Squarespace using your content for free

[ABTog]

Has anyone else seen this?
SquareSpace is Officially Screwing Photographers

"imagine a huge website provider partnering with Unsplash to distribute the photography for free, and basically send the message that photography has no value. Stop imagining because Squarespace just did it."

I've been trying out Squarespace, but hadn't yet decided whether to go with it, maybe now I won't.

Maybe some of the youtubers with sponsorship from Squarespace might reconsider their alliance.

* I can't work out whether there is a way to opt out from this if you retain a Squarespace site, but there might be a hidden option somewhere.

 

[Box Brownie]

Not a Squarespace user but had a read of the linked blog..........................not clear to me if as photographer using their service to host your site whether your content is exposed to the abuse of "free pictures to pick from" for use by others on their hosted sites?

But for sure it reads that they are collaborating with a company that places no real value on imagery offering "100's of 1000's of images for free" ! As such do any of the content 'providers' to Unsplash make any money???

 

[ABTog]

I'm not sure whether a photographer hosting their site on Squarespace has to opt-in to allow SQSP their photographs to be provided to Unsplash for free.

I would hope it's a voluntary opt-in rather than automatic.

I don't think anyone who provides content to Unsplash gets paid for their images.

Flickr tried a similar thing a while ago where users could opt in to allow Getty to take their pick of your images that they would then make available as stock images and the photographer got nothing in return.
That went down well.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

One way round is to upload low res marked content then they can do zero with your work like any other plonker on the net.

But it sounds awful for the money and one should be maybe look into selfhosting / wordpress solution. I am leaning that way after troubles and 100% collapsed sales with Zenfolio.

 

[ashtennisguru]

I don't believe that if you have a squarespace site and upload your own images to it that they automatically become available on unsplash, it's that unsplash has been integrated into the squarespace site builder and you can directly choose to use images from unsplash to replace the default template ones the site builder uses.

 

[myotis]

Has anyone else seen this?
SquareSpace is Officially Screwing Photographers

"imagine a huge website provider partnering with Unsplash to distribute the photography for free, and basically send the message that photography has no value. Stop imagining because Squarespace just did it."

I've been trying out Squarespace, but hadn't yet decided whether to go with it, maybe now I won't.

Maybe some of the youtubers with sponsorship from Squarespace might reconsider their alliance.

* I can't work out whether there is a way to opt out from this if you retain a Squarespace site, but there might be a hidden option somewhere.

Squarespace has had a long association with Unsplash and listed by Unsplash as one of there early supporters/sponsers, but that article headline is misleading as when your read the text, its only saying that Squarespace are promoting Unsplash as source of free photographs for Squarespace users, and taking part in an Unsplash promotion.

That whole article is really about Unsplash, with the criticism of Squarespace being that they are supporting Unsplash, not that they are making Squarepace users photographs available through Unsplash for free.

Here is the link to the Squarespace help page . https://support.squarespace.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001994067-Unsplash-and-Squarespace

 

[Box Brownie]

Squarespace has had a long association with Unsplash and listed by Unsplash as one of there early supporters/sponsers, but that article headline is misleading as when your read the text, its only saying that Squarespace are promoting Unsplash as source of free photographs for Squarespace users, and taking part in an Unsplash promotion.

That whole article is really about Unsplash, with the criticism of Squarespace being that they are supporting Unsplash, not that they are making Squarepace users photographs available through Unsplash for free.

Here is the link to the Squarespace help page . https://support.squarespace.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001994067-Unsplash-and-Squarespace

But perhaps there is a questionable aspect?

They are used by creatives including photographers, on the surmise that those photographers who use Square space value their own copyright and possibly 'actual' value. What message is Squarespace sending to other creatives by offering the 1000's of free pictures to use in their templates.

A conflict of interests???

 

[myotis]

But perhaps there is a questionable aspect? What message is Squarespace sending to other creatives by offering the 1000's of free pictures to use in their templates.

A conflict of interests???

Ah yes, but that is a different question, I was just responding to the interpretation of the article, to say its nothing new, Squarespace have supported Unsplash for years, and that it does not say that Squarespace are making its users photographs available through Unsplash.

