pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Zack Arias on unsplash  (Read 7417 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2018, 09:06 »
+1
Zack Arias's video was just about the dangers of using photos with recognizable faces in commercial work without a model release. He rambled on a bit and went off on tangents too much, 42 minutes worth, but the point wasn't to attack unsplash or it's contributors for giving away free photos. That's the pet peeve of so many here and therefore what they choose to focus on.

You would have to be an idiot to use an unreleased photo of a person in an ad campaign. There have been some high profile news stories about lawsuits against companies for doing just that. The real value of using a stock photo from a reliable agency is in the assurance that the images are safe to use. It doesn't matter how many millions of free, high quality images there are out there, designers and ad agencies will continue to buy stock rather than use free for the peace of mind.


in addiction they are giving away the copyright...in practice the photo don't have any copyright....the owner cannot even cancel them from unsplash in case. it's unbelievable. a suicide. the day somebody so idiot will be fined thousand of dollars will be a great day for photo industry. i hope that guy Zeller from geneva...if it happens i will open a bottle of dom perignon.
and this has nothing to do with SHARING.


Then you need to pay closer attention. That day has come and gone many times. Here's one:

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/woman-suing-chipotle-for-more-than-2-billion-over-use-of-photo

From this thread:

https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-photography-discussion/woman-suing-chipotle-and-photographer-$2-billion-over-use-of-photo/

That case didn't involve unsplash, just an unreleased photo of a woman. Point is that's where the danger is. A simple photo of flowers or a sunset, why wouldn't you use a free shot. That's the kind of thing amateurs shoot and if that's where your "niche" is I can see why you're upset but a shot of a person or place that may need a release, a stock photo agency will still get the business, unless the user is an idiot.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 09:09 by memakephoto »


« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2018, 09:35 »
0
People uploading unreleased grab shots from the public are everywhere on photo community and free sites.

Some also misunderstand the model or property releases and just fill it out with their own name. They own the image and believe, they can grant rights.


But free sites also have millions of files with real releases, just because so many people love to model for fun and so many people like to share their images for free.

These images are then often riddled with logos, because they are not aware that that is a problem too...but especially if you are looking for portraits there is all kinds available everywhere.

Obviously a company that goes to a free site that doesnt invest in proper inspections is crazy...if it blows up in their face they get what they deserve.

« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2018, 10:24 »
0
Zack Arias's video was just about the dangers of using photos with recognizable faces in commercial work without a model release. He rambled on a bit and went off on tangents too much, 42 minutes worth, but the point wasn't to attack unsplash or it's contributors for giving away free photos. That's the pet peeve of so many here and therefore what they choose to focus on.

You would have to be an idiot to use an unreleased photo of a person in an ad campaign. There have been some high profile news stories about lawsuits against companies for doing just that. The real value of using a stock photo from a reliable agency is in the assurance that the images are safe to use. It doesn't matter how many millions of free, high quality images there are out there, designers and ad agencies will continue to buy stock rather than use free for the peace of mind.


in addiction they are giving away the copyright...in practice the photo don't have any copyright....the owner cannot even cancel them from unsplash in case. it's unbelievable. a suicide. the day somebody so idiot will be fined thousand of dollars will be a great day for photo industry. i hope that guy Zeller from geneva...if it happens i will open a bottle of dom perignon.
and this has nothing to do with SHARING.


Then you need to pay closer attention. That day has come and gone many times. Here's one:

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/woman-suing-chipotle-for-more-than-2-billion-over-use-of-photo

From this thread:

https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-photography-discussion/woman-suing-chipotle-and-photographer-$2-billion-over-use-of-photo/

That case didn't involve unsplash, just an unreleased photo of a woman. Point is that's where the danger is. A simple photo of flowers or a sunset, why wouldn't you use a free shot. That's the kind of thing amateurs shoot and if that's where your "niche" is I can see why you're upset but a shot of a person or place that may need a release, a stock photo agency will still get the business, unless the user is an idiot.


i never shot a flower...:)
look better in unsplash there are good concept good travel photos much better than shutter stock.
i'm not scared at all....my fine art photography is stronger than ever with 2 big competition win last year only...rm are increasing and rf also.
my point is about stupidity. these people are a bunch of idiot.

« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2018, 10:31 »
+3
trying to find a career giving your work free to everybody so maybe somebody noticed it...is like those actress who sold themselves to every producer they met so one maybe would have given them a job. nothing more.
as i said we live in a giant brothel.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2018, 10:50 »
+5
This discussion makes me think of the 5 stages of grief:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance.

jonbull is clearly in stage 2, being angry at 'these idiots' who give their photos away for free thus killing the industry.
cobalt is in stage 5, accepting the way it is, and finding new ways (niches) to live with the consequences of the changing industry.

