As others have said here, you should consider hosting these with great keywords with a Creative Commons license on Flickr, and/or contribute them to a few free stock photo sites, and link back to your new site consistently featuring new work. You'll get found more easily at the places most people are searching, and start to make a name for yourself through bringing them back here.
At the same time, you should look into your technique if you'd like these to be usable for commercial print work.
These likely cannot be used in print work as is; the photo quality is borderline. They likely wouldn't be chosen by art directors to use large (eg., background images) or on today's retina screens, for the same reason. If someone is reviewing the work, too many clients' eyes will jump to the problems.
You may want to consider a better lens that doesn't exhibit the strong purple color fringing. You also need to reduce (or change methods of) the post processing that's causing severe fringing between the various subjects in the pictures, ringing on the out of focus elements, etc. These look and feel a lot like high end camera phone pics run through too much filter.
In considering composition, watch out for elements like the errant finger on the left hand writing. Any element that's too unusual draws excess attention, detracting from stock photo value, unless of course that element is the featured element.
Check out the quality standards guidelines at iStockPhotos:
Those looking for stock images: google image has a creative commons filter. Trying to find free "stock images" is a road to hell. The key word is "creative commons".
You get there by clicking the gear icon on the right side of the image search results page; 'Advanced search' is under that. Yay for Google making one more tool more difficult interact with.
For legal reasons it's critical to fully explain the license on the photos available for download, and the terms for anybody submitting the photos. Unfortunately it's really not enough to just say: "Free hi-resolution photos for your website."
Please make that legally solid by going to (https://creativecommons.org/choose/) and making them the correct licence. Or state a legal licence under which they are distributed on your site as.
Unfortunately we live in a legal environment where the author stating "free for commercial and personal use" is not a licence strong enough to hold up under law.
Hey, thanks for the comment. Looking to add something now. Apparently this is the most 'open' and least restrictive of the CC licenses: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US but it still says we would need to attribute the author which we don't require.
Thanks for putting the works into the public domain Mikael! You should link to the actual license though: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Thank you again and good luck with the effort!
Sorry to go off-topic, but MVPs are meant to be extreme! That's the whole point. Maybe OP has no idea about licenses or the necessity of them. Had they not posted this, all these lovely comments on the matter would have never been written!
This is awesome, I've also felt the same about finding photos. I hope this changes that. Keep it up! I'll contribute when I learn some post processing so you can have more awesome photos.
I presume that each batch of photos will have a specific theme or a use case in mind. If I were looking for sharp photos for my web design consulting website, and I think Apple products are the standard for the industry, I might use these images. Conversely, if I were doing a basketball design, I might incorporate urban images (asphalt, chain link fence, generic graffiti) to invoke a particular mindset or attitude.
Looks great, and it's an awesome idea. I'm not sure what your incentive to continue doing this will be, but please do. Also, I would much prefer quality over quantity. So, if one week you don't have time to create something great, just skip it. (My opinion of course)
What incentive do photographers have to submit to your site? At least on the 'majors' (istockphoto, dreamstrime, shutterstock et al) they earn something. And if you are the only one doing submissions, you can't possibly cover all categories so if I'm in search of a particular shot I am unlikely to come to your site. Not trying to be negative, just trying to understand what your plan is.
I can't upvote this enough. The first thing that jumped out at me when I was browsing the photos is the prominent "Macbook Air" branding on the laptop. Unless you have Apple's permission to use their trademark in your work, you could be on shaky legal ground should they choose to pursue legal action against you.
There's a reason why advertisers will edit out branding of products that they happen to use in their ads. The most prominent examples I can think of are tire companies. They use recognizable luxury and sports cars to show off their tires, but, if you look closely, they've edited out the logos and nameplates of those cars. Presumably this is to legally shield themselves from those car manufacturers accusing the tire company of misusing their trademarks, or implying an endorsement where none exists. In this case, it might be wise to edit out the Macbook Air and Apple branding, so that it doesn't look like you're being endorsed or supported by Apple.
"Presumably this is to legally shield themselves from those car manufacturers accusing the tire company of misusing their trademarks"
I wouldn't assume that. It could also be simply because they don't want to give publicity to another brand. For example it's hard to believe that if Coach decided to put an ad with an Apple Macbook in it they would have an issue with that. [1]
I see nothing on this page which prohibits someone from using an Apple product in a photograph and it's almost impossible to believe that Apple could claim trademark (or even if they could would expend energy to stamp this out) over someone taking a photo of their laptop. In other words a picture of someone sitting in a coffee shop using a Macbook, iphone whatever.
[1] That said Coach is a large company and they would almost certainly be ritually correct in their approach. Done on a smaller scale the amount of care does not have to be the same.
