Even though it’s not their primary purpose, stock photography websites can be a source of hilarious images. But the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) made a stock photo gallery with the sole purpose of being funny. The gallery is filled with photos that poke fun at most common stereotypes about Canada, and it’s absolutely hilarious.
While looking at my own images on Shutterstock, I noticed the Shutterstock algorithm was suggesting my photos as “similar” images. I thought it was a bug on the Shutterstock website until I noticed that others had downloaded my photos from other sites then uploaded them to Shutterstock. Shutterstock’s similar photos algorithm then noticed this and suggested the stolen photos along with my photos.
On 10 April 2019, the world has seen the first-ever image of a supermassive black hole. Some people were staring in awe, some were complaining that the image took over their news feeds, and yet the others started making memes out of it. But Visual China Group (VCG) tried selling it on its website. Since the photo is under the Creative Commons license, this move caused a massive public outcry.
Brands and marketers are increasingly reaching out to social media users for “user generated content” (UGC).
Usually, you will receive a friendly request from the social media account of a brand or a marketer that would like to re-publish or use an image or video that you have previously shared to social media.
Effective marketers will find a way to stoke your ego a little, it’s a pitch that most social media users (myself included) are inclined to accept without a second thought.
If you’re on Instagram, they will usually ask you to simply reply with a specific hashtag.
But before you submit your user generated content (UGC) to a brand or marketer you need to know your rights – you are being ripped off.
Thanks to a recent trend on Twitter, people are publishing bad stock photos of their jobs. They represent them in a completely inaccurate and unprofessional way, often even inappropriate – but every time it’s completely hilarious. It started with photos of scientists and doctors, but the people of other professions got involved as well, and it’s hysterical.
We recently featured an article by photographer Samuel Zeller touting the virtues of giving away photography on Unsplash for free: I’ve Been Sharing My Photography For Free On Unsplash for the Past 4 Years, Here’s What I Found.
I have to admit, I was really confused – why would any legit photographer ever consider giving away their work for free – or as Unsplash puts it:
Download free (do whatever you want) high-resolution photos.
I am also very confused why any designer would risk significant legal liability by using an image from Unsplash without a model release, property release or trade mark release.
So I decided to check out Unsplash for myself – here is what I found…
Hitting the news recently has been the story about the YouTube family “DaddyoFive” losing custody of two of their children due to an ongoing series of prank videos.
I haven’t watched any of the DaddyoFive videos, nor do I intend to, so I am not going to comment on that particular situation, but as a stock photographer I routinely sell images of my children, so this raises a serious bigger question: is it OK to use your kids for profit?
Every week I get many messages asking where I get my stock images from. But before I answer that question, I am going to throw my two pence (an English saying for any international readers) in to the stock image debate.