[corresation]

So you took a couple of pictures (that appear to be Apple ads more than anything, as an aside)? I'm sorry if this sounds negative, but I find it completely disingenuous that you denigrate an entire industry and portray a pittance of images as the salvation.

When you pay for a stock image, as an aside, a part of the value of paying is economic scarcity: That the images that you choose aren't blanketing every Wordpress site, etc.

[rgbrenner]

" I find it completely disingenuous that you denigrate an entire industry and portray a pittance of images as the salvation."

Isn't this a bit much? There's hardly any text on the site at all, much less enough to 'denigrate an entire industry'.

This is just a web page with 10 photos on it with a cc license. Don't know where you're getting the rest of that.

[austengary]

Isn't this a bit much?

Apparently you're new here.

[dirtyaura]

"I find it completely disingenuous that you denigrate an entire industry and portray a pittance of images as the salvation."

Huh, where did he denigrate an entire industry?

Lots of hate in this thread, which I don't get. Granted, you can find a lot of free stock photos on the internet, but I find the idea of curated list of photos targeted for product landing pages valuable. This was clearly an MVP and for some reason HN audience found it valuable and voted it to the front page, but I don't see how it deserves all the negativity that is shown in many comments.

[scott_s]

The original title said something negative about stock photos (but I can't recall exactly what).

[mikaelcho]

I'm not sure how it got changed but this was the original title, "Hated expensive, crappy stock photos so I made this."

[scott_s]

The guidelines ask submissions to use the page's title. Moderators often change them to conform. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[mbreese]

yeah, I think the vitriol was all about the original title which was something like "I hated crappy stock photo sites, so I ..."

[corresation]

As others have said, the original title said "Hated expensive, crappy stock photos so I made this." So yeah, that's where he denigrated an entire industry.

and for some reason HN audience found it valuable and voted it to the front page

This a recurring retort. It's nonsense. A very small percentage of HNers can get something to the top of the front page (especially if it uses a title that panders to a bias, given that many people never actually click on the link). That they do in no world inoculates the target against any criticism.

[jaredmcateer]

Also having brand names in your stock photos have certain legal landmines, you should talk to your lawyer before using these photos.

[mauricio-OH]

I don't think apple will be upset in this case though...

[jwegan]

Apple will most certainly be upset. The have a ton of brand guidelines on how you can display their products in your own marketing. For instance you are not allowed to show an iphone in any direction other than straight on, and you are not allowed to have anything partially occluding the iphone.

[jmreid]

You are allowed to use the iPhone in any manner you want, as long as you use your own photography (not from apple.com, or their PR images).

If you are talking about Apple's marketing partners' rules for using photography, then those do not apply to the rest of the world.

[jlarocco]

But the value of stock images is to use them somewhere else.

Lets say I write an article negatively portraying the electronics manufacturing industry and use these images along with the article. I'm pretty sure Apple wouldn't like it if they found out...

[MartinCron]

You are extending Apple way more rights than they actually have. Trademark and copyright don't exist to keep people from saying negative things about you.

[archangel_one]

No, but libel and slander laws do exist to keep people from saying untrue negative things about you, so it still pays to be careful if that's what you intend to do.

[MartinCron]

Libelous and/or slanderous content wouldn't be made any more or less illegal by having or not having identifiable brands in stock photography.

Despite the reactionary comments in this thread, we're not in a corporatist dystopia where it's against the law to publish a photograph of a ubiquitous consumer device.

[DigitalSea]

The number of times I've seen someone say, "Apple sucks", "The iPhone sucks", "Apple are tax evaders" without recourse I seriously doubt Apple can or would do anything when someone is expressing their opinion. Free speech buddy.

Libel and slander laws are more directed at individuals... large corporate companies are free game in my opinion.

[thenextcorner]

Are you a lawyer? I hope this is not legal advice you're giving, because the general best practices I've always learned using pictures in marketing material: "Never show brands or products names"

[larrys]

"because the general best practices"

It's important to know and understand the reasons behind advice like that. It totally depends on the circumstances, who is doing it and a host of other factors. Best practice? Get a government job with a pension and you won't have to worry about anything. Work for a corporation where they have departments that tell you what you can and should do and worry about all sorts of minutia.

I've used Apple logos in the past frequently as well as other things similar. Large companies don't expend energy and legal time doing anything nasty to small companies without a compelling reason (of course you could show me outliers obviously but you can't make money in business worrying about those outliers). Worse case scenario is normally a nasty letter asking you to stop, if that. The chance of an actual legal claim and money damages (once again in most cases) is minute. You might have to pay a lawyer to write something in reply. So what?

(And yes I've gone up against the NCAA and AMX with nasty letters and made them go away so I've pushed the envelope at least that far..I've also gotten approval in advance from the IRS as well for a project using their logo.)

[FireBeyond]

Perhaps you're conflating - the reality is that it's much more akin to "in a manner that implies a relationship, endorsement by the manufacturer that doesn't exist", and similar.

[larrys]

"that you denigrate an entire industry"

I'm no fan of stock photos but I have to say that the few images look pretty much like stock photos. Which is what I don't like about them. The fact that you don't have to pay is really not the issue it's that particular look (with the blur etc.) that bothers me.

[mauricio-OH]

Finding great stock photos is HARD and if there's a place that can show a few that are free and beautiful looking, that's value add. Have you seen google images? anything free out there with regards to images is totally useless minus 2.