# Zack Arias Talks Unsplash, and Some Serious Issues With the Site



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 5, 2018)

```
<iframe width="728" height="409" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6M_OZWtpokc" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe><p>Professional photographer Zack Arias has posted a rather passionate video about the issues he sees with <a href="https://unsplash.com/">Unsplash</a>, a web site that gives away photography for free.</p>
<p><em>“Is this the race to the bottom that we’re all tumbling towards….”</em></p>
<p><strong>Zack talks about a lot of the issues he sees with Unsplash:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>There seems to be some legal issues with the site, especially when it comes to model releases for identifiable people, it seems some photographers think the Unsplash license provides this.</li>
<li>There is also the legal issues with images that show identifiable brands and property, you need releases for these images.</li>
<li>Getting hired because of Unsplash is likely the exception and not the rule, most people just come in, grab a photo and leave. They don’t look at your portfolio or even consider hiring you for commercial work. Obviously, some people have been hired, but again, that’s likely the exception and not the rule.</li>
<li>People can take your images from Unsplash and put them in <em><strong>THEIR</strong> </em>portfolio, as long as they don’t claim copyright to those images in their portfolio.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Back to the model releases, this is from Carolyn E. Wright from <a href="http://www.photoattorney.com">http://www.photoattorney.com</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Proceed with caution with dealing with Unsplash. Photographers who contribute photos there may find themselves in a lawsuit for a variety of reasons. While an end user clearly has the responsibility to secure permission for a commercial use of a photo of a recognizable person (as evidenced by a model release), stock agencies and photographers have been sued for right of privacy/right of publicity claims when posting and/or offering for licensing photos of people.</p></blockquote>
<p>Zack touches on a lot of serious issues with Unsplash in its current form. If you’re posting images to Unsplash, please be careful and be sure you’re getting proper and legal releases. Inevitably, a lawsuit is coming.</p>
<p>Is it really benefiting your business? Zack makes a great point about a Condé Nast publication Bride’s Magazine using an image from Unplash for the front cover of a magazine insert. The cover of that advertising insert likely cost the company that took the image from Unsplash tens of thousands of dollars, how much did the photographer get? Nothing, not even a thank-you.</p>
<p>You can checkout Zach’s interview with Unsplash’s Mikael Cho <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZevNRITnWU">here</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## unfocused (Feb 5, 2018)

Don't have time to watch the full videos, but watched enough to get the point. 

I'm a bit awed by the audacity of it all and don't even know where to begin to comment. 

Something tells me that when the inevitable lawsuit comes, it will be the photographer left holding the bag. On the other hand, I have little sympathy for a photographer who would submit an image of an identifiable person or product to this site without securing a release. 

Toward the end, Arias admits that he gives away his work at times, but makes the point that he does so under his own terms and that doing so doesn't negate the need for proper releases when required. 

Anyone who submits a photo to this site or uses a photo that has been submitted for commercial purposes is gambling that the subject will either never find out or will be unwilling to spend the money to pursue a legal remedy. That's a pretty big risk to take. 

From a broader perspective, this is just one more reason why photography is fast becoming a unsustainable profession. Photography is more popular today than ever before. Yet, ironically, the ability to earn a living in the field has been shrinking for at least the past half-century and is just accelerating. Truly professional photographers are a dying species.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 5, 2018)

I've tried to have an open mind about Unsplash, but I just can't see the value in giving away work for free. It's like an MLM. Yes, it works for a few people, but most will see no financial benefit.

I to have given images away, but they've been for charitable local fundraising as well as for a few people/organizations I have met travelling. Just like Zack, it was 100% on my own terms and there is zero risk of liability issues.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 5, 2018)

The _Napster_ of photography...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 5, 2018)

brad-man said:


> The _Napster_ of photography...



A bit different, Metallica didn't give Napster their entire music catalog to give away for free and the downloader the right to use the music in whatever way they wanted.


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 6, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> I've tried to have an open mind about Unsplash, but I just can't see the value in giving away work for free. It's like an MLM. Yes, it works for a few people, but most will see no financial benefit.


A lot of people are desperate. A lot of people think these things work out for more than just "a few people", or that they are one of those few people it will work for. More and more kids these days grow up seeing their dream careers being, at first glance, governed by putting everything out there for free and being "discovered".

Hence everybody is trying to be a big YouTube star.
Everybody is trying to be a big Twitch star.
Everyone wants to be a big Instagram model.
People don't start garage bands anymore because auditioning on X Factor or The Voice is the only way musicians are visibly created.

No surprise photography would follow suit. In many ways this has already been going on for years. Newcomers or those worn down enough will take any job for free. It's happened so much that companies now regularly only offer to pay with "exposure". Unsplash just takes that a step further by taking away the "exposure", too.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 6, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...I just can't see the value in giving away work for free...



I don't really mind if people want to give away their work for free. But they should do it from an educated position, knowing what they are doing and understanding the consequences. This business model exploits people who are uniformed and more importantly victimizes third parties who can have their identities appropriated for commercial purposes with no compensation and no recourse other than a lawsuit -- which many people will not pursue because of the cost and because they may never even know their images has been appropriated.

And, if they do find out and seek legal action, Unsplash will walk away leaving the photographer and the end users liable.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 6, 2018)

The issue I have is that someone can obtain a photo lifted from the web by a non-existent photographer and just added because they could. The person who copies it reads that its theirs free, and never checks until attornies come calling.

I'd stay far away, its better to pay a fee and let someone else fight legal battles.


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 6, 2018)

As a creative professional (not in photography, but the principle is the same) I have huge issues with this kind of thing. There is no benefit whatsoever in giving away work for free. When people choose to do so, they not only devalue themselves, but the whole profession. If your work is good enough to be 'noticed', it's good enough to be paid for. If someone doesn't want to pay to use your work, they're not serious to begin with. There is enough undervaluing of creatives already, without the creatives themselves hastening the process of their own demise. If you give away your talent and hard work for free, you are showing no respect for yourself, your work, or your artform.


----------



## LDS (Feb 6, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> There is no benefit whatsoever in giving away work for free. When people choose to do so, they not only devalue themselves, but the whole profession.



Hope no one of you is using open source and/or free software...

Welcome in the "sharing economy" - when many shares, and a few reap the benefits.

Anyway, it's ironic the interview is on YouTube, another site known for hosting a lot of contents uploaded ignoring copyright, and which pays peanuts to authors and performers - and only if they register and allow YouTube to keep on undisturbed... otherwise you're free to try to play whack-a-mole with YouTube, which hides behind the finger of "user uploaded contents".


----------



## unfocused (Feb 6, 2018)

LDS said:


> ...it's ironic the interview is on YouTube, another site known for hosting a lot of contents uploaded ignoring copyright, and which pays peanuts to authors and performers - and only if they register and allow YouTube to keep on undisturbed... otherwise you're free to try to play whack-a-mole with YouTube, which hides behind the finger of "user uploaded contents".



Valid point. However, there is one significant difference in my opinion (and not defending YouTube): As far as I know, major movie companies, like Sony, Universal or Warner Brothers, do not take YouTube videos and distribute them to theaters across the country under their own name with no credit or compensation to the original creators.

Unsplash seems to be predicated on the assumption that businesses will take the free photos and use them to make a profit without paying the models or photographers a cent. Again, I'm not even that concerned about the photographers. If they want to give away their work that is their own business. I am, however, much more concerned about the appropriation of the subject's likeness. 

While legitimate stock photo agencies may pay only a pittance to the photographers or artists, they make it clear that model releases must be secured for any images offered up for commercial use. It is Unsplash's outlaw attitude toward individual rights that is troublesome to me.


----------



## LDS (Feb 6, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Valid point. However, there is one significant difference in my opinion (and not defending YouTube): As far as I know, major movie companies, like Sony, Universal or Warner Brothers, do not take YouTube videos and distribute them to theaters across the country under their own name with no credit or compensation to the original creators.



No, it's the other way round, usually. Nor I see famous photographers getting images from Unsplash and distributing them under their name (but I'm not sure it won't happen, though...). But we've seen Unsplash people grabbing someone else's image - the Canon/Locardi/Fuji case.

Anyway, do you believe each and every video on YouTube obtained brand/property/model release forms whenever needed? Video or photo makes no difference. And you can make money on YouTube.

Videomakers probably feel a little more safe now because a video is harder to make, and could be less reusable, but I see the same issues.


