Thread by @jimkillock

Ho hum, it seems that @unsplash are actively hostile to marking up content with any suggestion of @creativecommons licencing.

I added a link to a CC licence, saying I was OK with people using that if they preferred: and Unsplash simply deleted my text.

On their Slack channel, I asked people if they could guess why @unsplash images are never found on @Wikimedia websites.

My question and answer explaining the licence incompatibility?

It was deleted.

I suggested that they consider letting people choose a licence. They gave a bland reply:

I’m sorry @unsplash but “we’d like to keep things simple by offering a single license that we can stand by” is a very disappointing answer.

You encourage many people to share their creative content for free. You should – in my opinion – support creators’ choice here.

I think most people would stick with @unsplash’s slightly restrictive licence, if given the choice.

@unsplash are benefiting from huge goodwill of people wanting to share. They should do the right thing, and enable people to give as much as they like, in the way they want.

I didn’t know @unsplash’s history. Apprently, they started off with all content available as @creativecommons CC-0. They published a book with content from @lessig.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsplash

Now, they are, in effect, the anti-Commons, promoting content enclosure. How sad.

Here is what they did, in 2017.

I would dearly like to know how many images they decided to enclose that day.

I feel like I am reading about the Western Riots as the forests were cut down for sheep farmers, the Enclosure Acts, or throwing the crofters off the Highlands.

OK so nobody died here. But there is something unethical taking place.