Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

editha · Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:17 am

I am doing a book that will use a number of botanical illustrations and I have to say that I am utterly surprised at the number of public domain images being resold here on SS.

I know that the policies here were more relaxed a while back, but while searching for current artists doing the type of work I am looking for, I instead found countless instances of scans of old engravings and prints.

What surprised me most of all was a search for "Unknown artist" turned up so many of these scanned works now bearing the "copyright" of the submitter.

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=unknown+artist&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#page=1

I keep trying to get my head around the fact that SS ever accepted a submission that was attributed to an unknown artist

semmickphoto · Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:42 am

All images are still in the public domain so they are still for free unless the copyright was transferred legally.

PaulCowan · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 4181 Location: Evolving

I think that, in theory, the new scan has copyright because it has been created recently but there is nothing to stop anybody going directly to a public domain original and using that. The act of making the scan creates a derivative version with copyright.

At least, that's what someone told us years ago.

editha · Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:24 am

editha · Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:35 am

turboal1960 · Joined: 11 Dec 2008 Posts: 861 Location: Argentina

I got years ago a catalog of the Universal Exposition on Paris, 1900. It has wonderful images of that time. The catalog itself is a collection of positives, not impressions.
Never worked on scanning them, but if I wonted to submit them, it is necessary do a lot of cleaning and reconstruction work in PS. This images are public domain, and there are some of them on Internet already. But do the scanning and cleaning is something different from just take them from Internet.

The real interesting thing should be take the same images now, and show the variation in more than 100 years.

editha · Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:38 pm

Scanning and cleaning up a public domain image does not create a new derivative or unique work. It is still the original unaltered work of the original artist even though the copyright claims that may have existed have expired.

Perhaps soon some one will start a site specifically for re-selling and distributing public domain images but I cannot see how it would or should fit into a model like microstock.

How can we possible claim that our original work merits protection from unauthorized use when it is being sold right next to a public domain image that someone copied out of a book.

I could literally duplicate the portfolio of any one submitting public domain images without any reason to fear that "MY" new work could be claimed to violate their copyright.

woodyone · Joined: 24 Sep 2009 Posts: 430 Location: Here

I believe SS is no longer accepting these??

editha · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:02 am

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2739 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

First of all, I think Shutterstock automatically puts the account owner next to the copyright as part of its programming and website design. They're not exactly claiming copyright in a sense, it's just the way it looks. And even so, I don't see how it's a big deal. You can claim copyright all day long. There's no harm even if you don't have it.

If it's a public domain image, then who cares? It's public domain. You're paying shutterstock and the scanner for the convenience of not having to find and scan it yourself. I don't see what the problem is.

Artists for this historic imagery are long gone with no possibility of benefitting from their work. The more places this art can be seen and used, the better. It belongs to all of us. I love historic imagery and would rather not have it all locked up in dusty books somewhere.

semmickphoto · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:17 am

I dont understand how they claim new copyright. You cant claim copyright of something thats in the public domain.

Ok, lets say, someone has a photo here online for sale, that is in the public domain. Now, I go out and get that photo somewhere else and run it in a 100.000 circulation brochure and on my website.

The person who has the photo on SS cant even send me a DMCA because the photo is on the public domain.

So I dont think they claim copyright, they are just counting on people with little knowledge about these photos to buy them from them instead of get them free elsewhere.

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2739 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

That's what I'm saying. It just says copyright as part of the programming; Shutterstock isn't going to make a special format just for public domain images.

You could download these yourself and sell them on other sites even though you didn't scan them. That's the risk the scanners take. They would have no case for copyright violation.

semmickphoto · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:28 am

;-) We posted at the same time, I was replying to the OP

editha · Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:42 am

copidosoma · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 3773 Location: Canada

So, that image isn't exactly public domain so I'm not sure what your point was.

Having said that, you obviously feel pretty strongly about this (and I tend to agree with you that PD images shouldn't be sold as stock) so your next step should be to send an email to SS and have a discussion with someone about it.

No point hashing this out in the discussion forums because nobody here has the answer as to why these images are being allowed here.