Slashdot Mirror
Contribute (And Use) Public Domain Images
summetj writes "BurningWell.org is a repository for public domain ("free-for-any-use") images. If you need a high resolution digital image for any use, Browse the Images. If you have produced any high-resolution images that you are willing to place in the public domain, please Read the Donors FAQ."
What we really need is a repository of high-quality public domain clip art that can be used in presentations.
I find that most of the artists I have observed are very possessive about their works. They are afraid of people passing their works off as others'; they are afraid of people redistributing their for-pay collections.
I wonder how (or even if) some of the FOSS ideals better translate. (In other words, what's the best approach to get more of this group to start using the Creative Commons?)
... I thought their page was an error page.
Really, isn't this taking minimalist design to an extreme?
I am not a photographer.
But once in a blue moon I take a pciture that I know is good. And I share it.
Photographers should be goons for hire for special ocassions, the way they should publish their power should be giving photogrpahs away for free, otherwise dumbsters like me that snap one decent picture every summer will eventually fill up the market of decent pictures ay way, so better these "artists" jump into the bandwagon before it looks suspicious them doing so.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There was something I remember Lawrence Lessig talking about... hrm, now what was it... oh! I remember! It was a repository for public domain images called the Creative Commons. What was this article about again?
Direct away from face when opening.
(I'd not want to see a similar product
being advertised under tha same image.)
Do we have a lawyer in the audience?
This is really, really simple. it's just not usually described in less than a hundred words.
If something is in the public domain, you have absolutely NO control over it, neither does anyone else.
If you want control, don't put it in the public domain. If you like total sharing, put it in. This means sharing even with people you hate. Tough decision, but a few people have obviously made it both ways.
Don't forget http://www.sxc.hu and http://www.morguefile.com
"It was hell!" recalls former child.
The images are open to the public, and thus they stay that way. Trademarking a public image would be illegal to start off with.
Been there, done that, got what would have been the tee-shirt if it had paid enough to afford one.
An artist lives off of selling their time in the form of their art. There is only so much of it per day, and an artist has to pick and choose what he/she is going to do, as there are always way more ideas than time.
So, the question facing artists is thus: What can I do (that I do...) that will get me the ability to do more? Giving art away for free is not it. Even in the digital age, there is less time for imaging (or painting, etc) if I have to go out and earn bread to feed myself and keep the rent going.
Solve this, and you will have more art than you can stand.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Every once and a while I wander around with my digital camera and take a bunch of pictures and they just sit on my hard drive. I am going to submit all the photos I took at the Bronx Zoo, as well as the ones I took when I was walking around Times Square during my lunch hour.
I never intended to make money off these photos, but I think it would be pretty rewarding if I was flipping through a magazine and saw a picture I took
Being a semi-professional photographer, I have tens of thousands of images that aren't being utilized that I would like to publish in a manner such as this. I don't mind putting images in the public domain, but I would like to receive credit or references where they're used. Most publishers would have no problem with this, and many photographers like myself would gladly donate quality images to the project in return for helping to establish our reputation.
The problem I see with this site is that the images online appear to be anonymous. So what's to stop people from uploading copyrighted images or material they don't own the rights to? I can't see this project working if they can't documented some attribution for the content they're distributing.
The site could try to hide under some sort of "common carrier" status, but ultimately, because there is no provinence attached to the content, no decent publisher would touch the images for fear of legal liability.
The concept is nice, however, it's not practical in its current form. The system needs to be enhanced so that contributors can identify themselves and claim authorship of the content so they can verify the legitimacy of the licensing. This would also provide the motivation for higher-caliber artists to contribute, especially if they could choose from a finite list of licensing options, none of which necessarily requiring remuneration, but at the least, acknowledgement of the author of the content.
Just wanted to mention Wikimedia Commons which is an alternative to this site you might want to consider.
They aim to serve as a central resource to all the Wikimedia projects which includes the highly successful Wikipedia projects.
For a stock photography site to be really useful, it needs a LOT of images, a lot of legal ass-covering, and a well thought-out quality control system. This is one of the reasons that stock photography usually costs hundreds of dollars for even restricted uses.
Take a look at the size and complexity of iStockphoto and you'll see just how far a free photography site would have to go to save buyers $1 (or $3 for highest res.). Even if you can match the quality, find 180,000 files, and build a really good search system, then you have the issue of paying for 50 gigs of bandwidth a day... sadly, I can't really see this happening. (Disclaimer: I have some images on iStockphoto, and make about $5 a month from them).
108 pictures and this is called a repository? More like a web page for a couple of people. Not good enough to even start with.
any away.
Consider the difference between hobbyist and professional. A professional must make a living at whatever he/she is doing, while the hobbyist does not. Now, granted, I have seen folks making a living as artists that didn't make very good art. I have also seen brilliant artists who work on their kitchen tables after they come home from work.
The key, though is time/practice. Art is a communication, and like all such usually gets better when the creator has more experience. If art was easy, then everyone would be an artist. But it's not. Talent must be cultivated with technique, and that requires effort. On the whole (there are exceptions) I have seen more "good" art coming from those who work at it all day, than those who can only work part-time.
Professionals who support themselves get this time to practice. There is also the "I married and became an artist" syndrome. It actually works as a valid form of patronage in some cases, but mostly serves to quietly conduit some of a working person's income into the coffers of Dick Blick, Michaels, and the local instructors.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
I agree with both of you above. The conversation thread illustrates something that is often forgotten: production cost.
Even with advances in my particular field (photos/imaging) the technical side of things was never the great expense. It was legal work, model releases, rights assignments, sets, model (human and item) fees, planning, building, etc.
As an example, take a look at any simple illustrative picture in a major magazine advert. Now really look at it. Now try to figure the costs of all those items, set walls, special effects, planning, background painting, on, and on. Try to remember that professionals at this sort of work get about forty to fifty dollars per hour on the average. When you stack it all together you will find that it often COST multiple thousands of dollars, and that is money the photograper (artist) has to come up with until he/she is paid.
This is why you don't see the sort of commercial art in the Commons that you would expect. If you want landscapes and inanimate objects, then the US government operate several repositories for nature, wildlife, space, underwater, tourist photo, etc. You've probably bought them before, as this seems to be where most postcard photos in this country derive.
It's not just imaging, either. All arts have production cost, even if it's just feeding the artist (and hopefully cleaning out his cage...) For an instructive time, just check out the price of a usable number four filbert brush, or a pound tube of good (not great) white oil paint.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
The images are open to the public. Just like words are open to the public. But you can trademark a common word.
...try some random shots from my collection. There's a few sunsets and stuff in there too. Uses a Creative Commons Sharealike 2.0 licence.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
http://gallery.hd.org/index.jsp
Quite comprehensive, been up for a couple of years, and nicely organised. And yes, a small fraction of them are mine.
no taxation without representation!
Pushing the button on a camera is not photography, just as moving a paintbrush is not painting.
When you look at art for any length of time (commercial or fine) you begin to notice a pattern. The pieces that become popular are the ones that required much work and input.
Yes, I know imaging looks simple, but believe me, it is a true exercise in communications and planning.
True, I agree with you that most professional photographers are not the sort of artists one envisions but you have to understand exactly what their art is. They are the creators of a visual communication, be it for the purposes of media, merchandising, or memories. Not everyone works in the "fine" arts. Commercial art is much, much more difficult.
There is definitely an art to being able to pose thirty thousand school photos in a row, do them all in time, paid and delivered, and make money at it. Oh, and do it so you don't have hordes of screaming parents at the same time.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"