When I got into photography one of the strengths of the profession was that what a viewer saw in a picture really happened. When a reporter wrote a story the reader often could not be sure that what was described was an accurate reflection of the truth. The photograph provided a level of truth. The viewer knew that what they were seeing really happened. The photograph may have been out of context with the general tenor of the overall event, but at least it was an accurate reflection of what was happening in the instant it was created.
Thinkstock is officially closed. The closing was first
announced in April 2018. All the imagery is now available on
iStock or
Getty Images. Thinkstock annual subscribers will be offered a product that is made up of the same content that is currently available on Thinkstock, including the same iStock Essentials imagery.
Shutterstock announced yesterday that Co-Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer Steven Berns will depart from his roles at Shutterstock to pursue other opportunities, effective immediately to pursue other opportunities. Mr. Berns' departure is not due to a dispute or any matter relating to the Company's accounting and financial policies and operations.
Robert Kneschke’s story on
Unsplash last week got me thinking about trademarks and logos. Professional photographers tell me that the inspectors for the major stock agencies – Getty, Shutterstock, AdobeStock and iStock – are increasingly rejecting photos with any identifying brand marks for fear of legal action by the brands.
A while ago, I tried here to understand the business model of
Pixabay, who want to make money from free pictures. A similar company, but with greater international notoriety, is
Unsplash. In 2013, as a simple Tumblr blog, this company took the stage where 10 free pictures were shared. There are currently over 1,000,000 free images online, which have received a total of over 1,006,650,155 free downloads. These and many other exciting figures can be found here on the
statistics page of Unsplash.
The Copyright Alliance needs all image creators to help push the CASE Act – the bill to create a copyright small claims court for creators and small business owners – through Congress. On May 1, the
Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) of 2019 (H.R. 2426 and S. 1273) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.
Next week a two-day Creative Marketplace event will take place in New York at the Midtown Loft, 267 Fifth Avenue (29th St & 5th Av.) from 9:30 to 5:30 each day. This event is designed to give image and footage buyers an opportunity to meet with creators and organizations that license creative content. There will be free seminars aimed particularly at the buyer, but which will also offer useful information for the creators.
The Texas Appeals court has ruled that the state can infringe upon copyright without risking punishment under the state’s or federal government’s “takings” clause. More than two years ago, photographer Jim Olive discovered that his aerial photo of the Houston skyline (titled “The Cityscape”) was being used by the University of Houston, a public university, on its website to promote its C.T. Bauer College of Business without requesting permission or making payment.
Robert Harding, CEO of
Robert Harding Picture Library, recently sent a message to picture buyers asking the question “Is picture research dead?” Image creators need to carefully consider the implications of this message.
A reader asked about un-vetted contributions to microstock sites. She has discovered that her work is widely copied on the Internet and says she was unaware that microstock sites allow people to post images that are not their own. She asked if I could provide a list of microstock sites that don’t follow up to determine if the person submitting images or footage really created what they are submitting. Finally, who should she chase up if there is an infringement?