----------



## foto fuhrer (Feb 6, 2018)

Does this guy Zack not understand that these photographers are voluntarily sharing their work with the realization that others may/will be using their pics? Sadly, I sat through this entire video and wasted 45 minutes of my life hearing a guy moan about photogs not getting credit/payment for their work.......No one is forcing these people to upload their pics. They know what they’re getting into. Sounds to me that it’s hurting his bottom line and the way to solve HIS problem is by telling others what to do. Forcing people in ‘HIS’ craft to abide by his ethics/morals/guidelines sounds a bit childish, wouldn’t you say?


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 6, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> I've tried to have an open mind about Unsplash, but I just can't see the value in giving away work for free. It's like an MLM. Yes, it works for a few people, but most will see no financial benefit.
> 
> I to have given images away, but they've been for charitable local fundraising as well as for a few people/organizations I have met travelling. Just like Zack, it was 100% on my own terms and there is zero risk of liability issues.



You can't see the value in it, others can. Ego and personal well-being are a massive motivation for some so I would ask 'why does reward have to be financial?' 

Do programmers have the same sense of indignation when they see people uploading Android apps to Google store for free?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 6, 2018)

foto fuhrer said:


> Does this guy Zack not understand that these photographers are voluntarily sharing their work with the realization that others may/will be using their pics? Sadly, I sat through this entire video and wasted 45 minutes of my life hearing a guy moan about photogs not getting credit/payment for their work.......No one is forcing these people to upload their pics. They know what they’re getting into. Sounds to me that it’s hurting his bottom line and the way to solve HIS problem is by telling others what to do. Forcing people in ‘HIS’ craft to abide by his ethics/morals/guidelines sounds a bit childish, wouldn’t you say?



A big part of his presentation is how many photographers don't have a clue about liability and the legalities of what they're doing. Someone is going to get sued, if it hasn't happened already. Unsplash has allowed them to voluntarily put themselves in big financial risk. That's not a good thing, that's a company taking advantage of people.

The guys behind Unsplash are going to have to monetize this site some time soon, and do you know who won't be getting paid? The photographers.

Unsplash is no risk to the bottom line of a guy like Zack.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 6, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried to have an open mind about Unsplash, but I just can't see the value in giving away work for free. It's like an MLM. Yes, it works for a few people, but most will see no financial benefit.
> ...



I'm looking at the Top 100 free apps on the Google Play Store, I can't find one that isn't monetizing somehow, it was just a quick look.


----------



## foto fuhrer (Feb 6, 2018)

I totally get what your saying, but this guy turned a 10 minute informational video on releases into a near hour rant about personal feelings and how it’s ruining HIS career. Whining over how times are changing. Shut up and deal. I don’t know anything about this guy, but we are all adapting to this digital age. Had it not been for the internet, countless photographers wouldn’t have had a platform to share their work. The last 20+ years have been amazing for all trades thanks to the World Wide Web.

If he’s really threatened by this, then I’d say he’s not much of a photographer to begin with. A professional knows his/her craft and finds a market for their services. Complaining about others that are willing to share their work free of charge is a poor way to go about making a statement on the ‘shrinking’ photography industry.



Canon Rumors said:


> foto fuhrer said:
> 
> 
> > Does this guy Zack not understand that these photographers are voluntarily sharing their work with the realization that others may/will be using their pics? Sadly, I sat through this entire video and wasted 45 minutes of my life hearing a guy moan about photogs not getting credit/payment for their work.......No one is forcing these people to upload their pics. They know what they’re getting into. Sounds to me that it’s hurting his bottom line and the way to solve HIS problem is by telling others what to do. Forcing people in ‘HIS’ craft to abide by his ethics/morals/guidelines sounds a bit childish, wouldn’t you say?
> ...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 6, 2018)

This can definitely be debated until the cows come home, but it was a good follow-up to the interview he had with one of the Unsplash founders Mikael Cho.

I didn't really get the impression Zack was worried about his own business, though I don't know how much of his business is stock photography, which I think is what Unsplash hits the hardest. The web has destroyed the stock business for a lot of amazing and world class photographers. That said, a lot of them have adapted and moved to workshops and education to make up for the lost revenue. However, that's not for everyone.