I find making a judgment on Unsplash complex and difficult.

Unsplash make no money from it, and professional photographers freely give them their photographs. Of the few interviews I have read, the photographers have said they get commissioned work through Unsplash users seeing or using their photographs. I hasten to point out that these were all links from Unsplash so not necessarily an unbiased view. But none the less, Unsplash wouldn't work if photographers weren't willing to give away their photographs for free.

The majority of creatives on Squarespace, may well not be photographers so they might be pleased to have easy access to the legal use of free images. And Unsplash started as a service to the design company that lies behind it, as service to their customers. So why shouldn't Squarespace also offer it as a service to their customers.

I may be a bit out of date with its current status as it was several years ago that I looked into it, but while in principle I disagree with idea of photographs being used for free, I'm not entirely sure how anyone is in the wrong here, even if I don't like it.

If anyone, I feel its the photographers for supplying the images for free in the first place.The images on Unsplash, when I looked, were all of high quality, so its not people uploading any old rubbish hoping for an ego boost from seeing it published

 

[Box Brownie]

Ah yes, but that is a different question, I was just responding to the interpretation of the article, to say its nothing new, Squarespace have supported Unsplash for years, and that it does not say that Squarespace are making its users photographs available through Unsplash.

I find making a judgment on Unsplash complex and difficult.

Unsplash make no money from it, and professional photographers freely give them their photographs. Of the few interviews I have read, the photographers have said they get commissioned work through Unsplash users seeing or using their photographs. I hasten to point out that these were all links from Unsplash so not necessarily an unbiased view. But none the less, Unsplash wouldn't work if photographers weren't willing to give away their photographs for free.

The majority of creatives on Squarespace, may well not be photographers so they might be pleased to have easy access to the legal use of free images. And Unsplash started as a service to the design company that lies behind it, as service to their customers. So why shouldn't Squarespace also offer it as a service to their customers.

I may be a bit out of date with its current status as it was several years ago that I looked into it, but while in principle I disagree with idea of photographs being used for free, I'm not entirely sure how anyone is in the wrong here, even if I don't like it.

If anyone, I feel its the photographers for supplying the images for free in the first place.The images on Unsplash, when I looked, were all of high quality, so its not people uploading any old rubbish hoping for an ego boost from seeing it published

For sure the "landscape" of pro photography has changed!

There are many threads here @TP that express how it has affected even social photography.

NB I am no pro and have only sold prints in a very way limited way to date but am probably a dinosaur in that I value my copyright and wish that the craft of photography still had a value that was more widely appreciated......but the combination of social networking & digital cameras have democratised it in ways that are still evolving but with no sign yet of the impact leveling off.

 

[myotis]

View attachment 139253

Thats, a pretty standard bit a legalese, that crops up often and only gives them them very "limited" rights to user content that is needed to let them provide and maintain the service you are paying for.

You will find something similar in the T&Cs of pretty well every (if not every) online service provider.

 

[myotis]

For sure the "landscape" of pro photography has changed!

There are many threads here @TP that express how it has affected even social photography.

NB I am no pro and have only sold prints in a very way limited way to date but am probably a dinosaur in that I value my copyright and wish that the craft of photography still had a value that was more widely appreciated......but the combination of social networking & digital cameras have democratised it in ways that are still evolving but with no sign yet of the impact leveling off.

But as you say, the landscape is changing. in spite of smart phones there is still an ever increasing market for photographic prints and books of photographs, and photographers are still commissioned to do work. And some prints seem to sell for astronomic figures so some people are still appreciating photography.

So, I don't see any reason to think that the vast majority of serious photographers don't still value their copyright. The issue with Unsplash is that, I assume, the professional photographers who submit there are those who decide these "specific" images have a copyright with no value, other than marketing. Given the number of big players, like Apple, using Unsplash, then this might be better for your business than the occasional 50p per use from an agency.

But, change isn't new, I'm old enough to remember when we had to change our whole pricing approach to weddings, from pretty well doing the wedding album at cost, and relying on additional print sales to make our money, to charging properly for the wedding album, primarily because guests and family were photocopying the proofs, (as photocopiers had improved in quality, and were more readily available than they had been) rather than paying for prints.