Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

unsplash.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 282 posts

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#251

Post by huskyr »

ipsum2 wrote: post #212
dannyw wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Disclosure: I work for Canva) 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 photo…

> don’t portray identifiable people in a bad way Not a lawyer, but this is so arbitrary that any sensible company wouldn't touch Pexels. What is considered bad? If the person is put next to some junk food? Cigarettes? An abortion clinic ad? Oil company? This is the same issue with the No Evil license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...

Yup, this is also why Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow Pexels as a source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bad_sources#Pexel...

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#252

Post by joking »

danso wrote: post #41

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costs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11519085 Unfortunately the original link is down (and I could not find an archived version).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…

the imgix service is probably worth it in some scales, but for something like unsplash I doubt that is the cheaper option.

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#253

Post by growt »

yesenadam wrote: post #224
growt wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually was sued over this exact thing and lost (and paid quite a bit of money). All for a little UI experiment that nobody saw but me, google and (via google image search) these vultures.

Please consider writing up the story and submitting as an HN post, that sounds horrific. Thanks.

I don't know if my writeup would add something new. It's actually a known practice here in germany (as I discovered after the fact). Here is a good article about it (in german and not the same photographer as in my case): https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wikipedia-beraet-ueber-Dist...

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#254

Post by codeflo »

matkoniecz wrote: post #179
onli wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, wrong target - big enterprises have lawyers of their own. The target goal here is the 13 year old that published a fan page on neocities. He won't defend himself, the parents will pay, and that the claimed image licensing costs are way higher than what usually can be claimed in such a situation they will not notice.

If there are sources confirming targeting such cases as "13 year old that published a fan page on neocities" then I can become outraged. But for all what I know they could be targeting marketing departments using stolen photos in ads.

“If there are sources” — the answer is different depending on whether you speak German or not. The practices of the so-called “Abmahnindustrie” (legal warning industry?) are well publicized in German media and widely known in the German tech sector. It might be hard to find an authoritative source in English.

As far as I understand, they don’t get that much more damages from larger cases, so they target masses of small fish instead. Individual ebay sellers, small private clubs (which are ingrained in the German culture) and the like.

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#256

Post by pferde »

dbrgn wrote: post #104
pferde wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pixelfed.org is another great platform - and it's powered by ActivityPub, so you can host your own and federate it with others.

I can warmly recommend Pixelfed, it would be great to get some talented photographers on board. However, it's more like Instagram and not really suited for uploading a high-quality high-resolution portfolio. It's also not really suited for finding photos for a project.

Yes, that is true, although it all depends on what content people update, and how well they tag their photos.

I can easily imagine a pixelfed instance dedicated to sharing high-quality stock photos, with strict rules about photo quality, and how to post and tag the photos.

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#257

Post by levifig »

moeedm wrote: post #174
dbrgn wrote: post #71

This reminds me of 500px. I used to be a huge fan of 500px. It was the most beautiful photography site on the internet, designed with attention to every tiny detail. It allowed you to share your photos under a CC license, presented them beautifully and had fantastic curated feeds with photos by fantastic photographers. In 2018 they were acquired by an investor company and partnered exclusively with Getty. As a contri…

That’s the business of stock photos. Unsplash managed to stick around because they provided free high quality images that were more “real” looking than stock photos. It was supported by ads, which I’m sure kept the site running but when Getty knocks on your door and offers to buy you out ... it’s hard to say no. The cycle will continue. In its place there will be a new Unsplash which will offer the same + a bit more…

To be clear, Unsplash never provided images: they created a website that accepted user submissions, that's it. All content in Unsplash is user generated.

What bothers me about this sale is exactly this: Unsplash cashed in on their user submissions without guaranteeing their users (and use!) would be protected and perpetuated.

This is equivalent of me building a little lemonade stand, inviting a neighbor that makes a good lemonade but doesn't have a very visible stand to come give away their lemonade on my stand, and then selling the entire stand (with lemonade) to Lemonade Store down the street.

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#258

Post by jobigoud »

cosmodisk wrote: post #70
question000 wrote: post #39

If the automobile was invented today it would be owned by the largest conglomeration of horse breeders.

I remember reading that at the beginning,there was a requirement for a person to walk ahead of an automobile and alert others that it's coming. It was related to horse industry lobbying too.

There were similar debates in the 90's when the first modern electric cars came out, regarding the fact that they were very silent compared to other cars and could cause pedestrians to cross the road without realizing a car was coming. Some suggested to add an artificial noise for added safety.

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#259

Post by shawn81 »

imagequeen wrote: post #240
teryyy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.pexels.com/ is another similar site, owned by Canva which seems to have kept its quality through the years.

With this acquisition, there are no independent free photo sites anymore! Maybe free photo time is up?

Vecteezy.com is still independently owned :)

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#260

Post by tareqak »

nitrogen wrote: post #213
ipsum2 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don’t portray identifiable people in a bad way Not a lawyer, but this is so arbitrary that any sensible company wouldn't touch Pexels. What is considered bad? If the person is put next to some junk food? Cigarettes? An abortion clinic ad? Oil company? This is the same issue with the No Evil license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...

If you really need a picture of a human, you could just...get that person's permission instead of whining about free not being "free."

I would actually argue that this situation is a case of a unserved need/business idea: a site with stock photos of people where it is possible for a potential user/buyer to negotiate what a particular photo would be used for with the person who’s photo is taken.

In my mind, it is similar with how I ask for references: I ask people who I think would be a good reference for me if they are willing to do so, but I also ask permission again them each time I need a reference for a given company. If there is going to be a number of companies reaching out, then I combine/bucket a number of requests into one e.g. “Three companies need me to provide them with a reference, so could I please ask your permission for those three companies”.

Yes, there is more going on in the case of copyrighted photos, but facilitating communication is one of the reasons the Internet exists.

Post reply on HN