Royalty Free does not mean Free! I'm going to SHOUT THIS FROM THE ROOFTOPS till the message gets through! I've been a stock photographer for over 20 years, (and MOST of my images are ROYALTY FREE, so I happen to know a thing or two about how you can use my stock images, or the images of my peers!
There is a common misconception on Steemit that Royalty Free (RF) Images are free images! Let me correct that misconception!
Royalty Free means that once you have paid a license for an allowed usage, you are free to use the image again without paying again for the licensing, as long as the usage is within the terms of the contract. Royalty free images can license from anything up to $600 per image! Once upon a time, it was not unusual for a sought after RF image to license for well over $1,000 because the image was not being copied over and over on the web, thus making a potential licensee shy away from overused images. It's ironic, isn't it? The more popular an image is (the more times it is likely being illegally used), the less likely it is that the photographer is being paid!
Allowed usage for any stock images, whether you have paid for them or not, does not allow insinuating the images are yours by giving no source for it in a blog. That in itself is image plagiarism.
Steemit is for-profit, so usage (even paid) does not allow for profit from the images of others, so giving a source will not help (and it certainly will not pay the photographer's bills.) That is copyright infringement.
It is so easy to check the TRUE SOURCE of an image! Drop it into Tineye and check for the stock sites it's on - and if it's on any, or on someone's private photography page - you can't use it unless you have express permission to do so!
And please don't think it doesn't hurt my income (or the income of my peers) if an image is used without it being paid for. Some clients will search the web first to see how an image is being used. If it is all over the place on blogs, or if the image is being used in a way inconsistent with how they want to use the image, they may not want to license my image after all. Contrary to popular belief, this does not give the photographers free exposure. It gives them lost income.
I'm pretty new on Steemit, but I am learning very quickly that many people are quick to shout if someone is taking their written word, but at the same time they see nothing wrong with taking images that are not theirs and using them for eye candy! Where is the outrage? Don't get me wrong; many are outraged! There are many honest and upright people on Steemit! Quite often though, I come across a blog where someone is upset about plagiarism, while using illegal content in that very blog!
I may not end up being very popular, but I believe that education on this subject is critical for Steemit to survive as a legitimate site, respected by all. I intend to fight image plagiarism and copyright infringement as hard as others are fighting written plagiarism! I want the true owners of work in all categories to be rewarded for their hard work!
I have not asked once for anyone to Upvote or Resteem a post, but I think it is critical for the survival of Steemit and all those who are playing by the rules that EVERYONE is educated in the proper usage of imagery! If you think that this message should be spread, please Resteem and/or Upvote! Everyone on Steemit, should get a chance to read this. No one should ever have to say, "But I didn't know." Not knowing does not excuse you from liability!
I am not a lawyer, just an experienced stock photographer, so here's an article from LegalZoom on how to avoid copyright infringement. Forewarned is forearmed!
So please, won't you help me to shout it from the rooftops?
This photograph was taken in 2007 while looking out over the rooftops of Old Town Prague, Czech Republic with the Dome of St. Francis of Assisi Church in the foreground.
It was photographed with my oldCanon EOS 5D and the EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens.
Camera settings: /100 sec; f/20; ISO 125
Image © Diane Macdonald. All Rights Reserved.
Please read my other posts about image usage and copyright:
https://steemit.com/christianity/@dmcamera/rxgkc-copyright-violation-why-it-is-morally-wrong
https://steemit.com/copyright/@dmcamera/copyright-what-does-in-have-to-do-with-you
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@dmcamera/stock-photography-do-i-have-the-right-to-use-it-on-steemit
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@dmcamera/steemit-my-key-to-long-term-success-3-must-know-tips-from-a-newbie
Thanks for taking the time to read this! I appreciate it.
To find my photography and designs on Steemit, please search on #dianemacphoto.
Good Post keep it up.
Thanks! Hopefully, education will help to stop people from getting into trouble!
A clear line should be drawn between "Royalty Free" and "CC0-Public Domain"
Sometimes it is difficult for people to tell the difference because stolen images will be uploaded to Stock sites and labeled "Public Domain" when they are not.
If you know the source, you should ALWAYS contact the owner of the image for permission to use it.
I use many images from pixabay, and occasionally pull clipart from Google images. I tend not to credit Pixabay images because they are all CC0 licensed, however I don't claim to have made the image either. When I find something in a Google image search I try to make sure it belongs to the person I'm asking permission from (by digging a little deeper) and ask the owners permission.
These are generally good "best practices".
Steemit is a creative platform
Much better value and ROI will be achieved by those who go out and produce ORIGINAL content!
That's my
Original image by me, Re-use permitted with attribution
I like your two cents' worth! :-) Thanks for commenting! I have found my own work on free sites! That's why everyone should drop an image they find on Pixabay and such places into Tineye to make sure it is not also listed on a real stock site or some photographer's photography website!
