Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images • Hacker News Board

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#271

Post by cosmodisk » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 7:02 PM UTC

jobigoud wrote: post #258

cosmodisk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tbh I had at least a few situation where I was nearly hit by an electric car because I assumed there were no traffic around. admittedly, I was jaywalking too.

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#272

Post by dang » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:50 PM UTC

draugadrotten wrote: post #165

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.

So you were copying somebody else's work for free, without even giving them the attribution they ask for as- and THEY are the vultures?

Please do not post in the flamewar style to HN. It's against everything we're trying for here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#273

Post by dang » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:50 PM UTC

growt wrote: post #176

draugadrotten wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you were copying somebody else's work for free, without even giving them the attribution they ask for as- and THEY are the vultures?

Read the grand parent comment for the practice I was referring to. Or are you just trolling?

Please do not break the site guidelines yourself, regardless of how bad another comment was. It only makes things even worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#274

Post by dbrgn » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 12:30 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #234

busymom0 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it as whining. These companies are in the business of providing photos for people to be able to use. If their TOS is so vague that one simply cannot use any photos without knowing what the TOS allows or not - then the core purpose of the company has failed. If FB and others are to be used as an example, these TOS are written vague and broad on purpose.

We appreciate the feedback, and will discuss internally to see if we can make this clause more specific and objective.

Clauses like that are really really hard. CC has the NC clause, which is problematic because it may not be clear what consists of commercial use and what doesn't. If a non-profit uses a picture for a fundraiser, is that commercial or not?

The thing that one of the parent comments suggested would actually be quite cool: An alternative license where the "applicants" could ask for permission to use a picture, stating how they will use it. If the author accepts (using a 1-button click), a license will automatically be granted. Everything would still remain free though. And certain use-cases could be allowed automatically (e.g. "personal use" or "use for a non-profit").

It would remove ambiguities (because an explicit permission is granted), but everyting would still remain royalty-free. Plus, the authors would learn how their photos are being used. (I'm happy to give out photos for free, but I'm also happy if people tell me where they're being used.)

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#275

Post by liveoneggs » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 1:02 PM UTC

css wrote: post #45

liveoneggs wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what were the license terms of the upload?

https://unsplash.com/license

That is the license for downloading but does not specify what happens on uploading -- it appears photos uploaded to unsplash were given to unsplash, relinquishing all rights.

The commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) would have retained ownership.

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#276

Post by css » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

liveoneggs wrote: post #275

css wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://unsplash.com/license

That is the license for downloading but does not specify what happens on uploading -- it appears photos uploaded to unsplash were given to unsplash, relinquishing all rights. The commons ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ) would have retained ownership.

> it appears photos uploaded to unsplash were given to unsplash

This is incorrect, according to section 6 of https://unsplash.com/terms

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#277

Post by growt » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #273

growt wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the grand parent comment for the practice I was referring to. Or are you just trolling?

Please do not break the site guidelines yourself, regardless of how bad another comment was. It only makes things even worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry for breaking the snarky-rule. I guess I'm still too touchy about that issue. Also: Big thank you to you and the other mods for keeping this place civil!

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#278

Post by dpwm » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

ziddoap wrote: post #117

dpwm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Assuming appropriate licensing, I have no idea why a legal team would be uneasy about using something free. Can you elaborate?

> Assuming appropriate licensing

For such customers the mere fact it is free would make the licensing questionable.

Consider a service like unsplash: what vetting can there be that the people who upload actually hold the copyright? Do unsplash indemnify you if it turns out they never had permission? How does it look in a court, should it come to that?

It’s not about paying money for the image as much as it’s about buying an assurance – even if it is only to be able to say "we acted in good faith and licensed this from a ‘reputable’ supplier.” Some legal teams are incredibly risk averse.

Unsplash almost certainly isn’t considered by these sorts of customers. It’s not some kind of snobbery, it’s to avoid having to deal with the case where the one image that you build a multi-million dollar ad campaign on turns out not to have been improperly licensed.

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#279

Post by kayxspre » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 3:17 AM UTC

growt wrote: post #139

joshuaissac wrote: post #67

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…

Those guys were only publishing under the CC license to make a profit (by lawyer/court). I think thats wrong to abuse the CC license for profit this way. Another detail of that scheme: Wikipedia actually does not do (correct) attribution on their site (no attribution next to the images. So if you mirror/copy Wikipedia content, in germany you will be sued by "photographers" who won't enforce their attribution on wikip…

There's a few times I see the attribution next to the image itself (excluding the featured image, where there's plenty of spaces to do proper attribution).

"Order of Parental Glory" [1] is one of the examples. Strangely enough, many of the examples of inline attribution is for images from kremlin.ru, meaning there's probably some kind of agreement that mandates inline credits back in the days, but no longer anymore.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Parental_Glory

Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images

#280

Post by goldenchrome » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 3:02 AM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #235

goldenchrome wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misrepresenting Instagram. Instagram is a personal PR platform where images are the primary vehicle. In that sense Instagram is closer to Twitter (text-based PR dissemination) than Unsplash.

Unsplash mostly served two groups: 1: people who uploaded as lead generation for professional photography, or some other product or service 2: people who just thought it was cool when someone used one of their photos The only difference between it and Instagram is Unsplash didn't allow text images or videos.

I guess because this is Hacker News, you're technically correct. From an engineering perspective, you're right that the two platforms share many similarities. But from a business perspective they're completely different. Instagram is where normal people go to show off their life and absorb the lives of others via images. Unsplash is for photographers and consumers of stock photography. As a result of these differences, they have completely different business models, user experiences, and growth trajectories.