0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It's bad enough when others come to the site to rip off photographers, now you had to challenge the company themselves?
Quote from: Zeus on December 22, 2014, 20:14It's bad enough when others come to the site to rip off photographers, now you had to challenge the company themselves???
it still seems like an outright ripoff to me.
"Though the service sparked controversy, it wasn’t illegal. The prints were made from photos shared to Flickr using the attribution license, which allows commercial use. "Yeah, I don't get it. The posters are just getting what they wanted by using the CC license.
This is Confusing?License:CC BY AttributionThis license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/I won't allow anything creative commons, even if it means I won't get the so called free promotion or "maximum dissemination and use". No thanks. Share alike also allows commercial use.Why would I give away my work and allow other to use it commercially?
Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 27, 2014, 12:55This is Confusing?License:CC BY AttributionThis license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/I won't allow anything creative commons, even if it means I won't get the so called free promotion or "maximum dissemination and use". No thanks. Share alike also allows commercial use.Why would I give away my work and allow other to use it commercially?Pete, this is a question I often ponder over. I know there are people who contribute to Getty, via the Flickr deal, who allow images that weren't selected to the Getty collection to be used in the Creative Commons license. It's absurd. I can, if I hit my head against a wall enough times, understand how an amateur may enjoy seeing their images used in a commercial fashion. But why someone would give away thousands of uses when they are trying to also make a living at selling images goes beyond the understandable.
Pete, this is a question I often ponder over. I know there are people who contribute to Getty, via the Flickr deal, who allow images that weren't selected to the Getty collection to be used in the Creative Commons license. It's absurd. I can, if I hit my head against a wall enough times, understand how an amateur may enjoy seeing their images used in a commercial fashion. But why someone would give away thousands of uses when they are trying to also make a living at selling images goes beyond the understandable.
Quote from: Zeus on December 27, 2014, 13:31Pete, this is a question I often ponder over. I know there are people who contribute to Getty, via the Flickr deal, who allow images that weren't selected to the Getty collection to be used in the Creative Commons license. It's absurd. I can, if I hit my head against a wall enough times, understand how an amateur may enjoy seeing their images used in a commercial fashion. But why someone would give away thousands of uses when they are trying to also make a living at selling images goes beyond the understandable.i cannot answer for pete, but i can tell you why?there are lots of GWC participating in paid shoots of sexy gals, and they want to be known as one of those guys who shoot women in little bikinis and hopefully pulling off their knickers for them.you see the same dudes at these shoots, all carrying big bazooka lenses like they work for Playhog or Henhouse. no prize award for guessing which magazines i scratched off
