Covermakers Chat Thread

gargargarrick · Post by **gargargarrick** » July 13th, 2019, 3:02 pm

Sorry -- I was the one who was starting to feel too heated. I didn't intend to imply anything about you. I apologize for even bringing the matter up.

Post by **TriciaG** » July 13th, 2019, 3:12 pm

gargargarrick wrote: ↑July 13th, 2019, 11:02 am This is potentially a big problem. As of this year, Pixabay's images are not CC0. They're released under the Pixabay License. This led e.g. the Wordpress theme review team to forbid the use of Pixabay images, and Wikimedia Commons includes a template on Pixabay-based images noting that:
"On 9 January 2019, Pixabay switched the old sitewide license for all uploads from Creative Commons CC0 to the Pixabay license which does not meet the free content licensing requirements for Commons. Therefore, media published on Pixabay from 9 January 2019 onwards is not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons".
Copyright doesn't have "take-backs" -- once it's in the public domain, it's there for keeps. So in theory, images uploaded before the changeover are still public domain. But it'd be best to minimize risk as much as possible, I think. I recommend that LibriVox volunteers avoid Pixabay if possible.

Thanks for the information!

Here's a link to the license, which says it was modified on January 9: https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

While I don't see anything there that our use of the images would violate, it does raise the issue of us saying that the cover images are PD (or CC0), since the image wouldn't be. It's something we'll have to think about, IMHO.

Post by **Availle** » July 13th, 2019, 4:22 pm

Thank you, that's very useful to know!
I think restrictions on use will just continue to get worse, it'll get more and more difficult to find acceptable sources for our covers.

I hope we won't have to stop making them at some point.

I don't use pixabay because I feel that most modern pictures don't go easily with our old books, but is there an indication of the upload date? If there is, we could ask people to "use pixabay images only when uploaded before 2019" or something.

Post by **annise** » July 13th, 2019, 4:23 pm

It seems to me that Pixabay is not changing the license in most ways, it has never been OK to use recognizable people without a "model clearance" or to use trademark objects, and we certainly are not selling them as wallpaper or posters, so I think we are OK to continue as we have been . The templates do need revising for a number of reasons I agree

Anne

msfry · Post by **msfry** » July 14th, 2019, 8:53 am

annise wrote: ↑July 13th, 2019, 4:23 pm It seems to me that Pixabay is not changing the license in most ways, it has never been OK to use recognizable people without a "model clearance" or to use trademark objects, and we certainly are not selling them as wallpaper or posters, so I think we are OK to continue as we have been . The templates do need revising for a number of reasons I agree

Anne

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Anne. Here is what shows on the Pixabay FAQ, the page is copyrighted 2019, in addition to the the above-cited disclaimer on every Pixabay member's photo, and the Pixabay License.

FAQ
What is Pixabay?
Pixabay is a vibrant community of creatives, sharing copyright free images and videos. All contents are released under the Pixabay License, which makes them safe to use without asking for permission or giving credit to the artist - even for commercial purposes.
Can I use your images?
You can copy, modify, distribute, and use the images, even for commercial purposes, all without asking for permission or giving credits to the artist. However, depicted content may still be protected by trademarks, publicity or privacy rights. Learn more ...

I think it is safe to say that every Pixabay member contributor with a brain KNOWS that their photos are released copyright free, and they are invited to take them down if they disagree.

As to your last comment, Anne, what templates are you referring to that need revising?

schrm · Post by **schrm** » July 14th, 2019, 12:24 pm

just a short input from the german simplified Pixabay license version:

Vereinfachte Pixabay Lizenz
Unsere Lizenz gibt Nutzern umfassende Freiheiten und Sicherheit - und gleichzeitig schützt sie die Bildautoren und unsere Community vor Mißbrauch. Die rechtliche Seite halten wir dabei so einfach wie möglich und fassen alle wichtigen Punkte hier zusammen.

Was ist erlaubt?
✓ Du darfst alle Pixabay Inhalte kostenlos nutzen, für kommerzielle und nicht-kommerzielle Anwendungen, gedruckt und digital. Beachte dabei die Einschränkungen unter "Was ist nicht erlaubt".
✓ Du musst weder vom Bildautor noch von Pixabay eine Genehmigung einholen und auch eine Quellenangabe ist nicht erforderlich, wobei wir uns über eine freiwillige Nennung freuen.
✓ Du darfst Pixabay Inhalte verändern.

Was ist nicht erlaubt?
Dieser Abschnitt betrifft ausschließlich Bildnutzer und nicht die jeweiligen Bildautoren.

✕ Verbreite oder verkaufe die Werke nicht auf anderen Bilder-, Wallpaper- bzw. Vertriebsseiten.
✕ Verkaufe keine unveränderten Kopien von Bildern, z.B. auf einer Stockfoto-Seite, als Poster oder als Ausdruck auf einem physischen Produkt.
✕ Erkennbare Personen dürfen nicht in einer anstößigen Weise dargestellt werden.
✕ Suggeriere nicht, dass Bildautor oder erkennbare Personen bzw. Marken auf den Bildern Dein Produkt empfehlen oder befürworten.

source: https://pixabay.com/de/service/license/

the part i marked in red says, that you must not share or sell works on other pic-hosting, wallpaper or distribution sites.
(distribution may be translated with market or sales sites, also - but the meaning is as broaden in german as distribution is in english, so i chose that word)

i think, that could be a problem at least within eu.

