- Last post
- 8 Responses
Call me naive...
I'm doing a pitch for an independent craft brew client and was looking for some beer imagery to include in our deck.
I go to Unsplash. A resource that has been great for me in the past and supported by what I thought was a community of individual photographers.
I began to notice that some of the craft brew images were looking a just little too on point. The bottles and pints are turned just so so that the logo reads well. The people/models are hitting all the demographics. Something was up.
So i did a bit of research on those beers that were shown in the images. While they look like craft beers, they are all owned by Anheuser Busch. Then clicking on the image provider Unslash profile name, it openly states what I was concerned about:
"Led by Brewers Collective, the craft business unit of Anheuser-Busch, Elevate is a purpose-driven initiative to create and inspire the brightest future possible for the beer industry."
This is some 3D chess shit. Basically giving away their images for free to content creators. I bet most people using these images for their content have no idea they are pushing AB products OR that they are buying into how AB wants to start marketing craft beer.
This bums me out. But kudos to the marketers at AB. Sneaky as fuck.
Do they not have a right? SQUARE and harley davidson also have curated images
I dunno, if "Content Creators" are using free images then they kind of can't complain that the images are selling something on behalf of the actual creator can they?
It was always going to get infiltrated. It's a shame and hope it doesn't get saturated with corp imagery. And if it does, a new unsplash will prevail. The example you show though looks a pretty useful photo for general use.
TBH mate if you are trying to win business using free resources you can't complain too much. Just clone out the logos innit. Good luck.
Unsplash seems to me to be something like the 99designs of the stock photo world, or at least as exploitative. Photographers don't get paid other than with a small credit below the image, which just perpetuates it.
kind of reminds me of when North Face got busted replacing wikipedia images