Category talk:Images from Unsplash

Discussion

from here: Commons:Village pump#Unsplash:

Hi everyone, I want to share with you this website: http://unsplash.com/ which has very nice CC0 images. --Viscontino (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice pictures, I test uploaded this one. A few comments and issues, though:

1. They call these «hi-resolution photos»: While maybe some or all were indeed photographed in the smallish displayed resolutions (1024×683 px for this one), that seems unlikely. If so, that limits useability and maybe yet another instance of this.
2. This website is an urlmasked Tumblr feed with all its annoying quirks, including infinite loading. I.a., the only way to find the permanent link to an individual photo page (as simply clicking it will feed your browser the JPEG file, just like the link/button labelled "download") is through the monthly thumbnail sets page (which in turn is infinite loading).
3. This website is terribly scarce on details, and the photos seem to lack EXIF data. Typically all we know about each photo is the author’s name, and a link to the/an author’s website. There’s indication that some of those individual photo page include comments and other 3rd party data («notes», in Tumbler parlance), but they seem to be disabled in each individual photo page. All this will needlessly hinder categorization and again reduce the useability of these photos.

I’m not sure if the best way to go about these is to pick them wholesale as they are; an arrangement with the Unspalsh curators that includes some additional information about each photo would be preferable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

These aren’t many, 10 new pics in 10 days means one upload a day; 2 uploads daily would eat up the backlog. Most these images are a net gain, even if identification is an issue. I’m going to go ahead with it; later on authors could provide addition info on each shot. See Category:Images from Unsplash. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Having explored this website in much more depth now, here’s some updating about the points made above:

1. No: Most of the photos I’ve seen so far seem to have been made available in the native resolution of the camera; I found so far no other versions of the same photos on line with better resolution and a more stringent license. (Phew!)
2. Yes, annoying. I’ using the archive and month pages only these days.
3. Yes, ditto. So far only a couple photos has what seems to be intact EXIF, and I haven’t been able to “unlock” the Tumblr notes for each image (maybe one needs to have a logged in Tumblr account?). By means of the offered link to the photographer’s website, though, it is sometimes possible to know more about each photo. (Cf. this example.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 02:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Trustability and licensing

moved from Commons:Deletion requests/File:TagimaHeadstock(mono).jpg

While, as mentioned, Unsplash is irritatingly scarce on all sorts of details about their material, its credibility is, I believe, intact. Should this change, then a general DR should be filed in, covering all delinquent images. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I just did my own more-thorough review of "unsplash"-- it's front page reads: "Free (do whatever you want) hi-resolution photos." This doesn't exactly sound like the text of a Creative Commons license, but more like the casual remark of someone who doesn't care all that much where the photos come from or who uses them or why, which is worrisome. It says nothing else about what it exists for, what its policies are, or how it operates. If you click through its images, you can see that they are all very professional-looking shots and can even see the name of the person who took them. But there is nothing associated with any of these images to suggest that they are in the public domain or are freely licensed. The site is owned by a Mikael Cho and is run out of a server in Paris. It's photos seem to be the work of primarily European photographers, but I am not familiar with the European policies with regard to licensing and public domain. Having found no indication that any of the images on Unsplash.com are, in fact, freely licensed, it seems prudent to remove any of them from Commons. But I would like to hear others' thoughts on the issue. KDS444 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In the front page, where it reads the light-hearted indication you quote there is also a link to http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 and on the next line it says that «All photos CC0», also linked to the CC site’s zero page. That clearly means that, more than not caring «all that much where the photos come from or who uses them or why», the people behind Unsplash seek to publish free photos, with an attempt to proper licensing. It could still be a sham, but what is shown it is not a casual understanding of copyright.

I manually uploaded so far 50 of these images, in no particular order, a couple a day. I routinely check them for previous web presence, and never found any (cf. this example). I also check the linked author’s website and every time it seems legitimate, with apparently congruous work on show. Seldom the images available in Unsplash are also avilable from the author’s website or other free media repository, but when they do free licensing is confirmed.

I see no reason to consider this a bad source for free media, with the currently available information. I will try to contact some of these creators to check if they indeed licensed their images to Unsplash, and will report here.

(Where you see mainly European photographers, I see the usual predominance of US-based creators, just a bit less extreme than usual. It is the half full / half empty bottle paradox.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ 01:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have now had an email exchange with the person identified as the author of the TagimaHeadstock(mono).jpg image. He has confirmed that he is indeed the original author, and that the image is indeed correctly licensed as being in the public domain. Despite my earlier misgivings, it appears that unsplash is most likely a legitimate operation. KDS444 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

One more hint suggesting that Unsplash.com’s claim for CC0 is accurate: At http://www.flickr.com/photos/discomethod/2617006566/ (source for this image), author says that he «set this photo to CC0, public domain, enjoy.» Flickr links the license (misleadingly identified by a "©", standing for generic copyright status icon) to the official CC-BY 2.0 webpage, not to CC0, but the author’s intentions are clear. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ditto for File:Path2HilltopVilla@cypresses(byAntonSulsky).jpg. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Less clear for File:LuftschutzbauGefechtsturm(vonChrBardenhorst).jpg: While listed in Unsplash.com as CC0, like the rest, in Flickr is licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0. In order to keep this in Commons, we need to trust or confirm that the relicensing as CC0 is legitimate. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

One more here: File talk:LuftschutzbauGefechtsturm(vonChrBardenhorst).jpg#CC-nc in Flickr. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Photographer confirms that Unsplash is telling the truth about this photo, too. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have definite concerns about File:Pelicans@pier(byYairHazout).jpg - the Unsplash page attributes it to Yair Hazout at 500px.com, but the original there shows no Creative Commons licensing, only a link to 500px.com's terms and conditions, which also (as far as I can see; it's a very long page!) doesn't mention any CC license. I suspect what could have happened here is that the person uploading to Unsplash mistook the tiny circled infinity symbol of 500px.com as a 'cc' symbol? I'd vote to delete this photo on the grounds the licensing is very uncertain, but will wait to see what others think. - MPF (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that so far we have no reason to assume that a private exchange took place and this author indeed allowed Unsplash to host this image relicensed as CC0. No idea why this was not reflected in the 500px site page (unlike what others did in Flickr), but maybe it doens’t offer that possibility, or simply the photographer overlooked it. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

One more positive confirmation that Unsplash contacts authors and asks for a CC-zero release, just added to this photo: File:Sea-shore(byRafaSouza).jpg. So far we have 4 of these confirmations; a single case of a photographer complaining that their work was ripped off would suffice to challenge COM:AGF, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Concerning this photo, I left a message asking for confirmation of permission to relicense at the original location. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Also this: File talk:GroveSunrise(byPhilippReiner).JPG. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Site changes

I just noticed a change since yesterday: The contents of http://unsplash.com/archive now show a mosaic of the photos, stacked roughly two-wide on the screen, as opposed to the previous arrangement (rows of thumbnails, six on my 1152px screen); the usual one-image wide infinite-loading screen remains at http://unsplash.com/. This doesnt impact much in our work picking stuff from this site to be uploaded to Commons, as most these photos do indeed look better in bigger sizes: Often it is the details that they are really worthy for. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)