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?)

Re:We need more artists on board

[NanoGator]

"(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.

Re:We need more artists on board

[lavaface]

As a musician and sometimes-graphics artist, I wholeheartedly support Creative Commons and Free Software. However, there is a subtle difference between the two and I can understand why many artists reservations about giving their work away. With software, you clearly benefit by having open source because the program you are working on is continually improved. You share those improvements. A photograph or illustration (for instance) is unlikely to be improved. Or rather it is unlikely that the creator will share benefit in future derivative works.

Granted, artists do benefit by a general spirit of openness and collaboration. The important caveat (for me at least) is that derivative works are non-commercial. Since by definition most artistic works are completed works, it doesn't seem right for someone to come along and use your music in a commercial or swipe a design for a t-shirt without anything in return other than the good feeling of sharing.

I like the idea of the texture library another poster mentioned, however. I have no qualms about offering "buliding blocks" for free, even if they are used commercially. By the same rationale, I don't mind sharing field recordings or random snippets or loops for free, as long as I get some attribution if they are used in other works (and hopefully a notice too!).

I hope this clears things up a little bit. Respond with any questions/counter-arguments you may have. : )

Re:So, if I use an image for a product trade mark.

[xilmaril]

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.

Re:Screw that

[Elwood P Dowd]

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I have naked pictures of a bunch of my friends. If I get model releases, do they want pictures of my friends' junk?

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.

Other free photography/imagery sites

[JeffHunt]

Don't forget http://www.sxc.hu and http://www.morguefile.com

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?

[ianezz]

An artist lives off of selling their time in the form of their art.

In other words: if you aren't dedicated to it full-time, you can't make art? Hmmmm...

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!

Great idea... BUT

[mabu]

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.

Re:Great idea... BUT

[geminidomino]

RTFFAQ:

What's the policy on credit citations and watermarks? There is a photographer credit field that you can fill in when you upload the photo (name and email or url fields) which are displayed with the photograph. The Image User's FAQ encourages the users to give photo credit whenever possible, but, because it's public domain, you can't force people to behave nicely. Images with watermarks may be accepted if the watermark does not reduce the utility of the image or attempt to claim copyrights which have been expressly released by the process of releasing the photograph into the public domain.

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. It is mutually exclusive with any form of licensing, even BSD-esque "Whatever you want as long as you give is credit" licensing.

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/

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.