Our local credit union was sued by the city for using a picture of a local bridge on their debit cards. The credit union owned the rights to the photograph that was provided by a local photographer. The city owned the right to pictures of the local bridge. Vicious cycle.
"However, a French court ruled, in June 1990, that a special lighting display on the tower in 1989, for the tower's 100th anniversary, was an "original visual creation" protected by copyright. The Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, upheld the ruling in March 1992.[54] The Société d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (SETE) now considers any illumination of the tower to be under copyright.[55] As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries."
From what I understand, they won't go after a tourist posting to Flickr, but they will go after anyone trying to sell images or use those images in a commercial way.
The official Apple take on use of their products in custom photography and video for promotional purposes is covered on page 12 of the App Store Marketing Guidelines: "Custom still photography and video of Apple products are allowed only with express written consent and approval from Apple." [1]
That said, there are plenty of examples in the wild, even in app store screenshots, of violations of this policy. So Apple's enforcement doesn't seem to be particularly strict.
So you took a couple of pictures (that appear to be Apple ads more than anything, as an aside)? I'm sorry if this sounds negative, but I find it completely disingenuous that you denigrate an entire industry and portray a pittance of images as the salvation.
When you pay for a stock image, as an aside, a part of the value of paying is economic scarcity: That the images that you choose aren't blanketing every Wordpress site, etc.
But the value of stock images is to use them somewhere else.
Lets say I write an article negatively portraying the electronics manufacturing industry and use these images along with the article. I'm pretty sure Apple wouldn't like it if they found out...
You are extending Apple way more rights than they actually have. Trademark and copyright don't exist to keep people from saying negative things about you.
No, but libel and slander laws do exist to keep people from saying untrue negative things about you, so it still pays to be careful if that's what you intend to do.
Libelous and/or slanderous content wouldn't be made any more or less illegal by having or not having identifiable brands in stock photography.
Despite the reactionary comments in this thread, we're not in a corporatist dystopia where it's against the law to publish a photograph of a ubiquitous consumer device.
The number of times I've seen someone say, "Apple sucks", "The iPhone sucks", "Apple are tax evaders" without recourse I seriously doubt Apple can or would do anything when someone is expressing their opinion. Free speech buddy.
Libel and slander laws are more directed at individuals... large corporate companies are free game in my opinion.
Are you a lawyer?
I hope this is not legal advice you're giving, because the general best practices I've always learned using pictures in marketing material: "Never show brands or products names"
It's important to know and understand the reasons behind advice like that. It totally depends on the circumstances, who is doing it and a host of other factors. Best practice? Get a government job with a pension and you won't have to worry about anything. Work for a corporation where they have departments that tell you what you can and should do and worry about all sorts of minutia.
I've used Apple logos in the past frequently as well as other things similar. Large companies don't expend energy and legal time doing anything nasty to small companies without a compelling reason (of course you could show me outliers obviously but you can't make money in business worrying about those outliers). Worse case scenario is normally a nasty letter asking you to stop, if that. The chance of an actual legal claim and money damages (once again in most cases) is minute. You might have to pay a lawyer to write something in reply. So what?
(And yes I've gone up against the NCAA and AMX with nasty letters and made them go away so I've pushed the envelope at least that far..I've also gotten approval in advance from the IRS as well for a project using their logo.)
Perhaps you're conflating - the reality is that it's much more akin to "in a manner that implies a relationship, endorsement by the manufacturer that doesn't exist", and similar.
Apple will most certainly be upset. The have a ton of brand guidelines on how you can display their products in your own marketing. For instance you are not allowed to show an iphone in any direction other than straight on, and you are not allowed to have anything partially occluding the iphone.
Finding great stock photos is HARD and if there's a place that can show a few that are free and beautiful looking, that's value add. Have you seen google images? anything free out there with regards to images is totally useless minus 2.
I'm no fan of stock photos but I have to say that the few images look pretty much like stock photos. Which is what I don't like about them. The fact that you don't have to pay is really not the issue it's that particular look (with the blur etc.) that bothers me.
"I find it completely disingenuous that you denigrate an entire industry and portray a pittance of images as the salvation."
Huh, where did he denigrate an entire industry?
Lots of hate in this thread, which I don't get. Granted, you can find a lot of free stock photos on the internet, but I find the idea of curated list of photos targeted for product landing pages valuable. This was clearly an MVP and for some reason HN audience found it valuable and voted it to the front page, but I don't see how it deserves all the negativity that is shown in many comments.
As others have said, the original title said "Hated expensive, crappy stock photos so I made this." So yeah, that's where he denigrated an entire industry.
and for some reason HN audience found it valuable and voted it to the front page
This a recurring retort. It's nonsense. A very small percentage of HNers can get something to the top of the front page (especially if it uses a title that panders to a bias, given that many people never actually click on the link). That they do in no world inoculates the target against any criticism.
My problem with stock photos is, people in them look like robots. Understandable, since they are usually not actors. Many times when they are talking, they don't look at each other but some crap object. When taking 20 variants of a scene, at least one should involve people talking with each other. That's what people usually do when they pose for a stock photo set for an hour.
Oddly, the first thing that I noticed is that the image of him typing at the keyboard has really bad chroma aberration (notice the purple around all the keys).
The photo quality would be rejected at some stock sites not just thanks to this severe chromatic aberration (try a better lens?) but also the excessive post processing causing contrast fringing, etc.
These cannot be used in commercial print for discerning customers.
I've found great results on Flickr with a Creative Commons search, and buying stock photos for commercial work is a tiny part of a print piece budget.
>> These cannot be used in commercial print for discerning customers.
Yeah, I'm not sure that's his target market. Most of the people who would use his images probably don't even know what CA is or how to spot it -- they just care about "free".
I imagine that more serious image hunters would stick with the big stock agencies.
Nice shots, but why not just submit them to Wikimedia Commons/Flickr/etc under Creative Commons license? Much better chance of people actually finding and using them, IMO.
http://sxc.hu has a ton of free stock photos of varying licenses/quality. Also searching on flickr for cc'd images often will net you some good photos.
Stock photography sites are about being able to search with any keyword and come up with a photo that you can instantly use. The value is in convenience, not the photos themselves
If you don't want to pay the big bucks and don't use a lot of media, hire a photographer. In any large city a LF photographer post on craiglists will net you more emails then you know what to do with. If you only need a handful of shots just use one of the many "Fiver" type sites.
I don't know why this post is upvoted so high, unless your website sells macbooks, watches, or glasses of water, the premise is ridiculous.
140 comments
[ 32.9 ms ] story [ 530 ms ] threadEDIT: Rather, making explicit that they are royalty-free images for both non-commercial and commercial use.
At the same time, you should look into your technique if you'd like these to be usable for commercial print work.
These likely cannot be used in print work as is; the photo quality is borderline. They likely wouldn't be chosen by art directors to use large (eg., background images) or on today's retina screens, for the same reason. If someone is reviewing the work, too many clients' eyes will jump to the problems.
You may want to consider a better lens that doesn't exhibit the strong purple color fringing. You also need to reduce (or change methods of) the post processing that's causing severe fringing between the various subjects in the pictures, ringing on the out of focus elements, etc. These look and feel a lot like high end camera phone pics run through too much filter.
In considering composition, watch out for elements like the errant finger on the left hand writing. Any element that's too unusual draws excess attention, detracting from stock photo value, unless of course that element is the featured element.
Check out the quality standards guidelines at iStockPhotos:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/...
For example, they would have likely rejected these for chromatic aberration and maybe for over filtering:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/...
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/...
Finally, as noted in other comments, generally company logos are not acceptable in stock photography:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/...
http://www.google.com/search?as_st=y&tbm=isch&hl=en&...
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=venice&l=comm&ss=0&#...
I don't see it under search tools...
You get there by clicking the gear icon on the right side of the image search results page; 'Advanced search' is under that. Yay for Google making one more tool more difficult interact with.
For legal reasons it's critical to fully explain the license on the photos available for download, and the terms for anybody submitting the photos. Unfortunately it's really not enough to just say: "Free hi-resolution photos for your website."
Unfortunately we live in a legal environment where the author stating "free for commercial and personal use" is not a licence strong enough to hold up under law.
(Use the CC stuff if you can.)
https://github.com/mrluc/node-dbp-irctweet/blob/master/LICEN...
Sorry to go off-topic, but MVPs are meant to be extreme! That's the whole point. Maybe OP has no idea about licenses or the necessity of them. Had they not posted this, all these lovely comments on the matter would have never been written!
I don't know why. But I laughed so hard on this.
I would recommend displaying the license in which these high resolution photos can be used, because "free" isn't a license.
Some people believe they become better humans for using Apple products. By showing it to the world they think that other people will agree.
It's exactly like the cross.
It's funny that this seems to be a big deal.
The answer's simple -- many people just photograph the stuff they happen to own.
http://placeit.breezi.com/ is a very similar service with CC images.
Just a thought: You should have a "tip jar" so people can show their appreciation where it counts.
There's a reason why advertisers will edit out branding of products that they happen to use in their ads. The most prominent examples I can think of are tire companies. They use recognizable luxury and sports cars to show off their tires, but, if you look closely, they've edited out the logos and nameplates of those cars. Presumably this is to legally shield themselves from those car manufacturers accusing the tire company of misusing their trademarks, or implying an endorsement where none exists. In this case, it might be wise to edit out the Macbook Air and Apple branding, so that it doesn't look like you're being endorsed or supported by Apple.
I wouldn't assume that. It could also be simply because they don't want to give publicity to another brand. For example it's hard to believe that if Coach decided to put an ad with an Apple Macbook in it they would have an issue with that. [1]
In any case here are the Apple guidelines:
http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelinesf...
I see nothing on this page which prohibits someone from using an Apple product in a photograph and it's almost impossible to believe that Apple could claim trademark (or even if they could would expend energy to stamp this out) over someone taking a photo of their laptop. In other words a picture of someone sitting in a coffee shop using a Macbook, iphone whatever.
[1] That said Coach is a large company and they would almost certainly be ritually correct in their approach. Done on a smaller scale the amount of care does not have to be the same.
"However, a French court ruled, in June 1990, that a special lighting display on the tower in 1989, for the tower's 100th anniversary, was an "original visual creation" protected by copyright. The Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, upheld the ruling in March 1992.[54] The Société d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (SETE) now considers any illumination of the tower to be under copyright.[55] As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_c...
This info pertains to NYC, I believe it to be correct:
http://everydayaperture.com/law/
More info:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/photography_l...
That said, there are plenty of examples in the wild, even in app store screenshots, of violations of this policy. So Apple's enforcement doesn't seem to be particularly strict.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/appstore/AppStoreMarketingGuidel...
When you pay for a stock image, as an aside, a part of the value of paying is economic scarcity: That the images that you choose aren't blanketing every Wordpress site, etc.
Lets say I write an article negatively portraying the electronics manufacturing industry and use these images along with the article. I'm pretty sure Apple wouldn't like it if they found out...
Despite the reactionary comments in this thread, we're not in a corporatist dystopia where it's against the law to publish a photograph of a ubiquitous consumer device.
Libel and slander laws are more directed at individuals... large corporate companies are free game in my opinion.
It's important to know and understand the reasons behind advice like that. It totally depends on the circumstances, who is doing it and a host of other factors. Best practice? Get a government job with a pension and you won't have to worry about anything. Work for a corporation where they have departments that tell you what you can and should do and worry about all sorts of minutia.
I've used Apple logos in the past frequently as well as other things similar. Large companies don't expend energy and legal time doing anything nasty to small companies without a compelling reason (of course you could show me outliers obviously but you can't make money in business worrying about those outliers). Worse case scenario is normally a nasty letter asking you to stop, if that. The chance of an actual legal claim and money damages (once again in most cases) is minute. You might have to pay a lawyer to write something in reply. So what?
(And yes I've gone up against the NCAA and AMX with nasty letters and made them go away so I've pushed the envelope at least that far..I've also gotten approval in advance from the IRS as well for a project using their logo.)
If you are talking about Apple's marketing partners' rules for using photography, then those do not apply to the rest of the world.
I'm no fan of stock photos but I have to say that the few images look pretty much like stock photos. Which is what I don't like about them. The fact that you don't have to pay is really not the issue it's that particular look (with the blur etc.) that bothers me.
Isn't this a bit much? There's hardly any text on the site at all, much less enough to 'denigrate an entire industry'.
This is just a web page with 10 photos on it with a cc license. Don't know where you're getting the rest of that.
Apparently you're new here.
Huh, where did he denigrate an entire industry?
Lots of hate in this thread, which I don't get. Granted, you can find a lot of free stock photos on the internet, but I find the idea of curated list of photos targeted for product landing pages valuable. This was clearly an MVP and for some reason HN audience found it valuable and voted it to the front page, but I don't see how it deserves all the negativity that is shown in many comments.
and for some reason HN audience found it valuable and voted it to the front page
This a recurring retort. It's nonsense. A very small percentage of HNers can get something to the top of the front page (especially if it uses a title that panders to a bias, given that many people never actually click on the link). That they do in no world inoculates the target against any criticism.
http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/
These cannot be used in commercial print for discerning customers.
I've found great results on Flickr with a Creative Commons search, and buying stock photos for commercial work is a tiny part of a print piece budget.
Yeah, I'm not sure that's his target market. Most of the people who would use his images probably don't even know what CA is or how to spot it -- they just care about "free".
I imagine that more serious image hunters would stick with the big stock agencies.
Which, btw, would be awesome.
If you don't want to pay the big bucks and don't use a lot of media, hire a photographer. In any large city a LF photographer post on craiglists will net you more emails then you know what to do with. If you only need a handful of shots just use one of the many "Fiver" type sites.
I don't know why this post is upvoted so high, unless your website sells macbooks, watches, or glasses of water, the premise is ridiculous.