1. MrDrizz

    MrDrizz

    Messages:
    1,082
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I had no idea this site existed but after more research I can only recommend you stay away. It's a stock site that gives images away for FREE for commercial use. With zero model or property releases attached to any pictures. So if you add a picture, of say a woman in a red hat, from the site you are going to be screwed if said woman doesn't like the idea that her picture has been used for something she doesn't like. As the photographer you are liable. Any stock site worth their salt will insist on model or property release forms.

    Zack Arias has done a great video. (40 minutes long)


    View: https://youtu.be/6M_OZWtpokc
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  2. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,814
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I don’t know what Zack is saying, I never clicked.

    But I have to correct your assumption.

    It’s never ‘the photographer’ that would be screwed in your scenario. Getting a release is ALWAYS the responsibility of the publisher* (in UK law and in US law too IIRC)

    *ok for clarity the photographer would be responsible if he was also the publisher, so only added to stave off the pedants.
     
    jamesev likes this.
  3. myotis

    myotis

    Messages:
    388
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Not sure about the legality of this type of exclusion but their T &Cs say

    "Note that the Unsplash License does not include the right to use:

    • Trademarks, logos, or brands that appear in Photos

    • People’s images if they are recognizable in the Photos"
     
    Phil V likes this.
  4. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,814
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I wonder if they’ve updated them since Zacks ranting then.

    I did watch some of the video, and Zack did say it was the photographer that would be liable. And he really should know better, it’s outright untrue.
     
  5. myotis

    myotis

    Messages:
    388
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It may well be the case, I've never looked before.

    Even though the photographer isn't directly liable, aren't there cases where the person in a photo has gone after the photographer, for making photographs available without their permission?
     
  6. LongLensPhotography

    LongLensPhotography

    Messages:
    13,390
    Name:
    Truth Teller
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Stay well away from ALL of THEM. Only that way we can fight back to earn what we deserve, no paltry $1-10 or 20%.
     
  7. Brazo

    Brazo

    Messages:
    2,575
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Only the publisher is responsible and even if they use dodgy free sites they still have to satisfy themselves that no copyright is involved.

    My images have been picked up by the spam/trawler wallpaper sites and used (unauthorised) by many large organisations who haven’t even bothered to change the file name from the wallpaper sites!
     
    Phil V likes this.
  8. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,814
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I’m not aware it’s happened, all I can tell you for sure is that it’s the publishers responsibility legally to get any releases. The reason photographers usually ‘get’ the release is because they’re usually the closest person in the creative chain to the subject. And if a photographer is selling work to agencies, they normally provide the release that the agency demands because they know an image is worthless to the market without a release (no publisher will buy an image without the appropriate releases attached).
     
  9. myotis

    myotis

    Messages:
    388
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    [
    Fair enough, I'm probably misremembering.
     
  10. rob-nikon

    rob-nikon

    Messages:
    4,621
    Name:
    Rob
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Bit of a thread revival but I’ve only just come across Unsplash through a comment on a WEX Facebook advert. I’ve lost the post now the Facebook app refreshed so can’t give credit to person who made the comment but they had commented that WEX should watch the video to educate themselves on unsplash (I think it’s the video @MrDrizz has linked too).

    I can’t believe people give their images directly to a stock site that then gives the images away for free to commercial users. I can understand why photographers give images to charity groups but providing them free to big businesses just seems crazy, even more crazy is WEX using free images when they sell photography equipment to photographers. I can potentially see WEX are opening themselves up to a social media backlash here. Potentially they could be seen to be wanting to have their cake and eat it. They want photographers to buy equipment from them yet don’t want to pay any photographers to use images they create using that equipment. At some point that attitude is going to have an effect on the number of potential customers that they may in the future have.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018
    twist likes this.
  11. petersmart

    petersmart

    Messages:
    4,470
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    In fact Unsplash is not a stock site per se, it is more like Flickr with the added advantage that anyone can use the images royalty free:

    https://unsplash.com/license

    Personally I can't see anything wrong with that - after all what someone does with the photos they own is entirely up to them and if they wish to give them away - why not?

    You have to face a simple fact that making a living at photography is getting harder and harder unless you are extremely talented or can create a niche market for a particular type of photo.

    And the advent of smartphones which now double as digital cameras mean that trend is only going to accelerate as all phone manufacturers are determined to push the frontiers of what is possible with their camera phones.

    So get used to it because all you're really doing is complaining about something over which you have absolutely no control.

    And the 99% of the public who are quite happy with the quality of their camera phones couldn't care less anyway.

    And while you're complaining about it, how many of you are quite happy to watch FREE content on YouTube or even download it without any payment to the creators?

    EDIT: And as a sign of the times, Fotolia, a stock site has now closed after being acquired by Adobe:

    https://www.dpreview.com/news/21169...llowing-complete-integration-with-adobe-stock

    It seems that bigger is considered better, with the irony that the bigger the stock site the less chance you have to sell anything at all !
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018 at 1:02 AM
  12. rob-nikon

    rob-nikon

    Messages:
    4,621
    Name:
    Rob
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You are right what people do with their photos is down to them. If they give them away they give them away to whoever and for whatever, but it does create a race to the bottom that in the end helps no one. Sadly an image has no value unlike it used to. Businesses have worked this out, photography has no value. When photography shops start using freely acquired images it shows that photography has no value (and is slightly ironic too). You are right I have no control over it but that doesnt mean I can’t voice an opinion or concern about it, or just stop buying from WEX because they aren’t helping the photography industry in any way. Sadly I feel this is the start of something that snowballs and doesn’t help in the future. If businesses feel they don’t need to pay for images then ultimately do they need to pay the correct tax on their earnings? We can’t comment lain that they use loopholes to reduce their tax liabilities. It’s all an ethical issue than anything else.

    Regarding YouTube there are revenue streams through advertising. It’s no different to watching TV channels like ITV or channel 4. Looking at the unsplash website I can’t see a way that there is a revenue stream from it. How do they pay for the website and staff? There is no advertising that I can see.

    By the way with Fotolife that’s a buy out so adobe merge it with their buiseness (normal business practice if you buy out another company). Adobe didn’t just close it- the assets are now part of Adobes business. In the end Adobes stock business will close because there will be no money in stock photography. I won’t be able to complain if adobe raises software prices to keep profit levels the same.
     
  13. myotis

    myotis

    Messages:
    388
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Or what about Squarespace, so well promoted by so many photographers.

    "With our partnership with Unsplash, you can add free stock photography to your site."


    https://support.squarespace.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001994067-Unsplash-and-Squarespace


    Although I can't find it now, Squarespace were listed at Unsplash as providing support to help them build the Unsplash platform.
     
  14. myotis

    myotis

    Messages:
    388
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    They did explain this at one time, their main business was some sort of design studio and the Unsplash site was originally set up as a service to it's clients, which they made public. However, the Unsplash site started to pay for itself as it started to bring them new clients. T

    And if you read the interviews with professional photographers who submit photos to Unsplash, their justification is the amount of commissioned work it brings them from potential clients first finding them on Unsplash.
     
  15. HoppyUK

    HoppyUK

    Messages:
    22,635
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    No
    You're fighting a losing battle Rob. It's not photographers giving away images for free that has devalued photography, it's technology.

    In the film and pre-internet era, the creation of quality images, marketing and distributing them, was a skilled and costly business. They were valued accordingly. That is no longer the case and the world is awash with great pictures accessed with a mouse click. We all benefit from that, but the inevitable flip-side is that many photographers who simply enjoy the whole process of picture-taking are happy to work for free and give their stuff away. It gives them a purpose, a justification for their hobby, and an outlet for images that would otherwise languish on a hard-drive or just sit on the cloud unseen and unappreciated.

    Those who object to this, mostly professionals, are seeking to create artificial barriers against natural market forces to protect their income, while denying amateurs free choice to do what they want. That's understandable, but it won't work and there's no turning the clock back. With digital technology, you can't have your cake and eat it. With very few exceptions, stock photography is dead as a source of income. If you can't get someone to pay you for actually taking pictures in the first place, once an image exists it's lost 99% of its value.
     
    taxboy and petersmart like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice