Images Sourced from Public Domain

[Steve Valentia]

I've just noticed the checkbox for images sourced from the public domain, in AIM (Optional). Almost immediately, I saw this report in my news feed:

 

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3907450005/getty-images-sued-over-allegedly-licensing-public-domain-images-again

 

It had struck me as being a bit "risky" to say the least and I'm puzzled why Alamy are considering it as an upload option.

[spacecadet]

...........especially as the term has no meaning in law outside the US AFAIK. Certainly not in the UK.

[RedSnapper]

"It's doubtful CixxFive will prevail in its lawsuit against Getty, as it's legally allowed to sell public domain images, as unethical as it may be. "....

 

 

km

[Steve Valentia]

11 minutes ago, RedSnapper said:

"It's doubtful CixxFive will prevail in its lawsuit against Getty, as it's legally allowed to sell public domain images, as unethical as it may be. "....

 

I have to say I'm feeling quite puzzled (and perhaps a bit naive) about this Kieth.

 

Is it the case that anyone can procure images in the "Public Domain", claim them as their own and send them to a picture agency / library for sale? Or, that the library can "harvest" them directly? 

 

One likely consequence is that snappers (even Red ones) could sell their cameras and make a living trawling the internet and public libraries for their sales.

[NYCat]

I suspect they are asking us to mark our images as in public domain so they can avoid being accused of deception. If the images are so marked is that being shown to the client? I don't have any so can't check it. I noticed a long time ago that there are public domain pics here.

 

Paulette

[Steve Valentia]

34 minutes ago, NYCat said:

I suspect they are asking us to mark our images as in public domain so they can avoid being accused of deception. If the images are so marked is that being shown to the client? I don't have any so can't check it. I noticed a long time ago that there are public domain pics here.

 

Paulette

 

The check box in AIM is called 'Image sourced from public domain' (not..image is in Public Domain). When you click the ? window, it says..."Public Domain images are free of restrictions under applicable copyright laws. They can include content where the copyright has expired, been forfeited or is not applicable." 

While this may apply to images taken by the contributor in question, it seems unlikely to me and more likely that these are images which have been taken by others and "found" by the contributor.

[wiskerke]

48 minutes ago, Steve Valentia said:

 

I have to say I'm feeling quite puzzled (and perhaps a bit naive) about this Kieth.

 

Is it the case that anyone can procure images in the "Public Domain", claim them as their own and send them to a picture agency / library for sale? Or, that the library can "harvest" them directly? 

 

One likely consequence is that snappers (even Red ones) could sell their cameras and make a living trawling the internet and public libraries for their sales.

 

One doesn't have to do that in person, there are bots to do that.

The uploading itself is probably the only thing that requires some oversight.

There are lots of those Public Domain images on Alamy. Occasionally it's clear that the harvesting, keywording and uploading are a sort of automated procedure, when you look at something like this:

 

 

 

 

Keywords:

. Eesti Looduseuurijate Seltsi aastaraamat . ^ CD 00 eo 2 ° 01 C5 < jsj £ c 9 • J< Qj r« ra 2 5/3 9 *3 - O oo K k --h ' p ? « p 8§Xll| X X ffl i- CP CD 4^ 2 B cc •=3 2 K H CD tr" © = P J 0) B CD 2 S tcj «J M 2 ü HH cd o hh 03 o fj p. e8 pq Ph CD Sh rQ © 2 5 £ cd S hP tl W P CD 03 II pq -I J ® U jq 05 ftQ § Oh HH ö o U Oh P Ph >pq C3 H CC CC C p ü vo cd P89<0h o Ph a Ph co O cd CD HH Ü o CD Sh =8<0h O Ph a A ° Ph CO O CD CD "HH Ü O CD " Ph CO O CD ü 099<0h O Ph e Ph P hP dl fr" P p 0- CD .2-S CDÖ § 2 W 05 CH Sh l CD P<^ CD O O « o 4P CD t; ^ 2 c n CD

 

wim

 

edit: before you all have to reach for Google Translation, I'll do it for you:

Eesti Looduseuurijate Seltsi aastaraamat  = Yearbook of Estonian Society of Natural History

[Steve Valentia]

1 minute ago, wiskerke said:

 

One doesn't have to do that in person, there are bots to do that.

The uploading itself is probably the only thing that requires some oversight.

There are lots of those Public Domain images on Alamy. Occasionally it's clear that the harvesting, keywording and uploading are a sort of automated procedure, when you look at something like this:

 

 

 

 

Keywords:

. Eesti Looduseuurijate Seltsi aastaraamat . ^ CD 00 eo 2 ° 01 C5 < jsj £ c 9 • J< Qj r« ra 2 5/3 9 *3 - O oo K k --h ' p ? « p 8§Xll| X X ffl i- CP CD 4^ 2 B cc •=3 2 K H CD tr" © = P J 0) B CD 2 S tcj «J M 2 ü HH cd o hh 03 o fj p. e8 pq Ph CD Sh rQ © 2 5 £ cd S hP tl W P CD 03 II pq -I J ® U jq 05 ftQ § Oh HH ö o U Oh P Ph >pq C3 H CC CC C p ü vo cd P89<0h o Ph a Ph co O cd CD HH Ü o CD Sh =8<0h O Ph a A ° Ph CO O CD CD "HH Ü O CD " Ph CO O CD ü 099<0h O Ph e Ph P hP dl fr" P p 0- CD .2-S CDÖ § 2 W 05 CH Sh l CD P<^ CD O O « o 4P CD t; ^ 2 c n CD

 

wim

 

Ye Gods. It's the end of the world (of photography) as we know it. And I feel fine. (Not really).

[wiskerke]

1 minute ago, Steve Valentia said:

 

Ye Gods. It's the end of the world (of photography) as we know it. And I feel fine. (Not really).

 

Great song!

 

wim

[Cryptoprocta]

4 hours ago, Steve Valentia said:

 

The check box in AIM is called 'Image sourced from public domain' (not..image is in Public Domain). When you click the ? window, it says..."Public Domain images are free of restrictions under applicable copyright laws. They can include content where the copyright has expired, been forfeited or is not applicable." 

While this may apply to images taken by the contributor in question, it seems unlikely to me and more likely that these are images which have been taken by others and "found" by the contributor.

Would  work for photos/scans of images found in old books, of which there are many on Alamy.

[Steve Valentia]

3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Would  work for photos/scans of images found in old books, of which there are many on Alamy.

 

I have many photos in old books. They are not in the public domain. Risky indeed (I've been known to sue before now)!

[Cryptoprocta]

Just now, Steve Valentia said:

 

I have many photos in old books. They are not in the public domain. Risky indeed (I've been known to sue before now)!

I meant where copyright has expired (varies from country to country), not e.g. from the 1950s.

[Steve Valentia]

1 minute ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I meant where copyright has expired (varies from country to country), not e.g. from the 1950s.

 

I know what you meant. What I meant is that not everyone might know how old (or out of copyright) they are.

[M.Chapman]

I note that if I tick "Image sourced from public domain", then I can't tick "Exclusive to Alamy" (it's greyed out).

Similarly if  tick "Exclusive to Alamy" then "Image sourced from public domain" can't be ticked (it's greyed out).

 

All seems quite logical and should help prevent accidental breaches of Alamy Contributor Contract term 2.7

 

2.7 Images can be marked as “Only available on Alamy” meaning the image is Exclusive to Alamy and any subsequent licences for these images will attract the commission rate applicable to Exclusive Images. If Alamy deems that the Contributor has marked an Image as Exclusive when in fact it is Non-exclusive then Alamy has the right to reclaim all commission paid in respect of such Image and/or terminate the contract immediately. The Contributor acknowledges and accepts that Images of artworks, or that are not protected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown must never be marked as “Only available on Alamy”

 

Mark 

[Charles Stirling]

I was surprised at all the NASA images sold on Alamy. All free from NASA as paid for by public so why would anyone want to pay for them, but maybe simply better search option?

[Bill Brooks]

It is complicated. As a photographer/contributor I would make fair use of public domain symbols by incorporating them into a photograph, but I would not touch straight copies of public domain images with a ten foot pole.

 

Read this, to see how complicated. Closed down a major stock photo agency.

 

https://petapixel.com/2019/04/12/500px-owner-slammed-for-claiming-copyright-of-black-hole-image/

[Cryptoprocta]

2 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

It is complicated. As a photographer/contributor I would make fair use of public domain symbols by incorporating them into a photograph, but I would not touch straight copies of public domain images with a ten foot pole.

 

Read this, to see how complicated. Closed down a major stock photo agency.

 

https://petapixel.com/2019/04/12/500px-owner-slammed-for-claiming-copyright-of-black-hole-image/

But of course Getty is selling it and isn't closed down:

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-handout-photo-provided-by-the-national-science-news-photo/1136111087

 

(VCG haven't a clue about copyright in general. At one point they were giving away images (without the authors' permission) for  free because they thought that would increase buying custom.)

[Colin Woods]

On Alamy's Galactic Journey lightbox they recently put up https://www.alamy.com/search/lightbox/3398782.html?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=lightbox there is one in the top row that is one of Hubble's most iconic photos. It says NASA in the caption but is claimed by a photographer, as are all those that appear in Similar Stock Images when you click that photo. Even if they are public domain this is just infringement -  I believe that NASA insist that you link back to their Hubble site as a credit.  

 

Here is the line from Hubbblesite's copyright page If the credit line for an image lists STScI as the source, the image may be freely used as in the public domain  

So no, you aren't allowed to just put your name on it and sell it.

[Bill Brooks]

I think a stock agency is within their rights to charge a service fee, but not a copyright fee for public domain images. A service fee in the case of a NASA image, or any other image placed in the public domaine by the owner, or an image in the public domaine because of age.

 

Service fees are OK because, unlike stock photo agencies, many museums and other public or private archives are very inefficient when responding to image requests for public domaine images. Stock agencies really are supplying a client service when they have public domaine images available.
 
I think a stock agency crosses a red line when they may inadvertently mislead the client by claiming copyright either at the point of sale, or later when trying to collect over copyright theft of public domaine images.

 

The stock agency needs a way to designate public domaine images so that both the contributor, the stock agency, and the client understand the image status. Maybe a public domaine image should be designated as such by the contributor, and then only an automatic service fee applied of $19 at the point of sale. Something like RF PU (personal use). RF SF (service fee)