I'm rocking back and forth between 2 and 5 ;)

Shelma1

« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2018, 11:10 »
+1
Hmmm. I'm vacillating between 2 and 4.

« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2018, 11:42 »
0
This discussion makes me think of the 5 stages of grief:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance.

jonbull is clearly in stage 2, being angry at 'these idiots' who give their photos away for free thus killing the industry.
cobalt is in stage 5, accepting the way it is, and finding new ways (niches) to live with the consequences of the changing industry.

I'm rocking back and forth between 2 and 5 ;)

why angry? i'm objective...and people we are only at the beginning....easy say...oh don't worry is only some flowers...in 2 years there will be zillions of free files.
sure i do a lot of editorial, and i'm sure those people don't go shooting in awkward situation or very remote place. but it seems to me the same as when micro stock began and  rm agency didn't worry telling : quality win,service win...after some year mostly have closed doors.
i repeat this is artistic prostitution.
point.

today sale 120 dollar in alamy, editorial...i'm sure you won't find this kind of file on unsplash.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 11:44 by jonbull »

« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2018, 11:49 »
0
The beginning has been going on for 18 years...I dont know if you remember how the traditional stock artist would angrily vent about us how we could dare sell images for 20 cents.

Look here...this image of a lonely tree in a field...I was paid 25 ooo dollars by company xyz for a worldwide license...You are destroying my wonderful life...;)


Stock used to be a small club, entry only to the select few. All the ideas about penthouse parties with pools and splashing around with the models...it must have been a great life...then we came and destroyed it...at least that was the attitude...

But free images have been around since the beginning of digital, so it is not a new threat. Mobile phones just introduced an even wider group of people to digital photography who couldńt do it before.

So the flood will continue...but in my happy stage 5 I dont care :)

GraniteCove

« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2018, 13:35 »
+1
I'm at stage 6. Moving on.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2018, 14:43 »
+1
I'm in between 5 and 6. I expect by the end of the year I will be on 6.

« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2018, 10:48 »
0
@jonbull thanks for sharing this.
An MR with the words "Brothers's Pic" instead of a signature. ???

I just blogged about Zack's findings. The link is below.

This is How Using Free Image Sites could Land you in Trouble


« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2019, 09:19 »
+8

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2019, 09:23 »
+1
FINALLY!

« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2019, 11:08 »
+2
the best part is that site like pixabay and the other have been bought by canvas for probably millions dollars...peoplle who didn't do nothing practically just bought server to store free images, and killed micro stock cash out millions dollar  in the face of those idiots who uploaded their files for free  expecting some sort of invisible exposure .....it's unbelievable the army of idiot created by the social media era...it's good to know that if you have a good idea , manipulating reality you can simply makes millions thanks to an army of sheep.

« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2019, 11:19 »
0
what I find *really* interesting though is -

given how computer algorithms work - I imagine the image would have been "found" first on unsplash by copytrack because unsplash is a 'bigger' site... so....... was unsplash sent a message/notice?

« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2019, 12:03 »
0
what I find *really* interesting though is -

given how computer algorithms work - I imagine the image would have been "found" first on unsplash by copytrack because unsplash is a 'bigger' site... so....... was unsplash sent a message/notice?

The image must have been found on the end users site for Copytrack to request recompense from them, but only at the request of the original photographer.  It may also have been found on Unsplash, but they will have a get out clause in their contract with the up loader (if found) of the image taking the brunt of the damages.  It seems that the end user is the one publicising this as an issue of bullying by Copytrack, dealings between Unsplash and Copytrack would not be publicised unless it went to court.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2019, 12:06 »
0
Good news


« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2019, 12:20 »
0
It's ironic that a photography who infringed another photographers copyright is the one getting upset, he must have known that Unsplash was too good to be true, but tried to hide behind Unsplash as the issuer of the license in this case.  Unsplash have been slow in this case, because the publicity could be very damaging to them.  How many times have they had to bail out the end user to avoid this kind of publicity?

« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2019, 23:31 »
0
Quite possibly the most constructive and germane post I've ever read on this forum. Kudos.
   plus 100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2019, 23:44 »
0
the scary thing is that content on unsplash are really really good...years ahead micro stock and bordering stocksy as far as quality.

sure, that's why nothing sells on microstock, lol
Also Correct.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
2522 Views
Last post February 19, 2009, 20:53
by cobalt
117 Replies
23762 Views
Last post December 02, 2010, 05:59
by FD
6 Replies
1698 Views
Last post August 22, 2013, 11:57
by cthoman
3 Replies
2125 Views
Last post August 05, 2017, 00:15
by sarah2
8 Replies
4052 Views
Last post February 09, 2018, 19:50
by shiyali

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results