If Dreamstime start offering images for free on a default basis after they were originally uploaded for sale, they're on pretty shaky ground legally. You can't have someone upload something on the basis of one legal set of conditions, then turn around some time later and "default" them to be given away for nothing. Its actually a breach of copyright if they do. Just because someone becomes inactive, doesn't mean they give implied consent to have their images used without payment of a royalty.
If they haven't run this past a lawyer, maybe they should.
That's a good point Holgs. If someone discovered one or more of their images had been put into the free section without their express consent, which subsequently had hundreds of downloadeds (from what I read the free images are very popular), would DT then offer (or be liable) to pay a reasonable royalty per download?
There can only be one reason why Serban has elected to make 'Donate to Free' as the default option __ because he's hoping to get a windfall of free images from contributors who are out of touch with what is going on.
What about the case of contributors who have died and whose portfolios are providing an income to family members who perhaps don't keep fully up to date with the microstock world? Seems very harsh to send their inherited images into the free section if they don't respond quickly enough.
It actually also makes anyone downloading the images potentially in breach of copyright in my view. You can't pass on a right that you don't have - ie. if the owner of the copyright hasn't granted you the right to pass on the license of an image in a particular way, then the fact that you purport to, whether by mistake of fact or law, doesn't make it the case legally.
Its the same as would be the case if an agency was the victim of the fraud of a contributor - for example if someone uploads an image from another photographer in breach of copyright, not only is the agency in breach, but so is anyone using it mistakenly relying on the agency. Of course they could claim indemnity from the agency granting the license, but it doesn't give them any right to keep using an image, or indemnify them from becoming party for an action for breach of copyright.
What a contributor would be entitled to really depends on what jurisdiction the use occurs in. There are as many different sets of copyright laws as there are countries - which would make caution in these things a pretty good policy for agencies.