When Unsplash works out how they're going to monetize the site, I really hope photographers being compensated in a big part of the equation. I also hope they clean up the liability issues they've created. It's not their fault that a majority of people that are submitting images are unaware or don't think it's a big deal to get releases, but I think it's Unsplash's responsibility to educate in that regard.

Being a full time professional photographer continues to become more difficult because the work has been devalued so much over the last decade.

Time will tell.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 6, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> foto fuhrer said:
> 
> 
> > Does this guy Zack not understand that these photographers are voluntarily sharing their work with the realization that others may/will be using their pics? Sadly, I sat through this entire video and wasted 45 minutes of my life hearing a guy moan about photogs not getting credit/payment for their work.......No one is forcing these people to upload their pics. They know what they’re getting into. Sounds to me that it’s hurting his bottom line and the way to solve HIS problem is by telling others what to do. Forcing people in ‘HIS’ craft to abide by his ethics/morals/guidelines sounds a bit childish, wouldn’t you say?
> ...



I agree, they need to pay the bills, right now, they get money from investors to get it started up and to get large enough that it can generate revenue, or be sold for big bucks. That's just the way it works, start out free, then figure out how best to make money.

Many of the images I see on the front page are not worth buying, those that are stunning, make me wonder if they actually belong to the person who posted them. There is a use for the images by tons of people creating news letters, websites, etc and have little or no money. They may get in over their heads thinking some of the superb images are actually free and not illegal copies.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 7, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> I also hope they clean up the liability issues they've created. It's not their fault that a majority of people that are submitting images are unaware or don't think it's a big deal to get releases, but I think it's Unsplash's responsibility to educate in that regard.



As far as I am aware, getting releases is the responsibility of the person using the photograph for commercial use , not the photographer and applies to commercial use not general web posting. Or did I misunderstand your point?


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I also hope they clean up the liability issues they've created. It's not their fault that a majority of people that are submitting images are unaware or don't think it's a big deal to get releases, but I think it's Unsplash's responsibility to educate in that regard.
> ...



It's not that simple. 

The issue is appropriation and it means that no one can use your likeness for commercial purposes without your permission. It also applies to products that are identifiable -- for example a McDonald's logo. 

Contrary to what many misinformed people think, it is not a privacy issue. If you are in a public place, you do not have a right to privacy. (I am speaking only of U.S. law by the way.) 

But, you have a right not to have your image appropriated by someone else for profit. And, profit can be very broadly defined. For example, a photographer who posts to Unsplash in the hopes of securing commercial work is profiting from the individual's likeness.

Everyone along the chain has potential liability. The photographer, the provider (in this case Unsplash) and the end user. To avoid liability, the photographer would have to be able to prove that they informed the end user that they did not have a model release. Uploading an image to a website like Unsplash and then letting the world download it would not relieve the photographer of liability because he or she had a reasonable expectation that the photograph was going to be used for commercial purposes. So, yes, the photographer could easily be held liable.

To pile on a bit, by custom and practice, photographers are generally expected to secure a model release from their subjects if they are going to offer the picture up for commercial use. An end user could very easily argue that the images on Unsplash are marketed as free to use with no restrictions and that it was the responsibility of the person uploading the image to secure the necessary rights to the image before uploading it. In fact, most reputable stock photo sites specifically require the photographer to have a release. I would not be surprised if Unsplash, after this dust up, inserts language into their user agreement that states that by uploading a picture you are certifying that you have secured all necessary releases. *(UPDATE: I just checked their website and they have language that definitely leaves the photographer holding the bag. I will follow up with another post)*

I'm not going to extend this post any longer than necessary, but will state that my above comments only apply to images used for commercial purposes. Editorial and artistic uses have different standards.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> To avoid liability, the photographer would have to be able to prove that they informed the end user that they did not have a model release. Uploading an image to a website like Unsplash and then letting the world download it would not relieve the photographer of liability because he or she had a reasonable expectation that the photograph was going to be used for commercial purposes. So, yes, the photographer could easily be held liable.


Are you posing a worst case - in other words the 'precautionary principle' - or has this been actually demonstrated in court in the US? 




unfocused said:


> To pile on a bit, by custom and practice, photographers are generally expected to secure a model release from their subjects if they are going to offer the picture up for commercial use.


