Like NMS, I've used www.photos.com before - for $129 for one month you can D/L quite a lot of images (max 250/day I think) but it's good value and handy for the web
From wikipedia: "Creative works are in the public domain wherever no law exists to establish proprietary rights, or where the subject matter is specifically excluded from existing laws. Likewise, works that were created long before such laws were passed are part of the public domain, such as the works of William Shakespeare and Ludwig van Beethoven and the inventions of Archimedes (however, translations of the works of Archimedes, Shakespeare, etc., may be subject to copyright). Also, works of the United States Government are excluded from copyright law." I know wikipedia is not the best source for accurate info, however, I've seen that phrase written all over the national archives, library of congress, etc. WWII footage, for example, is not copyrighted UNLESS it has a "third party trademark" associated to it....like Frank Sinatra....Bob Hope, etc. You can not go and make a PEPSI commercial and use Frank Sinatra unless you get permission from Sinatra's Estate. Basically, Gettyimages is selling footage and marking it up with a "rights managed" fee that goes on top of the original price. Sure, they are allowed to do this because the footage is in the public domain in the first place, but to go with a "rights managed" fee is just over kill and frankly, pisses me off. They'll charge you annually as long as you use the footage.
Hmmm....While i'm not saying that's wrong, I don't exactly credit an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit as being the most accurate source of information. I might go check this out with the gov copyright sites. More because i'm curious then anything else EDIT: looks like you were editing as I was typing. Yes, we agree that it's not the most accurate source of information. I know what copyright laws are, but I have a hard time thinking that the government can't copyright its property in some fashion.
No problem wendy, perhaps I am missing some fine print somewhere. But, if you also check out the Prelinger Archives (collection of free public domain movies), you'll see that this is also a common thread in their forums. People, mostly archivists, are frustrated at the big companies for 'buying up' lots of public domain footage and copyrighting them. How they do this, I don't know, but I'm guessing they are paying millions to basically buy-out the copyright license.
Well I DO agree with you that the situation stinks/bites and sucks. Content such as that shouldn't be copyrighted, and it sucks that people would try to make money off of it. I have no idea how one would go about doing it either. How you buy something that is public domain is beyond me.
Government photos/docs fall into a kind of grey area. Anything that is done by a government agency on its own is public domain. A lot of times, though, the govt. will purchase documents or hire a contractor to build them, and in those cases SOMETIMES that contractor gets to maintain copyright. The Library of Congress has a good collection of PD photos, and they do a good job of spelling out what is public domain, what is copyrighted, and what they have no idea about. It's not the most searchable photo database, but it does contain a lot of great architecture shots and a lot of great old black and white photos. Once something is PD, there is no reigning in of the copyright. It can be altered and republished, but the Public Domain material will always be public domain. BTW - the time frame use to be 20 years, then 35, then 50, now 70. The legislation keeps extending the copyright length every time Mickey Mouse has an important birthday coming up. Disney knows how much money they would lose if you could get a Mickey hat from Japan for 30 cents.
I am no expert in US Law; however, I do believe that by "works of the United States Government" the text at Wikipedia is refering to the text of laws, judicial and administrative decisions and other "works" which, by definition, could not be the object of copyright because of the public interest. In other words, because it is good that such material reaches as much people as possible. As I said, I am no expert in US Law, but that's the way it works in international Copyright Law in general. Other types of work, such as pictures, or a book with the history of the government or of the country, or a WWII footage, which are created under the responsibility and coordination of the government fully qualify for copyright protection. There are some cases in which national governments (if I am not mistaken, France) deliberately tried to copyright material that was already in the public domain - the national hymn, as way of protecting and maintaining national culture. Such footage could also have been taken by a third-party who ended up with the copyright over that material, and that later on, sold some or all of those rights to Betty Images. I don't know the specifics of this case (who created the footage, who holds the copyright, what kind of license Betty Images got for distributing it over the internet, etc), but in general terms, I repeat that it is just not possible to acquire material in the public domain and, as it is, acquire the copyright over it. Once it's in the public domain, it's in the public domain, and nobody can "buy" it. Someone could, on the other hand, charge a fee for making such material available to a third-party. That's why you can buy Shakespeare's books on a book shop, even though Shakespeare's works are in the public domain. The editor did not have to pay Shakespeare's heir anything; they print it and sell it, but can not claim rights over the work itself (only, in certain cases, over the tipography and design of the book printed). So, are they making money off the public domain? They definately are, and anybody else could do it as well. Anyway, I don't want to make this longer, but again I don't see anything wrong with "selling" such footage. Of course they have operating costs (looking for the material, organizing it in categories, running the website, bandwidth, etc) and are in the business to make money.
I would also go here, this forum seems to have many experts in that field ... http://www.photographycorner.com/index.php I've met the owner on John Scott's forum, cool guy!
I run www.flyerstarter.com. No yoga poses but plenty of diverse, interesting images. We specialize mostly in nightclub/trend marketing material, but do have a lot of interesting material outside that scope. Best of all, we sell art on behalf of independent photographers and designers, and pay them more than 10 cents a photo, unlike some other popular stock sites.
I cant post urls yet but search for stock xchng in google. They are pretty good. I dont know about yoga poses specifically
They are 'good' because there's no real competition in the DIY stock photo market. Photographers put up with getting paid 10 cents a photo because there's no alternative. The absolute top earners on that site make no more than a few thousand a year. Putting that in the perspective of a professional photograpy where you can make that much for 2 or 3 assignments, it's peanuts. It's a wide open market, with the top 3 earners, Getty, Corbis, and Comstock earning collectively $250 Mill a year. Technology has finally caught up and people and anyone can compete on the same level, providing the image quality is there.
I regret reposting, stock xchng, so I checked the microsoft clip art site and they have yoga shots and they are free
Just a few noteworthy things I found regarding Public Domain: http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html (The mouse that at the public domain) http://library.lp.findlaw.com/artic...pyrights/filename/intellectualproperty_2_4537
Exactly, and so that's why I don't understand why Getty has a huge chunk of WWII stuff that you have to pay an annual "rights managed fee". For example, they have footage of an american fighter plane shooting down a Japanese fighter plane sometime during the war. I highly doubt that that was taken by a commercial combat photographer.....it was just gun camera footage.
also what kind of site is it? if its tourism based (or international) you should be able to get an image cd of the regional/national tourism body.