Petapixel:
If you come across any photograph published in the US before 1923, you’re free to use it for whatever purpose you’d like, with or without permission, and with or without attribution. Why? Because its copyright has expired and it’s public domain.
Strangely enough, sometimes free public domain photos get sold as stock photos, and those who don’t know any better may pay large sums to use something they could have used for free.
Don’t get conned by Corbis or anyone else trying to sell you imagery that is in the public domain.
The problem is, it may be a photo of the photograph. You don’t have the right to use their version of the image. The version is copyrighted because it’s a new image. Convoluted? Yes. Reality? Unfortunately, also yes. I know that sounds crazy, but I sometimes want to find a decent version of an old image, but only stock houses have high enough resolution versions of the photo to use in a print publication.
I am forced to download it from them, and they claim copyright on the copy of the image. I’m betting I would lose in court, so unfortunately, I’m stuck with licensing photos from them all the time. I can’t go elsewhere. And I have to relicense many photos from them for updates to publications. One year to the tune of over $100,000. This is a result of consolidation in the stock photo world.
It’s tough getting a $50,000 check cut for one batch of photos. But that’s how the business works. And no doubt the courts would back them up. So I pay a couple hundred bucks to avoid a much bigger mess. This scenario is extremely rare. Maybe four times in the past 15 years. But it does happen. I’m pretty good about finding original source files most of the time. But it happened to me just last week.
If only Wikipedia had high resolution photos of all their public domain stuff.
A photograph of a photograph is a derivative work, and unless there’s a threshold of originality to the photo, it should still be in the public domain. (for example, I can’t just take a photo of an Ansel Adams photo and lay claim to my photo as a separate copyrightable work)
Wikipedia often does have high resolution photos of their public domain stuff. For example, the original file they have for the Mona Lisa is 90 megs: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg
Corbis was the 800-pound gorilla of image licensing when I started doing graphic design decades ago. Now, they’re almost all that’s left.
I’ll take this opportunity to give a big loud air-kiss to that awesome human hangnail who used to comment on this site, and who actually thought that fewer choices in any product or service category was actually a good thing for consumers.
Mwah.
No one is bigger than Getty. The reason Corbis is one of the few that’s left is because Getty bought all the others. And Bill Gates is never selling Corbis to them.
And then there’s Richard Prince, the king of appropriation, selling inkjet prints from his Instagram feed for up to $100,000. That’s the same Richard Prince who made his fortune in the 1970s rephotographing Sam Abell’s Marlboro cowboy photographs.
There are a TON of now free to use images on the Getty’s database: http://www.getty.edu/about/opencontent.html
That’s really an awesome website. But that’s not the Getty he’s talking about. He was talking about the biggest by far stock photo agency. They must be approaching a half billion images in their collection by now. I license photos from them often (for seven years at a time, all languages, worldwide rights) and it’s not cheap. Though their microstock side is cheap, most of the photos are really bad, cliché-riddent junk.
The problem is, it’s not the subject that’s copyrighted, it’s the photo of the object that’s copyrighted. I’m going going to court against Getty or Corbis to prove I’m right.
I’m quite well aware who was talking about what. I was offering an option for people looking for free old photos.
That just goes to show you how long it’s been since I’ve used either of those two services.
Well, in my town there are water taps where you can up your bottle for free or take a sip. Yet, most people still lug around bottles they bought in a store… for a lot of money. Make up your own conclusion.