Post by **annise** » July 14th, 2019, 5:09 pm

My understanding of German PD rules is that they are much stricter than most countries in regard to a person's rights and that it is not possible for someone to abandon their legal rights to anything.
LV only needs to follow USA rules, it is up to those of us who are not residing in the USA to be aware of the laws of their country of residence and decide themselves what is legal.

Anne

carthinius · Post by **carthinius** » July 21st, 2019, 4:19 am

Just to jump in on that matter: the website unsplash.com changed their licence, too. They reported that they were more and more confronted with people taking CC0-licensed images from their page and offered them on their own images websites, sometimes even with payment models for lifelong free usage and stuff. As the german legal texts for pixabay implies, this seems to be the same case with pixabay: You are not allowed to distribute the images at another image or wallpaper site. LibriVox is, in my understanding and for that matter, NOT another image distribution site. They simply don't want somebody to sell their free content to make money with it.

Now that I am thinking about this: Hasn't been there cases where people sold LibriVox recordings? I think these license changes aim to avoid exactly that problem - that someone is making money with your creative commons content.

schrm · Post by **schrm** » July 21st, 2019, 5:15 am

carthinius wrote: ↑July 21st, 2019, 4:19 am Just to jump in on that matter: the website unsplash.com changed their licence, too. They reported that they were more and more confronted with people taking CC0-licensed images from their page and offered them on their own images websites, sometimes even with payment models for lifelong free usage and stuff. As the german legal texts for pixabay implies, this seems to be the same case with pixabay: You are not allowed to distribute the images at another image or wallpaper site. LibriVox is, in my understanding and for that matter, NOT another image distribution site. They simply don't want somebody to sell their free content to make money with it.

Now that I am thinking about this: Hasn't been there cases where people sold LibriVox recordings? I think these license changes aim to avoid exactly that problem - that someone is making money with your creative commons content.

looks like this...
i didn't use pixabay that often, but decided against it.
we are licensing into the pd - at least where this is possible..

and yes,you are right. when i remember right, a mc mentioned, that even her name was changed (at least for the selling page)

Post by **annise** » July 21st, 2019, 6:58 am

I think the aim of the image sites is to stop people offering the actual high res images for sale on their sites. One way we could help them when using an image could be to deface it in some way - by having your titles etc overlap the image for example can look quite good

Anne

moniaqua · Post by **moniaqua** » July 21st, 2019, 8:14 am

For a cover I usually scale them down anyway, a little bit at least, as the cover will never reach full DIN A4 or even more

I never used pixabay, I prefer pictures from the books or at least close to the time of publishing, but making the pixabay pictures useless for printing them solo in order to sell them is quite a good idea, I think

msfry · Post by **msfry** » July 21st, 2019, 11:24 am

Come on guys. Our cover art is slathered with text and LIBRIVOX all over them that can't be removed without utmost tedium. Furthermore, who sells our covers? I've seen some covers on You-Tube audiobooks, and some of those books are "monetized" by "entities" who have earned at least 10,000 hits (less than that and YouTube won't allow monetization). But I haven't seen anyone packaging/selling our youtube audiobooks, or selling our LV covers per se as wallpapers or posters. They certainly are not hi-res enough for professional printing -- though they look darn good on a computer screen.

We do great work. I love pixabay images. Lots of very creative people from all over the world who just love to show off, who travel all over the world and take pics of many historic places, who are not looking for money or reward other than the pleasure of sharing. Not all our covers have to be old fashioned. Many of our themes are quite modern. Collections, poems, fiction, psychology, politics, government reports, etc. Of course there are vintage pieces that certainly call for vintage artwork, too, but it's up to each cover maker to create as they see fit. So let's don't limit our creativity unnecessarily.

Post by **Availle** » July 21st, 2019, 3:50 pm

Michele, all our recordings are littered with disclaimers and names of people and intros and outros that that can't be removed without utmost tedium. And people do it anyway to make a quick buck. I'm afraid that 's not really an argument.

I realise that it is unlikely that people would strip/sell our covers when they can just easily go to pixabay or unsplash themselves to find the original image, but again, that's not really an argument.

Also it is not clear if, starting out with images that are not clearly PD, it is even legal to call our own covers "in the public domain". And I don't see anything in the pixabay licence that would forbid this. Still, I'd prefer that LV stays on the cautious side of this line.

I can see why you defend the use of pixabay images so strongly Michele; you're pretty much the only one using them. How about developing your own creativity and not leaning on those of others that much?

msfry · Post by **msfry** » July 21st, 2019, 4:01 pm

Availle wrote: ↑July 21st, 2019, 3:50 pm I can see why you defend the use of pixabay images so strongly Michele; you're pretty much the only one using them. How about developing your own creativity and not leaning on those of others that much?

How rude. I am insulted. I put a lot of creativity into my covers, but you have made it no secret already that you don't care for them. Pixabay images are not the only ones I use, and are no different than you finding other images in other places.

Post by **Availle** » July 21st, 2019, 4:05 pm

I'm sorry, that's not what I meant at all.

I know you put a lot of time and thought into your covers.

I see you love to combine many pictures from different sources - maybe not rely on pixabay too much, that's all I'm saying.

Look for example at Bart's coffee collection covers - he bought all the props and took his own photos for those covers. I'd love to see more "done from scratch" covers like these (mostly because I am totally unable to do that myself).