Oh heck this crud: > Open Source Advertising: the act of promoting a brand by releasing media (especially images) featuring its product(s) to the public to use

Oh heck this crud: > Open Source Advertising: the act of promoting a brand by releasing media (especially images) featuring its product(s) to the public to use and distribute free of charge. First of all, Open Source isn't the correct term when referring to non-software content, you should be using something like Creative Commons or just "permissive." Open Source is about the... well, source, so you would only use that term if you were doing something like uploading the raw image files and data used to create the ad, and if you were letting people fork it and recompile it and swap out brands or something. Like, you might conceivably call a Blender movie "open source" if it shipped with the Blender files and assets used to build it. That's not what's going on here, so it's just a misleading term. Second of all: > “But will my brand be safe if go this route?” Yes. Here’s why you shouldn’t worry: First, under intellectual property law, you have the ability to issue a takedown notice to remove content that negatively infringes on your brand. Then it's not a permissive license at all, is it? If you're going to not only use open source, but capitalize it and call it Open Source, then one would think part of the license would be the ability to remix, redistribute, and modify the content regardless of whether or not it makes an advertiser happy. But this doesn't even link to a license at all, and Unsplash's default license is not compatible with Creative Commons since it doesn't allow aggregation. So what on earth does "negatively infringes on your brand" mean? It annoys me to no end when businesses try to have their cake and eat it too by using Open Source/Creative Commons terminology to describe their incompatible licenses.