4 ms·

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 t

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
    Sure...but you'll get what you pay for. It's unlikely that Getty, Mangum, Ford Models, etc, is going to risk screwing over their reputation or their photographers. But you go through a "pro" on Craigslist, then who knows
    - egman_ekki 10y ago
      Not sure I would trust getty that much: http://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/ http://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-ima...
- rrauenza 10y ago
  Wow, I am surprised Virgin Mobile used that photo without a model release, which is kind of orthogonal to the copyright. At least in the US, a photographer can grant use of a photo, but if the photo isn't for editorial use -- if the person in the photo could be considered advocating what the picture is selling -- they need a release from the subject: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

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
  Sure...but you'll get what you pay for. It's unlikely that Getty, Mangum, Ford Models, etc, is going to risk screwing over their reputation or their photographers. But you go through a "pro" on Craigslist, then who knows
  - egman_ekki 10y ago
    Not sure I would trust getty that much: http://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/ http://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-ima...
rrauenza 10y ago
Wow, I am surprised Virgin Mobile used that photo without a model release, which is kind of orthogonal to the copyright. At least in the US, a photographer can grant use of a photo, but if the photo isn't for editorial use -- if the person in the photo could be considered advocating what the picture is selling -- they need a release from the subject: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]