Caedes

Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc.

Discussion Board -> Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc. -> Clarifying stock and public domain image usage....

Clarifying stock and public domain image usage....

&philcUK
10/10/07 10:36 AM GMT
A brief guide to all and sundry on the differences in stock usage that is acceptable for upload here:

PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGES: These are images that are offered to users for download and the originator asserts no copyright. Quite often if one of these images is edited or manipulated, the new artist can to a certain extent claim a copyright on that new image. In almost all cases of these images, the only caveat that applies to them is that they must NOT be used for commercial/profit purposes i.e. appearing on merchandise or being offered as prints for sale etc. An example of images that fall into this category here on Caedes would be shots from NASA or ESA. These are also typical in that as a minimum, the originator requires a credit on any redistribution of their images. The site that you source them from will most likely state what that credit should be. Public domain images should only be uploaded here if they were sourced from the originator – not from a third party website.

*** Military shots may differ slightly from this, as prior permission is often required to redistribute this type of image – even if you serve in the forces and took the image yourself. This has certainly been the case in the past here when we have had people posting shots from Eurofighter/British Aerospace for instance. ***

PUBLIC OR ROYALTY FREE STOCK IMAGERY: There are many websites available now that offer hi-resolution images for people to download for free – such as the Stock Exchange (SXC). These differ from public domain images considerably however, as the originating artist always asserts copyright on the image and can stipulate the circumstances in which that image is used. The range of restrictions varies wildly from a full Public use when the image can be used for just about any purpose to a heavily restricted personal use only type affair. Again, in all instances, the originating artist must be credited and linked in your description so that the correct copyright usage can easily be verified. You should be careful when using images from this type of source as there maybe restriction to its use including using it as a derivative part of a new piece or banning manipulation of it. Try to use recognised stock sources as opposed to unmoderated photo sharing sights such as Flickr or Webshots that are often the repositories of previously stolen images and the posting artist may not necessarily be the originator. It would be only safe to use these sights if you knew for certain the artist was genuine.


It is not acceptable to post images here that have simply been downloaded from the net via a Google image search for example as it is pretty much guaranteed that this will be violating the originating artists rights. Image mods may reject images that appear to have been taken from the web due to their size and compression damage etc and that are uncredited.

0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
::J_272004
10/10/07 11:48 AM GMT
In other words.. don't use other peoples work use only YOUR OWN..
0∈ [?]
MY GALLERY ........... "Live one day at a time and make it a masterpiece"
&philcUK
10/10/07 12:42 AM GMT
No, not at all. Use other peoples work by all means – providing they are happy for you to do so and that you are complying with any relevant restrictions.
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
::Shewolfe
10/10/07 2:50 PM GMT
I can never find other peoples work available for free use.
Even when I find links that say no copyright, royalty free and stock images..there is always a line on the site warning you about uses.

It is very hard to find images to do as you will with..I'm often after relatively simple things but a little out of my capabilities.

I have a huge collection of images from the internet but 98% are personal use only as I'm limited with them.
I'll gladly bookmark any links to truely free images.
0∈ [?]
"Everyone has a photographic memory...some just don't have film."
&philcUK
10/10/07 3:23 PM GMT
The Stock Exchange. Each image carries its own copyright terms on it that are fairly self explanatory. Most are free to use but please link/credit the source if you post them here in a manipulation. You will also need to register with the site before you can download any hi res files.
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
::Shewolfe
10/10/07 7:55 PM GMT
Each has terms again.
To be honest I'd rather try to use my own things..I've had bad experiences in the past.
0∈ [?]
"Everyone has a photographic memory...some just don't have film."
::animaniactoo
10/10/07 9:11 PM GMT
They do all have terms… but read the terms. As Phil said, for a number of them, it's simply that they be given a credit on your post for their image and a link to it. Other than that, as long as you're not making a profit on it, it's free for your use. Copyright defines the terms under which a piece of work may be used, it does not stop someone from using the work at all - contrary to popular belief. See this image Apple 2, which has no restrictions other than the site standard which states:

"You may use the Image
In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones.
In printed promotional materials, magazines, newspapers, books, brochures, flyers, CD/DVD covers, etc.
Along with your corporate identity on business cards, letterhead, etc.
To decorate your home, your office or any public place.

