[pkamb]

You should pre-populate the images with stock photos found on google images. Removes one more barrier if I'm going to use stock photos anyway. (Obviously clearly mark it as "stock photo", still make it easy to upload my own). This is really cool by the way.

[noblethrasher]

I think the text inviting them to upload a photo is fine. It's simple and obvious (though as I mentioned elsewhere they might want to offer an affordance for drag and drop).

A stock photo might introduce more problems than it solves. The user might not realize that they can easily change it, it might be slightly irritating if the image is 'wrong', and they'd have to find a set of images that are free/cheap and safe for commercial use.

[jgallagher11]

Stock photos is a feature that exposes a tension in our product - what's good for sellers isn't always good for buyers.

That said, you also make some good points why stock photos are bad for both.

[icebraining]

You should pre-populate the images with stock photos found on google images.

That's copyright infringement. Just because they're available on Google Images doesn't mean you can use them on your own site.

[wmeredith]

You can ping Google images for images filtered by licenses.

[icebraining]

That's useful as a tool for a manual search, but you can't trust it by itself, since sites can tag any image as CC. In fact, you can find very well known -and definitively not CC licensed- photos on that search, like World Press Photo winners or Leibovitz's.

[pkamb]

"found on <some service>" then.

[onedognight]

You can just link to the image on the original site. No distribution means no copyright infringement. Rude yes, illegal no.

[icebraining]

Illegal no

I wouldn't be so sure: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6145744.html