thing that I have to sign. edit: signing up and uploading photo just tells you to read the Terms before uploading...I'm guessing there's something that protects Unsplash from a user uploading maliciously https://unsplash.com/terms https://unsplash.com/terms
  - cyberferret 10y ago
    > The nice part of using going through a photo agency or pro photography that despite the extra paperwork and cost, you know you have the rights. They say that you have the rights, but "pro" photo sites have also been found guilty in the past of either intentionally or not, misappropriating and onselling copyrighted images that they had no right to. Perhaps the terms of agreement will protect you as the end user (purchaser) of those images, but will it in all cases? Could the fact that you purchased copyrighted images in a commercial transaction actually make it worse as it opens you up to punitive damages or other legal action?