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."

Comments

We need more artists on board

[bersl2]

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?)

That is why normal peole should step in.

[jotaeleemeese]

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.

Re:what was that thing....

[bcrowell]

Creative Commons licensing and public domain are two completely different things. They're mutually exclusive. If something is public domain, nobody has any rights over it, and therefore there's no way to impose a license on someone who wants to copy it.

Generally in the free information world, there are two parallel communities, one doing PD (usually of stuff so old that there was no choice about making it PD) and one doing copyleft. For example, when it comes to books, Project Gutenberg and the Book People mailing list are on the PD side, while theassayer.org (see my sig) concentrates more on copylefted modern books. They're not redundant or competitive, they're complimentary.

And exactly how do artists justify this?

[human bean]

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.

Re:And exactly how do artists justify this?

[bay43270]

But not all good photos come from people who make a living off art. I would imagine 1 or 2 good photos at a time from weekend hacks could make a significant contribution to a site like this. If the professional artist don't want to help... fine!

repository.. hah!

[M1FCJ]

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.

Re:Great idea... BUT

[Anml4ixoye]

If you want to REQUIRE that credit be granted for your images, then find a site that ISN'T asking for artists to put their images in the public domain

The problem is that the parent poster brought up two questions. The first, how does a person get credit, is obvious. Don't use a site that is asking you to put your stuff in public domain.

But the parent brings up another great point - how does *anyone* know that the person uploading the images has the right to actually put said images into the public domain?

So say you grab one of those images and use it in something, and then it turns out it was a copyrighted image and you get sued for it because you couldn't track it any further then "some site that said it was in the public domain." Not me, thanks/