Designers, be careful and DO NOT use the Flaticon/Freepik icons!


#1

Hey,

I saw Droid Icon Theme, in the which the deisgner said he used some icons from Freepik.

It is dangerous to use the icons from Flaticon/Freepik!

Flaticon/Freepik is the WORST enemy of open source licence, of the open art, of Linux users. It is the BIGGEST evil!

Flaticon/Freepik is GettyImages. A photographer donated her own photos to the public library, and GettyImages stole those photos and claimed as owners of them. One day GettyImages sued this photographer for the violations of HER OWN photos the which GettyImages claimed as owners.

Flaticon/Freepik has an own licence the which is the biggest enemy of GPL and of MIT. It forbids you of redistributing, of sub-licencing or then of modifying.

Not just that, Flaticon/Freepik stole the icons of Icons8 and claimed as owners of them and was going to sue Icons8!

Flaticon/Freepik also stole the open source icons of Google and Twitter and sub-licenced to a different licence. And if you take some Google and Twitter icons from Flaticon, Freepik will sue you!

DO NOT USE THEM!

Protect yourselves from Flaticon, Freepik and GettyImages!


#2

Shutterstock pulled off the greatest image heist in history, and a U.S court let them get away with it. Just to mention.


#3

I think many of the designers of opendesktop (those who create their works from scratch) do not use any of those sites and those who have to visit these places is to get initial inspiration for their creations.

So that is very unlikely to affect creators of “original content”


#4

I read Shutterstock’s biography. They deal with Getty. Argh!


#5

But some of them use few icons and were not aware of this.

I alerted the original author of one icons theme and he removed all the icons of Flaticon and Freepik, and scratched the new icons from zero. From now, he will use only Pixabay, a site of open source art.


#6

So I’m seeing a whole lot of accusations and conclusions, but I’m not seeing anything to actually substantiate any of them. The closest you come is mentioning that they are somehow the same as Getty Images, which they’re not, exciting a true story of something that Getty Images did but you fail to provide one single example of anything freepik did that was at all negatively impactful nor have they sued anybody to the best of my knowledge.

So far based on what you even said, the most they’ve done is ask for an attribution link when you download the free version, which is very much in the spirit of Open Source. I challenge you to find one piece of Open Source software that doesn’t have an attribution link somewhere in it.

Are you trying to say that word press is evil and just like Getty Images because they have attribution links in their source code that is required for it to run? How about Drupal? Or joomla? How about archive.org, they asked for the same type of attribution, are some of the pioneers flying in the face of Open Source?

It just seems like you need to better educate yourself on what exactly open source means, and what the different licenses mean.

For example, WordPress would damn sure probably do the shit out of somebody if they had literally rebranded all the Fortress source code named it a different CMS and actively marketed it as something other than WordPress if they were able to pull that off even though it was substantially WordPress oh, and they would be right for doing it. WordPress gets credit for all the sites that use it freely through the earmarks of Wordpress guitar throughout the source code and Design, no different from an attribution link for freepik.

Furthermore, another topic you should probably familiarize yourself with is something called " libel" …

Although we have free speech in the US, and much of the world, there are limitations on it including the fact man cannot go making wild unsubstantiated claims about a person or entity with the intent to harm its respective reputation if you have insufficient evidence to back that claim, sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement you’re making or outright know it to be false. You definitely fall into the category of insufficient evidence to back to claim as you have provided zero, technically you could be sued… and by all appearances it would be actually warranted …Just sayin