> In 2016, we first met the Getty Images team. We weren’t sure they would see the world the same way we did given their business was largely built on licensing. Over years of conversations, however, we learned about the level of respect they had for the Unsplash community and the rights of creators to choose how and where their imagery is made available.
While this is written as though they had initially misunderstood Getty, it doesn't clarify at all how things have evolved. My unvarnished reading is "We were worried about Getty because they're all about copyright, but after talking for years, we've learned they're really all about copyright."
After reading this, I think your lack of optimism is warranted.
FIFY
I didn't know that there's any way to control where the images show up. Isn't it just a free-for-all on Unsplash?
I'm not sure why I thought of them right then. I suppose the connection was forming in my mind while I was reading the preceding sentences. Going to elsevier.com I see this though:
"How Elsevier supports Open Access"
We're not bad, we're just misunderstood!
Because unsplash actually made my desktop backgrounds look good.
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.
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 FB and others are to be used as an example, these TOS are written vague and broad on purpose.
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.)
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.
We discussed internally and will remove this clause from our license. Will be updating it soon :)
The cycle will continue. In its place there will be a new Unsplash which will offer the same + a bit more until it gets bought out too.
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.
She patted herself on the back and moved onto building another community thing. I removed my articles and moved on.
It's a real shame, she's very talented, but I struggle to engage with any of her work now because I keep looking for where she's going to try and profit from community participation.
I wish her no ill, but it was a reminder to not treat things as a not-for-profit if they don't have clear governance to back that up.
Anyway, always have an exit.
Of course, to professional and semi-professional photographers, such a haphazard approach would be unimaginable :)
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.
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.
We should just throw anti-trust out the window. It's a mess.
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.
In 2018 they were acquired by an investor company and partnered exclusively with Getty. As a contributor, you were now pushed to "earn money with your pictures", CC licenses were discouraged and (I think) eventually removed. The site stopped getting optimized for aesthetics, it was now getting optimized for selling stock photos. I deleted all my photos and left.
I hope this doesn't happen to Unsplash. But I'm not optimistic.