Are people uploading to Upsplash to make money? It does not seem like it. As far as I can tell the images are offered on free licence and the user does what it what they will



unfocused said:


> An end user could very easily argue that the images on Unsplash are marketed as free to use with no restrictions and that it was the responsibility of the person uploading the image to secure the necessary rights to the image before uploading it.
> 
> In fact, most reputable stock photo sites specifically require the photographer to have a release. I would not be surprised if Unsplash, after this dust up, inserts language into their user agreement that states that by uploading a picture you are certifying that you have secured all necessary releases.



Even with stock photography, the agency asks for a model release not because the photographer has to have one but the purchaser will not buy one if they do not have a release because the buyer knows that they have the liability.
My point is that it is not the photographer who needs educating but the end user - if Upsplash ever monetises the images they need to have in thei T&C a statement that it is the responsibility of the end user.

In fact, most reputable stock photo sites specifically require the photographer to have a release. I would not be surprised if Unsplash, after this dust up, inserts language into their user agreement that states that by uploading a picture you are certifying that you have secured all necessary releases. 
To do otherwise would potentially criminalise thousands of contributors who loaded images before they commercialised it.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2018)

Further clarification. It just gets worse. I apologize for not checking out the Unsplash user agreement before posting previously. Now that I have, it confirms all of my warnings.

[quote author=Unsplash] (Emphasis added)
...You are *solely responsible for your User Content and any consequences that occur because you’ve uploaded or posted the User Content on the Service.* Each time you upload or post publish User Content, you represent and warrant to us that:

You are the creator and owner of the User Content or *have all necessary rights from other people or companies to use, and permit other users to use, your User Content on the Service *as envisioned in this Section 6; and
Your User Content (including as used by you, us, or other users of the Service) does not and will not infringe or misappropriate any third party right, including copyright and other intellectual property rights, privacy rights, rights of publicity, or moral rights, or slander, defame, or libel anyone. In other words, your User Content must be your original work and *you must have the permission of any third parties that have rights in the User Content* before you upload or post the User Content to the Service.

...*we are under no obligation to you* or the other users to monitor, edit, or control the User Content that you and other users upload or post to the Service. This means that *we are not responsible for any User Content on the Service and you agree not to make any claims against us on account of User Content. *[/quote]

So, to summarize. 

It's pretty clear that the people at Unsplash know exactly what they are doing and have devised a user agreement that leaves photographers with all the liability. 

I'm not a big fan of Getty, due to their very aggressive tactics, but it is an interesting comparison:

Getty's FAQ on releases: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=3069. To summarize, they make it very clear you must have releases and provide a number of sources for acceptable releases and guidelines. They provide downloadable releases in multiple languages for multiple countries.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> It's pretty clear that the people at Unsplash know exactly what they are doing and have devised a user agreement that leaves photographers with all the liability.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of Getty, due to their very aggressive tactics, but it is an interesting comparison:
> 
> Getty's FAQ on releases: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=3069. To summarize, they make it very clear you must have releases and provide a number of sources for acceptable releases and guidelines. They provide downloadable releases in multiple languages for multiple countries.



I disagree, they advertise that the images are free and unemcumbered. only in the fine print do they disallow responsibility. I think that its not enforcable, its just a matter of who has the best attorney.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > It's pretty clear that the people at Unsplash know exactly what they are doing and have devised a user agreement that leaves photographers with all the liability.
> ...



It is a user agreement. Once you upload an image to their site you have agreed to their terms. Being stupid and failing to read the terms of an agreement isn’t a defense.


----------



## LDS (Feb 7, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'm looking at the Top 100 free apps on the Google Play Store, I can't find one that isn't monetizing somehow, it was just a quick look.



Just you need to use shady ways like pushing ads to people, selling the data you capture, in-app purchases, etc.

Maybe you can do it with photos too - insert an add, track who see and use the photo and sell the data... just, it works only if you can reach enough people - it's not a business model for everyone.


----------



## LDS (Feb 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> You can't see the value in it, others can. Ego and personal well-being are a massive motivation for some so I would ask 'why does reward have to be financial?'



