Free artwork/photographs to use

[Matt Quinn]

if we can not trust stock site so who we can trust then?
what if you download photo from istockphoto?? only because you payed for it not mean photo was uploaded by owner

There are many instances of 'free' sites passing on material that they had no entitlement to and getting users into all sorts of trouble. Template Monster precipitating users facing action from Getty images springs to mind.

- The lack of legal information is actually the biggest problem with this particular site. Perhaps more information is available after you register and log in; the problem with that being that in order to log in you may have to accept certain contractuaral obligations... Dangerous in my view!

As it happens I don't advise people to use Istock either - However at least there you have some proper record of a commercial exchange and contract. For each image you buy you will have an invoice of some sort. And you know what jurisdiction the agreement is being made under. Simply

- Sadly, for legal reasons, I personally wouldn't touch this site's material with a barge pole. - and do bear in mind when I say that Copyright Law is among the subjects I lecture in.

[Matt Quinn]

Surely the responsibility for ensuring photos belong to the contributor belongs to the site owners? Or is there smallprint covering them?!

No - the law is quite clear on this and it is the responsibility of the end user. In fact if you were to use an image under commission that your then client used there would be TWO sets of infringement actions...

Many people have been caught out when they've bought material from rogue web designers for instance - ultimately they have a contractural claim against the designer; but the rights owner can (and generally does) still act against the end user.

J.A. Coles in fact obtained the image they were 'done' for via some random kid they'd got to do their website...

This site probably has 'hold harmless' clauses in its various sets of T&Cs both in respect of users and contributors... And one of the key issues is that they're based in Germany, you've no proof if individual 'download' transactions, and if you were to try and seek recompense when a rights owner comes knocking on your door and sues the backside off you - you have the added complication of going through the German courts...

[Paul]

this is other thing i found:

By uploading images, users (Dedicators) agree to the following conditions:


Dedicators of pixabay.com declare that they release uploaded images into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Dedicators are obliged to obtain a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, and royalty-free model and/or property release and/or any other permission necessary concerning the use of this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

In general dedicators cannot revoke this consent.
There is no guarantee that the images and other materials provided are permanently stored on pixabay.com.

[Paul]

I think is best to stay at home, leave the sublimation and dont touch anything just in case somone will do us for something. I am sorry. but if this is web site that offering publick domain pictures I will use it as I dont heave any reason to not trust them.

[Matt Quinn]

By uploading images, users (Dedicators) agree to the following conditions:

Dedicators of pixabay.com declare that they release uploaded images into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Legally this is so vague as to be probably unenforceable in most jurisdictions - Copyright releases need to be appropriate for the specific territory. Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired, or if the intellectual property rights are forfeited. Only the latter is possible with respect to most of this material...

I don't believe there would be enough evidence of a contract of forfeiture by simple dint of the image being uploaded. Therefore the site itself is asking for trouble if a 'dedicator' later claims that they did not release the image. There is also the issue of an individual uploading something they have no entitlement to...


Dedicators are obliged to obtain a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, and royalty-free model and/or property release and/or any other permission necessary concerning the use of this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Hard enough to obtain these permissions if you pay people! - Why would anyone do this then give the results away? In any case the site seems to gather no proper audit trail for this and again takes the user onto very dubious ground/


In general dedicators cannot revoke this consent.
There is no guarantee that the images and other materials provided are permanently stored on pixabay.com.

In general? Again this will depend on the territory; but the law of contracts in many territories would see this 'consent' revoked in an instant! Leaving the end users with a legal "pig's breakfast" to potentially untangle...

Frankly, I don't think this guy knows what he's doing!!!

[Justin]

To be honest I don't really see the point in us going into such detail over all of this. Paul has suggested the site and it's up to us whether we choose to use it or not.

[Matt Quinn]

I think is best to stay at home, leave the sublimation and dont touch anything just in case somone will do us for something. I am sorry. but if this is web site that offering publick domain pictures I will use it as I dont heave any reason to not trust them.

Except they quite plainly don't understand the law or apparently know what they're doing and ultimately you will be left to carry the can...

Again I cite the Corbis/Getty/JA Coles debacle - It's your choice; but one you may regret when a four-figure invoice lands heavily on your floor.

ALL cases of IP/copyright are automatically heard in the high court, even a £500 claim, and THAT could cost a lot of money.

To give you an idea of costs, JA Coles argued and went to court, however they settled before the hearing on the steps, and got the judge to rubber stamp the deal. It is alleged they paid £2k for the damages due to use of the images and almost £20k in costs plus around £5K of their own expenses. So it is important you go into this with eyes wide open.

...The image was a small thumbnail on the corner of their web page.

[Matt Quinn]

To be honest I don't really see the point in us going into such detail over all of this. Paul has suggested the site and it's up to us whether we choose to use it or not.

Quite so... As adults we're all free to make our choices. But there was a 16-year old kid there about to run headlong, in all innocence into what exactly?

We really don't know!

All I can say as someone who actually teaches this stuff at HN level is that I would not touch anything off this site with a barge pole. If anyone else choses to take a different view that's entirely up to them. I deliberately let Paul's original post go without comment until others stated the obvious... :rolleyes:

The point from my perspective is that I personally know at least one person who was forced to sell their house to settle an infringement and I know of many others who have paid dear. I really have no wish to learn of any more!

[jennywren]

Frankly, I don't think this guy knows what he's doing!!![/QUOTE]

Well we should thank god for having you to put us on the straight and narrow

[mrs maggot]

remember the words of your elders "if it seems to good to be true......"

I would not have used the site, but then i am perhaps a bit more worldly wise than some, especially when you think there are many that come on here as completly newbies including a couple of young students with no experience of the art/copyright world. i think Matts clear explaination will help people understand that sometimes things can be misleading, and that you should investigate further.