6 ms·

They can't change licensing for images that are already in use under Unsplash current agreement, can they?

blunte 6y ago
Whether they can or not is less relevant. Getty has already demonstrated that it is willing to sell free works to people who don't realize they can get it for free (legally). I'm not even talking about where they take other people's works and illegally resell it as their own... Getty, if judged by their past behaviors, is an evil company.
- dpwm 6y ago
  > Getty has already demonstrated that it is willing to sell free works to people who don't realize they can get it for free (legally). It seems plausible to me that there are some customers whose legal teams would be very uneasy about anything free. For those customers, Getty’s name and “reputability” may be the service they are paying for.
  - ziddoap 6y ago
    Assuming appropriate licensing, I have no idea why a legal team would be uneasy about using something free. Can you elaborate?
    - dpwm 6y ago
      > Assuming appropriate licensing For such customers the mere fact it is free would make the licensing questionable. Consider a service like unsplash: what vetting can there be that the people who upload actually hold the copyright? Do unsplash indemnify you if it turns out they never had permission? How does it look in a court, should it come to that? It’s not about paying money for the image as much as it’s about buying an assurance – even if it is only to be able to say "we acted in good faith and licensed this from a ‘reputable’ supplier.” Some legal teams are incredibly risk averse. Unsplash almost certainly isn’t considered by these sorts of customers. It’s not some kind of snobbery, it’s to avoid having to deal with the case where the one image that you build a multi-million dollar ad campaign on turns out not to have been improperly licensed.
  - mkr-hn 6y ago
    This is essentially the business model of open source companies. Free is a very hazy concept, and there's money in providing clarity.

Whether they can or not is less relevant. Getty has already demonstrated that it is willing to sell free works to people who don't realize they can get it for free (legally). I'm not even talking about where they take other people's works and illegally resell it as their own... Getty, if judged by their past behaviors, is an evil company.

dpwm 6y ago
> Getty has already demonstrated that it is willing to sell free works to people who don't realize they can get it for free (legally). It seems plausible to me that there are some customers whose legal teams would be very uneasy about anything free. For those customers, Getty’s name and “reputability” may be the service they are paying for.
- ziddoap 6y ago
  Assuming appropriate licensing, I have no idea why a legal team would be uneasy about using something free. Can you elaborate?
  - dpwm 6y ago
    > Assuming appropriate licensing For such customers the mere fact it is free would make the licensing questionable. Consider a service like unsplash: what vetting can there be that the people who upload actually hold the copyright? Do unsplash indemnify you if it turns out they never had permission? How does it look in a court, should it come to that? It’s not about paying money for the image as much as it’s about buying an assurance – even if it is only to be able to say "we acted in good faith and licensed this from a ‘reputable’ supplier.” Some legal teams are incredibly risk averse. Unsplash almost certainly isn’t considered by these sorts of customers. It’s not some kind of snobbery, it’s to avoid having to deal with the case where the one image that you build a multi-million dollar ad campaign on turns out not to have been improperly licensed.
- mkr-hn 6y ago
  This is essentially the business model of open source companies. Free is a very hazy concept, and there's money in providing clarity.