MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: is this ok? public domain artwork  (Read 6650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 21, 2008, 15:14 »
0
I saw this on IS:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7273686

looks like their portfolio is full of this kind of stuff.

If they let you do that, I'm going to the library for some old books and firing up the scanner. I seem to recall DT removing some Da Vinci stuff someone had posted though.


« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2008, 15:35 »
0
Well the guy probably couldn't make sales on a handful of mundane bear pics. Truly, iStock members should be outraged over this, as it is not original work of the submitter. I for one will drop a note to their support.

Addition:

Just sent a note of to their support. Take a look at this one

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/arts-and-entertainment/arts-symbols/5913441-vintage-signature-of-queen-elizabeth.php?id=5913441


They can't be serious in letting stuff like this through.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 15:45 by stormchaser »

« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2008, 16:49 »
0
What about all the NASA photos that they allow?  Some of them have hardly been changed from the originals.  If they are allowed then perhaps these should be too?

« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2008, 17:57 »
0
Public domain is an interesting concept.  But I guess that, if I can record a CD playing Chopin on the piano without having to pay rights for his music, anyone can get anything old and make money out of it. 

I find it strange however that this can be done so directly. This is just a digital copy of the engraving, not a print.  This is a very gray area to me.

About NASA images, when reading their terms I never got to the conclusion someone could use them commercially.  I wrote them about this and never got a reply.  I don't think it is right however to simply pick them from their website and sell them in posters or calendars.  Some people said their images are public domain beause their research is financed by the government, therefore it's money from tax-payers.  As I am not a USA tax-payer, I don't think I should be part of this "public".  I have however used one of their images, edited, to create another image for editorial use.  A bit of contradition, I guess.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2008, 18:16 »
0
They (NASA) allow to use these images privately and comercially and they state it very clearly in their site. They just aks that is forbbiden to suggest that NASA endorses in any way the products publicited with the help of the images.

And some sites  have put a restraint to the possibility of uploading such images unless creatively worked in some context.

« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2008, 19:19 »
0
This has come up before on the site. IS had a library sign up as a contributor. All of the archived images that they hold were added to the collection. I can't remember the name of the group but it created quite a stir on the site.

The admin eventually came in to say that as long as you can prove that no one else has the copyright then you can use the image. Since then there have been  conflicting opinions by both inspectors and admins and most queries on the subject go unanswered.

According to admin there was a policy update regarding the NASA images but I don't know what thread title to look under for the information. Here is the link to the announcement that the policy will be updated. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=62000&page=1

« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2008, 21:05 »
0
IS had a library sign up as a contributor. All of the archived images that they hold were added to the collection.



Not entirely accurate. Its the Hulton Archives and they didn't exactly "sign up" to contibute. Its content moved over from Getty. And its only the non-photographic portion of the archives.
See: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54443

« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2008, 11:34 »
0
Many U.S. federal government, state government and local government agencies are forbidden by law to copyright anything they produce or have produced for them.  The fear being that agencies would use copyrights to prevent dissemination of information to the public. 

I created a web site for a city in Florida to handle procurement.  Since they were forbidden by law to own the rights to the software I created for them, I was able to retain the rights and resell it to other cities.  Had it been a company and not a government, they would have owned the rights based on "work for hire" laws.

It's important to note that not all agencies are so restricted.  The U.S. military owns the rights to all its logos and such (hence the recent controversy of licensing rights to a clothing manufacturer).

« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2009, 02:34 »
0
Sorry to dig up an old thread.. but... I was looking at the number of files per contributor on the Istock charts again and noticed that the Hulton Archive is now officially the largest "contributor". Am I wrong in thinking that most of this material - and quite a bit material from other contributors is already in the Public domain? What's to stop someone downloading a copy and redistributing the material in the same way as is happening at Istock?

Personally I have issues with companies claiming copyright on and "licensing" material that should have long since passed into the public domain.

« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2009, 02:44 »
0
What about all the NASA photos that they allow?  Some of them have hardly been changed from the originals.  If they are allowed then perhaps these should be too?
NASA/JPL explicitely put their images in the public domain, even for commercial work (if you credit them). The policy of iStock has been very clear on this in a separate article. You can use them if the change from the original is significant enough, as part of a derivatory work. You can't sell them as is.

« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2009, 04:13 »
0
I saw this on IS:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7273686

looks like their portfolio is full of this kind of stuff.

If they let you do that, I'm going to the library for some old books and firing up the scanner. I seem to recall DT removing some Da Vinci stuff someone had posted though.


Go on, fire your scanner! (If your books are old enough)

The book was published in 1879. That makes it certainly Public Domain. And Public Domain means nobody (NOBODY!) owns any copyright to the artwork. If nobody holds the copyright to the print, it's as fair game as photographing - let's say - a piece of wood.

I think iStock lets you upload anything that has been published before 1884.

I have a couple of scans from old books in my portfolio. I just thought the prints looked nice and someone might need them, it would have been a shame to hide the illustrations in my closet. And it was too much work giving them away from free.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 04:18 by Perry »

Milinz

« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2009, 05:52 »
0
Yes... Getty has all rights to put their collections without reviews on iStockphoto...

I wonder how many images from Hulton Archives would pass istockphoto reviewers ;-)

Nevertheless, Scout can't be contacted due to Illustrators initial Application reviews except via sitemail which he/she might or may not read...

I'd like my 700 Vectors live on iStock as they've accepted all images from Hulton Archives!

Just my thoughts I felt worthy sharing ;-)

« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2009, 08:50 »
0
Interesting to see that there are so many "creative" contributors wanting to upload ancient prints...

Seems like people are running out of ideas or is it that the times make it necessary to get a hold of anything that sells as long as it is within the legal barriers...???

« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2009, 09:35 »
0
Interesting to see that there are so many "creative" contributors wanting to upload ancient prints...

Seems like people are running out of ideas or is it that the times make it necessary to get a hold of anything that sells as long as it is within the legal barriers...???

Not necessarily. Some just want to do a favor and make these old fabulous prints available and get a couple of bucks for the work.
Because there is no other way to obtain these prints (except searching and finding the old books and scanning yourself), it would be a shame if all these prints were buried forever (and that's what's going to happen if they weren't offered as stock)

« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2009, 09:56 »
0
Many U.S. federal government, state government and local government agencies are forbidden by law to copyright anything they produce or have produced for them.  The fear being that agencies would use copyrights to prevent dissemination of information to the public. 


Ah yes, but then there is classified, and redacted documents.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4558 Views
Last post August 24, 2007, 17:47
by leaf
4 Replies
3089 Views
Last post May 16, 2009, 08:47
by snaprender
Public Domain Images?

Started by traveler1116 « 1 2  All » Image Sleuth

45 Replies
16320 Views
Last post June 25, 2011, 21:10
by djpadavona
26 Replies
9823 Views
Last post July 17, 2013, 18:21
by cascoly
0 Replies
1532 Views
Last post February 07, 2020, 17:52
by umdash9

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle