Agency Based Discussion > Shutterstock.com
Shutterstock suspicious accounts "wackamoles" update
Hannafate:
Sort of parallel evolution. I think you're right.
I see plenty of stuff derived from old clip art, and you can tell who's using the same books as a resource. It's lazy, but not stealing.
Uncle Pete:
--- Quote from: Hannafate on March 17, 2020, 08:30 ---Sort of parallel evolution. I think you're right.
I see plenty of stuff derived from old clip art, and you can tell who's using the same books as a resource. It's lazy, but not stealing.
--- End quote ---
The clipart books would have to be from before 1924 right? Or are they not copyrighted? I suppose there are technicalities, like one image isn't stealing, but 12 is? ;)
Honestly, aren't the clip art books protected?
And I suspect there are projects and software that have public domain or re-use allowed. The wolf is one of those. Even if it's just a flipped copy of an identical work.
Hannafate:
The whole point of clip art books is that they are public domain. Most of the artwork is, indeed, over 75 years old. Some of the artwork is over 100 years old. I collect clip art books, which is why I recognize it in stock illustrations.
There are digital clip arts that are public domain, most of them are in very old formats, such as wmf. These older vector formats could not produce curves or gradients, so each image had thousands of nodes, and multiple layers to create any gradients.
I figure, if the submitter has put in the effort to convert these clunky old files into clean, easily edited vectors, it's fair for them to get paid for that. It's certainly worth it to a buyer to have the modernized version.
I see a lot, though, that look like someone just put a book on a scanner, and posted the results. This would violate the terms of service for stock sites that exclude public domain images. Legally, an unaltered copy of a public domain image is still public domain. An altered one, such as one colorized, vectorized, or developed, is considered new work. (however, it can be hard to defend copyright on, since others might do almost the exact same alterations, parallel evolution)
Fun fact: It's called "clip" art because printers used to actually cut it out of large sheets to paste into their layouts.
Uncle Pete:
--- Quote from: Hannafate on March 17, 2020, 14:09 ---The whole point of clip art books is that they are public domain. Most of the artwork is, indeed, over 75 years old. Some of the artwork is over 100 years old. I collect clip art books, which is why I recognize it in stock illustrations.
There are digital clip arts that are public domain, most of them are in very old formats, such as wmf. These older vector formats could not produce curves or gradients, so each image had thousands of nodes, and multiple layers to create any gradients.
I figure, if the submitter has put in the effort to convert these clunky old files into clean, easily edited vectors, it's fair for them to get paid for that. It's certainly worth it to a buyer to have the modernized version.
I see a lot, though, that look like someone just put a book on a scanner, and posted the results. This would violate the terms of service for stock sites that exclude public domain images. Legally, an unaltered copy of a public domain image is still public domain. An altered one, such as one colorized, vectorized, or developed, is considered new work. (however, it can be hard to defend copyright on, since others might do almost the exact same alterations, parallel evolution)
Fun fact: It's called "clip" art because printers used to actually cut it out of large sheets to paste into their layouts.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I actually used to do paste ups with galley sheets. I think if you look in the front of your books, they are copyrighted, as a book, but the contents will either be public domain or have a limitation such as, you may use only # images in another book.
Good ideas for source material, should someone want to scan and edit and make alterations.
https://www.kissclipart.com/
Abide by the license on each file you download–they are often not the same, so read each license carefully . To quickly view the license for each, click on small image to the preview image.
As KissClipart (KissClipart.com) pictures are derived from the network users to share, so KissClipart does not have sufficient monitoring capabilities to review the picture there are infringement and other circumstances.
The user should consciously abide by the copyright law and other relevant laws and regulations, shall not infringe the legal rights of this site and the right holder, To KissClipart and any third party losses, infringing users should bear full responsibility.
Looks like a useful site for anyone who wants free images or source materials?
Back to the original, some from this guy isn't doing any of that, he''s copying others and flipping or making minor changes.
James Spencer:
newbielink:https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/file-folder-labeled-audit-multicolor-archive-325424111 [nonactive]
newbielink:https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/privacy-concept-on-folder-register-multicolor-397698664 [nonactive]
Is this consider suspicious accounts? Both contributors has over 20000 photos.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version