111–120 of 282 posts
Translation: This is one of those tech acquisitions where the company is bought to be shut down.
I wonder if it sounds as ridiculous to the one writing it as it does to someone reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just reaffirms that one should not put all money on one horse, and to keep a copy of all of your work under your own management. With photography that's manageable, with e.g. youtube that can become challenging if you're a prolific video maker (especially nowadays with 4K, even 8K video footage). Anyway, always have an exit.
I’m not sure I follow? Storing a rendered final copy of your work is not prohibitively expensive given the cost of local storage, and is small in comparison to the raw footage which most creators presumably don’t just delete?
Loved reading about their journey on HN. Here's a 5-year-old thread about their costs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519085 Unfortunately the original link is down (and I could not find an archived version). But here's relevant material from the comments: > $18k is a lot of money to spend each month. Understanding the scale of Unsplash though can help explain the costs. > So at a cost of $18k per month you a…
If I were paying $2500 per month for that I’d be a bit sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether they can or not is less relevant. Getty has already demonstrated that it is willing to sell free works to people who don't realize they can get it for free (legally). I'm not even talking about where they take other people's works and illegally resell it as their own... Getty, if judged by their past behaviors, is an evil company.
> Getty has already demonstrated that it is willing to sell free works to people who don't realize they can get it for free (legally). It seems plausible to me that there are some customers whose legal teams would be very uneasy about anything free. For those customers, Getty’s name and “reputability” may be the service they are paying for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> hunting for sites using photos without or with not 100% correct attribution I do not see what is wrong about this part (other than the illegal(?) nexus with lawyers). CC licences still have to be complied with (or the user can contact the copyright holder for an alternative licence). GPL infringers have been taken to court as well, and a legal, for-profit litigation initiative might be a good incentive that encoura…
Since I've been victim of this practice, let me elaborate: There are individuals in Germany (two photographers IIRC) who upload photos to the Wikipedia. The licence is always CC with attribution, but that part is badly presented on Wiki (or was). Next thing, they wait for people to use their images and go around to sue everyone who doesn't display the attribution string alongside the image. It is just predatory behav…
If this is a problem that you have knowledge about, have you ever considered contacting Creative Commons about this? They could perhaps provide legal guidance or even modify the next version of the license (if there is a next version).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pexels is the best community for people who want to share their photos/videos (CC0). It's the worst community for monetising that in any way.
> It's the worst community for monetising that in any way. That sounds fantastic, I'll take a look! Edit: It's not CC0 though, right? The Pexels License looks similar to the Unsplash License.
You are allowed to do anything with Pexels photos, except 4 conditions listed on the plain English licensing page: https://www.pexels.com/license/
In short, • don’t portray identifiable people in a bad way • don’t sell unaltered, make a change first • don’t imply endorsement • don’t redistribute on other sites.
Commercial use is perfectly fine. You don’t need to attribute, but our photographers (and we) prefer it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creative Commons caused many issues in countries like Germany, with photographers publishing under CC with attribution clause, then hunting for sites using photos without or with not 100% correct attribution (in illegal pro-profit cooperations with lawyers) and suing the site owners for thousands of dollars. It really would have to be CC0, but even mentioning CC will raise a red flag for many now.
What was illegal about what they were doing?
A (somewhat dated) example at [1] (german).
[1] https://www.lawblog.de/archives/2009/11/17/abmahnanwalte-ver...