That's the human weaknesses some big companies exploit to reap the benefits of "sharing". Reward doesn't have to be financial, but you still need money to live, and money to invest in your business. Not everybody has other sources of revenues to subsidize his or her free products. And you can't really compete with "free products". Only the big orchestrators of these markets reap the real benefits.



Mikehit said:


> Do programmers have the same sense of indignation when they see people uploading Android apps to Google store for free?



It started well before there were stores. Many small software houses were thrown out of the market when competing free applications were made available.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Further clarification. It just gets worse. I apologize for not checking out the Unsplash user agreement before posting previously. Now that I have, it confirms all of my warnings.
> 
> [quote author=Unsplash] (Emphasis added)
> ...You are *solely responsible for your User Content and any consequences that occur because you’ve uploaded or posted the User Content on the Service.* Each time you upload or post publish User Content, you represent and warrant to us that:
> ...



So, to summarize. 

It's pretty clear that the people at Unsplash know exactly what they are doing and have devised a user agreement that leaves photographers with all the liability. 

I'm not a big fan of Getty, due to their very aggressive tactics, but it is an interesting comparison:

Getty's FAQ on releases: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=3069. To summarize, they make it very clear you must have releases and provide a number of sources for acceptable releases and guidelines. They provide downloadable releases in multiple languages for multiple countries.
[/quote]

In a nutshell, they are saying that they are making the assumption that the user has full rights to upload the image and that in doing so the site has a catch-all phrase absolving themselves of any liabilities that arise from doing so. And I think both of those are perfectly reasonable.
What do you find objectionable about that?

But that is quite different to your statement about uploading images with no model release in place. 
Getty is different - they are stock site which Upsplash are not. Getty are not insisting on model releases to cover themselves, or the photographer: they are insisting on model releases because they will not sell images without one. The end user (magazine publication for example) needs the model release and it will be nigh-on impossible to get a release days, weeks or months after the image was taken assuming they can identify the model in the first place! So they put the onus on the photographer not for reasons of legality, but for reasons of expedience and financial viability - basically they are saying 'we need a model release so if you want out money send us the model release'.

If the Unsplash change the terms such that it changes the very nature of the site (free repository to full-blown stock site for example) they risk negating all terms of the user agreement for anyone who had loaded images before that change.


----------



## LDS (Feb 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> In a nutshell, they are saying that they are making the assumption that the user has full rights to upload the image and that in doing so the site has a catch-all phrase absolving themselves of any liabilities that arise from doing so. And I think both of those are perfectly reasonable.



AFAIK, they exploit the so-called DCMA "User Generated Content" loophole - basically the "platform" is not liable if the "users" upload copyrighted contents. It's only bound to remove them following a valid takedown notice - which requires one for each single violation. While uploads can be easily usually made in batches with no controls.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

That means that the burden of finding separately each copyright violation is on the copyright holder. With "platforms" like YouTube or Unsplash, it can easily become a whack-a-mole game. You ask for a video of photo to be removed, it gets uploaded intermediately after by a different "user". It's clear that with very large "platforms" is not going to work.

This platforms make money this way - they have really no incentive to vet uploaded contents before they are displayed, they still bring in traffic and thereby money. They'll remove them only when forced to.

There are similar laws which also apply to unlawful contents - have you ever seen YouTube, Facebook or Twitter sued for hosting a terrorists' video?

Is reasonable? That's debatable - but that's what the US (and often other countries ones) law says.

That's different from platform that contract with authors the delivery of their works - be them Getty or Spotify - in this case they are liable. In some instances, "ignorance" is not a valid reason to not comply with the law.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> ...Getty is different - they are stock site which Upsplash are not.



Yes, they are. iStock by Getty and Unsplash are both stock photo sites. The only difference is that iStock charges for use of the photos and pays the contributors. Unsplash says their stock photos are "gifted" by the photographers. 

Frankly, I'm tired of this conversation. Craig (CR Guy), Zach Arias, Carolyn Wright and I have all explained the risks of uploading images to Unsplash without understanding the law regarding model releases. Unslpash has written a very clever user agreement that leaves the photographer with all the liability. If people refuse to accept the facts, there is nothing more we can do.

I do know quite a few good attorneys, so when you get yourself sued, I will be happy to give you a referral.


----------

