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."
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.
"(In other words, what's the best approach to get more of this group to start using the Creative Commons?)"
Texture images. A lot of 3D artists out there, including myself, bought a digital camera just for the sake of taking photos that become elements of textures for our final 3D work. Finding free textures on the web is a hassle, and most of us aren't so posessive of our texture images that we'd probably be likely to donate. At least, I can speak for myself. I'd be perfectly happy to share the photos I've taken if others would share theirs as well.
"Derp de derp."
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.
In other words: if you aren't dedicated to it full-time, you can't make art? Hmmmm...
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).