Quote from: holgs on October 27, 2009, 13:48

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.

I saw a GoogleAd at Squidoo for DT: "Free images" or something like that (NOT "Royalty-free images").  Maybe it's good for traffic, but I don't like this type of association.

I'm also not a fan... it attracts the wrong sort of "buyer" - one that doesn't buy. Site traffic isn't cure to all problems - actually seeking out people who purchase and use images is probably a better approach than hoping that google gets people on your site.

Its also a reason I won't be taking part in Crestock's free image link-swapping promotion - it does nothing for the contributor. Giving away our images to (potentially) move sales from one agency to another really isn't in out interests.

People don't know what a license is, or that images have 'owners'.  Buy giving away images and requiring attribution to the site and photographer, it is making people aware that there are rules when using images.  To go from there, to having them pay $1.00 isn't a big step.

Oh how smooth all those corporate newspeak. Freebees hunters only will learn how to get more freebees easily. Real customers even don't look at the free section since (a) they know the selection is very limited and sub-par, and (2) their (searching) time costs more. The step from freebee-hunting to even pay 1 cent for an image is tremendous. You will have to set up an account, have paypal, go through the email confirmation, etc...

Free images just serve the sites. Freebees hunters don't even look at who made the shot. If I want to give images for free, I'll do it on Flickr and reap in the traffic myself.

deleting old images are good but giving all of them free may not be. it would be ok to give some freebies once a while but not all of them.  0.25cents royalty free is the limit i would go for my photos.