http://fontzilla.org/fontart.html

The designer is offering stock images that she has added type to for download by anyone interested. If she purchased the images and altered them is she redistributing them. Is it ok if she says that the images are only for personal enjoyment? I guess that might be the key but she should probably state on the site that the images may not be used in a commercial manner.

On this page it says, "...what you'll find here are pieces of art showcasing some of the great typefaces Fontzilla has collected over the years. Click on the thumbnail image to see a full-sized one. Feel free to grab an image to keep for you're own personal enjoyment."

The images are from clipart.com and stock.exchng and she has that noted. Just wondering...

I guess it depends on how much she changed them? Adding a text on them of course isn't the case.

Here is Nancy's response:

Thank you for your comments. Yes, rest assured the images from Clipart.com are paid for -- I've had a paid subscription for many years. Images from stock.exchng aren't 'sold' images (just those from their commercial/professional site iStockPhoto are). The earlier FontPlays mostly use images from old clip art packages and were created long before I had the site to document them. Trying to determine which package the image came from would be a daunting task to say the least! I've been buying image packages and typefaces for a very long time. I've got about nine CD storage cases full -- I lost count of how many actual CDs that is.

In my professional life, I buy stock images for clients' work (or require them to purchase images directly). Because we're doing print work, we need quality, high resolution images. I do understand what stock photographers go through. I've even toyed with becoming one myself. I finally broke down and upgraded my Nikon "point and shoot" to an Olympus DSLR a while back, but I'm still learning. I wish I had more time to devote to it.

The Fontzilla site is a personal site that doesn't earn any money. I've even refused offers to put ads on it. Nor do I promote the site or try to drive visitors there. As you can see, the focus of the images on the site are really the typefaces used and the words themselves, not the original photos. But I do make it a point to acknowledge where original images came from whenever possible, with an actual hyperlink to sites where appropriate.

I never considered having the altered images on my site qualifying as "redistributing" them. But if someone wants to grab an image from a website, you can't stop them. Even if you disable the right-click with javascript or embed the image in Flash, they can get around it, even if it's just by taking a screenshot. I added the line about grabbing images for personal enjoyment -- it wasn't originally on the site -- because we had a problem with people linking to the images on our server, crashing our bandwidth in a big way. That's why you see the bold red notice all over the place asking people to not link to the images.

Plus, for what it's worth, the "large" images on my site aren't actually "large", high resolution, or even close to print quality. They're merely larger than the tiny thumbnails so people can actually read the text (remember, that's the focus, not the image). The larger versions are all 72dpi and 800 pixels wide or smaller. Speaking as someone who works in the print world, that's totally insufficient for reproduction.

I've removed the line about grabbing images for personal enjoyment this evening. Hopefully doing that, and now knowing more information about the site, will satisfy your group. Please let me know. I never meant to offend or hurt anyone.
-- Nancy J. Foster
Quill & Mouse Studios, Inc.
QuillAndMouse.com - CompleteWebShop.com
PracticeNewsletters.com - AutoShopNewsletters.com
Graphic Design - Website Creation - Custom Newsletters