Thanks for enlightening us on this important subject. I'm just an everyday smuck and sorry to say have been guilty of using others photos. I definitely will be more careful and look into Tineye. Your photos and camera work are beyond reproach and need to be compensated accordingly. resteemed
Thanks!And thanks for commenting. I know that many people really don't understand it all. It's what makes Steemit a little dangerous in my mind. Education is very important in this area, especially as so many new people, who do not understand image rights and plagiarism are joining every day in the hopes of making a name for themselves as bloggers. The problem is, they may just do that, but not in the way they intended.
Do I have to be careful in what I use off of you tube also?
Probably, but I really only know about stock photography. Sorry.
Great post! I'm always careful about this, but I need to use attributions with the pics I use. Voted up, and resteemed!
Thank you.Just remember that attributions only work with images from the free sites like Pixabay etc. - and not with stock images don't allow free usage.
Thanks. That answers a lot of questions Ive had even before I got to Steem. Ive always just avoided photos I didn't take myself, but thats seriously limiting when you dont travel much.
So much safer though. and you can use the free sites like Pixabay as long as you double check that it's not also on stock somewhere.
Are you aware of the phrase, "Free as in beer"? There are multiple definitions for the word free, one of which is like going to a place that hands you free stuff and you don't have to do anything to get it.
But when a prisoner is released, he is free. He now has freedom.
However, the prisoner may have to pay a nominal (or not-so-nominal) fee to be released. He may have to pay a bondsman to help get released. Or he may have to pay his debt to society for his freedom. Or maybe he gets released due to a technical or legal matter.
In any case, the freedom of a photo has two senses.
In the one sense, it can be free as in beer, meaning it has no restrictions or license fees. It is public domain. Old paintings can be reproduced this way for free.
However, a photo may also be free in a sense of freedom. It may be released on the cognizance of the licensee to use it in a narrow or broad range of ways. This is the case for royalty-free licensing. The licensor may tell the licensee that the photo can be used in perpetuity for any purpose as long as there is an attribution. No further royalties (fees) are to be exchanged, however there was an initial payment, like a bond, to set this photo into this kind of freedom.
So just like a prisoner may be set free after paying court costs or bonds or fines, the licensed photo can also be set free.
If I take a photo of an old painting, I can sell my photo, or copies of my photo. The use of the painting is free, but my photos of it probably are not.
And just like the former prisoner may have to return to the court/prison after a period of months or years, there are some licenses which expire. If a photo's license expires, it is supposed to be removed from circulation. This happens with film and other rights, too.
Free as in Freedom often has a cost associated with it.
So well said. Some valid analogies made.
However, did you know that the rights to many old paintings are owned by someart museums? That is something I have learned through shooting for stock, an my son working in an art museum. Those "free" paintings are not fair game.
Photo licenses really expire only when agencies and photographers terminate a contract. Licenses don't just simply expire. I think you may be thinking about the copyright issue of photographs - they are still copyrighted until 70 years after the photographer's death. Copyright Duration can be checked by clicking on the link.
Also, when someone licenses an image, especially a Rights Managed image, the person licensing it is restricted to a time frame of usage.
Well said and correct. We need to educate generations of people who grew up in the last 30+ years on the web.
That these photos are not free at all. The bare minimum is an attribution to the creative commons images. They don't even do that.
There is a group on steemit that hunt down such issues of misuse. @cheetah I think that's their handle. I'll spread the word on my blog. I wrote about this years ago. It's easy to find the original photo and get the facts but these thieves are just plain lazy and don't care that they are robbing everyone's work.
Thanks! I know! I see Pinterest and other blogs listed as sources, for crying out loud! As you say, Creative Commons licensed images still have photographers who need attribution.
I always stick with https://pixabay.com/ for all my images, or have my spouse @artist1989 create them for me (I'm lucky :) ).
Well, I'm not so sure it is just luck. :-) You are definitely fortunate! I will check the link! :-)
I can't understand those who think they have a right to instant success, although they don't know an f-stop from an ISO reading! I don't have a right to instant success in the engineering field, because I didn't study engineering. I have no right to claim I designed something, when i clearly don't know how! So, it's also true that if I don't know how to photograph, I have no right to take the works of those who do know how!
My success in photography was not instant, so why should others have instant success at the expense of other photographers? I spent thousands of dollars on education and equipment to get where I am, and so did many of my peers. We run businesses with overheads that cut into our profits.
I totally agree!
It's an attitude of entitlement unfortunately.
I came across this post as mentioned by @mariannewest. I became aware of this. I actually use photos from Pixabay alone. I am afraid to use other website, except Pexels too. This got me more aware. In every post I make using Pixabay photos, I attribute Pixabay as well as mentioning the name of the owner, as well as the link. In Pixabay, there are advertised Shutterstock photos. However, I don't think it is freely available for commercial use so I am not using them.
Ah, you are right. Pixabay uses Shutterstock photos as eye candy, but you must license those shots. That's how they get paid for their site! Those images are are not free to use, as you noted. :-)
Thanks! So those photos that has watermark of Shutterstock are not free to use. Only those photos that has no watermark are free for commercial use?
Yes, that's correct. They are watermarked to let you know you can't use them without permission, which means payment for a stock license.