By David Gewirtz
Back in February, we ran an article, "ClickArt contains 1,200,000 images you can't use", that described how Broderbund's ClickArt 1,200,000 product contains both misleading marketing and unreasonable usage restrictions.
While we hate running negative reviews, we'll do so in cases where we think companies are behaving in a predatory manner and that's certainly the case with this product.
What about other ClickArt products?
Upon running the article, we got a number of interesting letters from readers. Jill Balsam asks:
David, would you have any idea if the issue regarding the use of Broderbund's ClickArt also pertains to prior versions of their collections? I've got the 950,000 but have long since discarded the box it came in.
Upon getting Jill's letter, I had no idea, only having looked at the 1,200,000 product. But a happenstance visit to a local CompUSA (which is closing in a few weeks, so sad!) gave me the answer. I took a look at a number of the ClickArt products and they each had the same microscopic usage restriction:
The images contained in this product may not be used in any product that is to be sold, and certain content contained herein may not be used in any print or electronic media of an editorial, commercial, promotional, or corporate nature. See CONDITIONS FOR USE.
What was so weird was that the same restrictions was on the ClickArt Fonts product, a set of fonts. The product is only fonts (although it does include "creative alphabet images"). So, since the restriction message says "The images contained..." and the product is a font product, does that mean you can use the fonts? Who knows?
Again, this is a case of lawyer overkill destroying an otherwise fine product.
No restrictions?
Craig Boudreaux sent us a nice note as well:
The Web site specifically lists: "No subscriptions! Receive unlimited access to all images without having to subscribe" which would seem to claim that the art is available for anything.
Though I see all the claims on the box (and even this one I mentioned) are really to being able to "search" for the art and not to "use" the art. (That's only obvious after reading your article though.) Since that's different than "normal" clipart packages, you are correct that the difference should really be made more apparent.
Thanks for the heads-up!
Anytime, Craig, although we'd prefer to bring you news about great products you'll love to buy and use.
Missing the mark
Maurice Green, PhD, of the Digital Imaging SIG of the Silicon Valley Computer Society thinks we're missing the point:
I think you missed the mark on this one. The package clearly states on the front that it allows you to "Search" for the images. It doesn't say it allows you to copy and use them. It doesn't say that the images are "royalty free". I interpret this to say that all they are giving you for your $49 is a set of thumbnails to find an image you might like to use and then it is up to you to acquire it legally (from Getty or whomever) for your intended use. Personally I would never buy such a product.
Also, it wouldn't be Broderbund who would be suing you if you used the image without license. It would be the copyright owner of the image.
I don't like to disagree with readers, but Maury, I think you're the one missing the mark on this one. We can't, in good conscience, recommend readers buy a product so they can just search for thumbnails, but not do anything with the images once they find them. The product isn't being marketing as an art search service.
Further, the ClickArt brand has been around since the T/Maker days of the early 1980s and it's always been a clip art product. Sadly, this is misleading marketing, not a misunderstanding.
Maury also asks a personal question:
Before I retired from clinical laboratory medicine, I had a resident named Amy Gewirtz. Any relation??
Heck if I know. Apparently, there are a lot of Gewirtz' people out there. On my personal Web site, I do maintain The Official Gewirtz Registry so all those wonderful people with the Gewirtz surname can be found. Feel free to check it out. So far, there's no Amy listed, but there is an Amelia.
Of course, I'm also somewhat backlogged updating the Registry, so there are a few people who sent me information that haven't been reflected on the site.