You may not use the Image
For pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, for spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures.
To endorse products and services if it depicts a person.
In a way that can give a bad name to SXC or the person(s) depicted on the Image.
As part of a trademark, service mark or logo.
SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!"
0∈ [?]
One man sees things and says "why?" - but I dream things that never were and I say "why not?"
&KEIFER
10/10/07 11:12 PM GMT
just like a MAC user to subliminally advertise the mothership

;)


I use Stock Xchng all the time .. it is quite user-friendly ... there is a feature\function to email the author of the image from WITHIN the stock xchng environment ... thus allowing you to notify of use AND send links to your usage .. without divulging your own email (unless you respond to their reply, if any) ... everybody I have encountered have been most friendly

my naming convention for the files is as follows:

apple_@_lusi_799910_80792568_(n).jpg

this documents "Category", "Author", "Image ID Number", and "Terms" (n= no restrictions .. c = contact\credit)

the nice thing is .. the ID number, when plopped into the search engine, will arrive at this page .. not true of other sites ... this makes linking on your 'artistic endeavor' that much easier (only the first section is necessary, but both will work)
0∈ [?]
˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•@•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•@•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜˜”*°•@•°*”˜˜”*°•.•°*”˜
::Shewolfe
10/10/07 11:17 PM GMT
lol..too true :p
0∈ [?]
"Everyone has a photographic memory...some just don't have film."
.purmusic
10/11/07 1:12 AM GMT
My naming convention is done thusly ... '1, 2, 3, 4 ...' and so on.

Bit simplistic I know. :o\

I predict some problems with my system though ... at ... number 13,013.

Not really my system per se ... just that number weirds me out for some reason. :o|



On a more serious note, thanks for the clarifications.

And I do think it should be mandatory to provide links to works used. I deleted a number of images from my galleries as I could no longer find the originating file or photos used in some of the manipulations I had a hand in on.

So ... perhaps a question then on that note ... if, an image was downloaded from a stock image site, legally and for public usage, 'no restrictions' ... and then subsequently removed by the author ... what is acceptable in these situations?

My interpretation is that I am still fine to use the image. Although crediting back to the originating authors' image via a link is not available obviously at that point.

Any thoughts?

I haven't waded through the Terms of Use or Restrictions of a stock image site for a while and can't recall coming across what applies in this instance.
0∈ [?]
"Sometimes me think what is love, and then me think love is what last cookie is for. Me give up the last cookie for you." - Cookie Monster
&philcUK
10/11/07 7:55 AM GMT
I’d imagine that if the original artist has removed the image then it would be safe to assume that they no longer wish it to be used so it would be only correct to respect that decision.
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
::Hottrockin
10/11/07 11:17 PM GMT
So if I use one of your credited NASA pics as a post...do I credit you, NASA or both??

Thangs that make ya go...Hmmmmm??

8~P

Luv ya baby!!

ps: how do you credit your avatar??
0∈ [?]
Why do the pictures come out square when the lens is round?? Picture Purrrfect .
&philcUK
10/12/07 10:57 AM GMT
'Quite often if one of these images is edited or manipulated, the new artist can to a certain extent claim a copyright on that new image.'
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
::EmilyH
11/04/07 3:30 PM GMT
Terms of use is why I tend to avoid using stock images. It's another reason why, as someone who's done web development work in the past, I started learning how to use graphics programs. I would rather make my own stuff than worry about someone else's copyright.
0∈ [?]
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
&philcUK
12/03/07 1:56 PM GMT
it really is rocket science working out the difference between these things apparently. Something you find on google image search IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN BY DEFAULT - IS THAT IN ANY WAY UNCLEAR. AT ALL ???????????????
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
.purmusic
12/03/07 8:13 PM GMT
*changes Phils' fuses*

Think he blew more than a couple on this one. :o\

:oP
0∈ [?]
"Sometimes me think what is love, and then me think love is what last cookie is for. Me give up the last cookie for you." - Cookie Monster
&philcUK
12/04/07 3:28 PM GMT
Yes – sorry about that one – having a particularly bad day. It just gets extremely frustrating dealing with a lot of nonsensical uploads. Half of the time you cant tell whether people are genuinely unaware of the sites policies on copyright and uploading in general or whether they just seem to take it upon themselves as a challenge to be deliberately obtuse and ignore all of the sites codes altogether. This is clearly more apparent when people repeatedly upload rejected shots in the hope that someone will let it through. I cant imagine that anyone seriously believes that any of the image mods derives any measure of pleasure from rejecting peoples work so continually doing it on purpose just adds insult to injury and probably makes the chances of getting any questionable or borderline pieces approved in the future extremely narrow.

These members are only slightly lower in the food chain than the moronic previously banned idiots who think it a bit of a wheeze to try and monopolise the sites administrators time by continually creating new accounts to either upload the same old images and/or rips.
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: