4 ms·

"Public domain" image stocks absolutely don't guarantee or even check that the images they host have proper licensing, indeed. I've seen some images that had Cr

by dchest 9y ago

"Public domain" image stocks absolutely don't guarantee or even check that the images they host have proper licensing, indeed. I've seen some images that had Creative Commons Attribution licenses posted on these without any attribution, "relicensed" as CC0. So... they did nothing wrong according to copyright laws?

bwang29 9y ago
A photographer could accidentally upload or AT SOME POINT labelled his/her photos in the free domain, but ALSO upload with a license to a paid photo stock site. This is usually the root cause of most issues. Another possible reason is the photographer's harddrive got hacked, camera stolen etc, and the photos in full resolution was uploaded maliciously to free CC0 websites. Both scenarios are hard to trace and hard to attribute when an infringement happens, because it involves too many party to do diligence and collect evidences. Most likely the party that uses the photo will have to pay. Canon and Nikon still provides no on system encryption although photographers have been asked for it for years, so basically if someone stole your camera, they also owns the copyright of photos from those RAW files.
unicornporn 9y ago
If you've ever thought about using Unsplash images, consider how clueless (and honest) they are when it comes to model releases and legal releases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZevNRITnWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZevNRITnWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M_OZWtpokc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M_OZWtpokc
- dchest 9y ago
  That's true, never ever use photos of people from free stock websites/creative commons photo dumps. Paid photostocks require photographers to submit scans of signed model release forms. This is unfortunate for tiny/unprofitable websites, but — really — a few dozens of dollars for a stock photo with a guarantee of model release and a license is absolutely worth it.

by dchest 9y ago

bwang29 9y ago

A photographer could accidentally upload or AT SOME POINT labelled his/her photos in the free domain, but ALSO upload with a license to a paid photo stock site. This is usually the root cause of most issues. Another possible reason is the photographer's harddrive got hacked, camera stolen etc, and the photos in full resolution was uploaded maliciously to free CC0 websites. Both scenarios are hard to trace and hard to attribute when an infringement happens, because it involves too many party to do diligence and collect evidences. Most likely the party that uses the photo will have to pay. Canon and Nikon still provides no on system encryption although photographers have been asked for it for years, so basically if someone stole your camera, they also owns the copyright of photos from those RAW files.

unicornporn 9y ago

If you've ever thought about using Unsplash images, consider how clueless (and honest) they are when it comes to model releases and legal releases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZevNRITnWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZevNRITnWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M_OZWtpokc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M_OZWtpokc

dchest 9y ago
That's true, never ever use photos of people from free stock websites/creative commons photo dumps. Paid photostocks require photographers to submit scans of signed model release forms. This is unfortunate for tiny/unprofitable websites, but — really — a few dozens of dollars for a stock photo with a guarantee of model release and a license is absolutely worth it.