[akilbalraj]

Thank you for the comment. We do not plan on redistributing others' content. That would be totally against our primary goal for this project. We just provide links (no downloads from our site) to the original works so that the illustrator gets more traffic for himself and his other works. Sorry about the redundancy. We try to keep the license info as simple and accurate as possible. Currently, We only provide license info for CC/MIT and let users read custom licenses from the original site. Also, we are always ready to respect the decision of the creator if he finds a problem with his work being showcased.

[tweetle_beetle]

You are using high resolution images licensed under, for example, CC BY 4.0 on your website without providing a link to the license:

e.g. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5fba626e86ad1be131127616/5fc... on https://www.vektors.pro/illustration-packs/b-w-illustrations

Maybe it could be argued that this is fair use, but why not just go the extra mile and do it properly?

> We try to keep the license info as simple and accurate as possible.

If the licensing information was "simple and accurate" there wouldn't be an issue. It's missing, misleading or incorrect in many cases.

And on the subject of content removal, this is from https://www.vektors.pro/privacy-policy

> If you find any link on our Website that is offensive for any reason, you are free to contact and inform us any moment. We will consider requests to remove links, but we are not obligated to or so or to respond to you directly.

How are creators supposed to contact you? There are no "proper" contact details in the header, footer, terms and conditions or privacy policy, just a Twitter link.

[akilbalraj]

Thank you for these suggestions. We will definitely consider adding links to the license files. Also, we are very much limited to our twitter account for communication but will surely set up something on our site very soon.

[hnarn]

You’re gonna “consider” complying with the law?

[akilbalraj]

Sorry for the wrong use of words there. As mentioned in the earlier comment, use of cc licensed image in our site can be considered under fair use. We will still insert the license going forward as it makes it more simpler and straightforward. Do check out the link below to see how it works along with a CC license. Also, we would definitely get more legal advice on this going forward. Thanks for understanding. https://creativecommonsusa.org/index.php/ufaqs/what-is-the-d....

[hnarn]

> use of cc licensed image in our site can be considered under fair use

This is 100% incorrect and not what fair use means, ask a lawyer.

> We will still insert the license going forward as it makes it more simpler and straightforward.

It's also legally required, and for many licenses (most CC licenses) you not only need to somehow include the license but also attribution.

I know very well how CC works, and if you would please read the link you yourself posted, you will understand that the way you are using these images clearly does not fall under fair use, as a compilation/library of anything whether that's images or songs or movies or whatever is not "news reporting, teaching, [or] parody" -- what these examples all have in common is that you're creating a derivative work ON TOP of the original work, which is why it's "fair use".

[akilbalraj]

Hello there. Thanks for your help. I have reviewed all the licenses and included them accordingly.