What makes Unsplash so special? I've browsed it in the past and yea, it has some really nice pictures. Why would artists post their work (for free) there instead of another site?
Why do people contribute to open source?
Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
131–140 of 282 posts
Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
#132My main association with Getty is their 'copyfraud' practises where they claim public domain images (NASA, Library of Congress etc) as their own and sell licenses[0]. They're also well known for aggressive acquisitions[1]. Perhaps this a good time to create a mirror [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images#Claiming_copyrigh... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images#Acquisitions
Careful about creating mirrors, the Unsplash license [1] explicitly disallows “compiling photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service”. [1]: https://unsplash.com/license
Indeed, if you're putting something up online you probably just want to make it easy for users to switch rather than reuploading
Offline personal archives and tools to create them I expect are permissible (IANAL)
Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very slick, and fast. But how do they pay for the site? There are no ads and no monetization I could find. The claim 4 billion image views a month, that has to cost them some bandwidth...
(I work for Canva). Pexels has affiliate ads (to paid stock sites) in specific locations; as an example, when your search returns zero Pexels results. Pexels content is also syndicated to Canva, where it is free to use (under the same license) by several hundred million users. This helps us provide a better Canva user experience, while giving more exposure to work on Pexels.
Ah. And Pexels is in fact owned by Canva, as is Pixabay. (What is it with Germany and picture-sharing sites?)
Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
#134RIP Unsplash
Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
#135Earlier 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?
For a lot of casual photographers, the version on their phone is the original and the version in the cloud is the backup. And if they run out of space on their phone, they delete the original.
Of course, to professional and semi-professional photographers, such a haphazard approach would be unimaginable :)
Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
#136This 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…
To me, this feels like such a new/old media clash point.
Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
#137Does anybody have a torrent of their free content before it is too late?
Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
#138What makes Unsplash so special? I've browsed it in the past and yea, it has some really nice pictures. Why would artists post their work (for free) there instead of another site?
Why do people contribute to open source?
Ok, so there isn't necessarily some secret sauce with Unsplash. If it all goes south after the acquisition, there's opportunity for a new one.
Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
#139Earlier 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.
> 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 wikipedia but will on your site (to make a profit, see above).
Re: Unsplash is being acquired by Getty Images
#140This is terrible news for end users.