Here is the post that went out with the closure - in case you are curious.
======================
I am no longer planning to be part of Untold Possibilities. As partly it was my idea and I am the Co-Founder I tried to close it down. I am not sure what I am doing wrong but at this point I could not. There is a chance only Patti can close it down for good as she is the Founder. I closed all submission opportunities though. I apologize for the inconvenience.

I started this group with a very high aesthetic expectations. Very quickly I had to realize that this principle simply does not work on DA in the way I would like to. On DA it is simply not comme il fault to say to anyone 'I am declining your submission to our photomanip group as it is a bad, unskilled work'. And that's exactly what I wanted to do: create a place where it is a great honor to submit to as you are in an outstanding company and at the same time visitors can come and their jaws drop at the fantastic creativity and skillfulness. You can decline a submission here with several reasons but aesthetics (which would be the most important) is not among them; in fact, that't the only reason that you can't even mention. Yes, the group would have been very selective. Yes, it would have been elite. In Art that's the only thing that counts: quality. Not friendships, not "I scratch your back and you scratch mine", not pity, not paternalism. Only quality, high aesthetics. But the community here is very different from what I am used to; I am not saying it is worse or better, all I am saying it is different - and that I don't belong here in this sense. "Hide the negative and white lie through your nose" might be a very respectful and desirable attitude but alas, it does not help anyone who would like to develop as an artist, like it or not. If you know me you have probably noticed I am trying to find the good aspect of each and every work I comment on. I take time to look at artworks very carefully. I made it one of my main principles here. But I never say the obligatory, automatic 'great job' IF it is not a great job. I could do so in my private endeavors on DA but not as a group admin. Nevertheless, I made some effort to let some deviants of our group know what I think of their work - in vain. The sugarcoat you need to use here covers the core goal. I have never ever been rude (I genuinely hope) and have never intended to be; I am intelligent enough to say 'no' in a nice but very definite way. However, it does not seem to click at all. Nothing changed, bad submissions keep coming from the very same people I turned down several times because of aesthetic reasons. I will be honest: I got tired of declining the very same people over and over again (as I took my time and very often wrote a note why I declined a certain piece - I found it important for the sake of artistic development). In the last few months I gave up writing anything to the declined pieces - it was useless. I even - godforbid! - pushed the 'accept' button automatically without having one look at the submitted pictures. I did not care any more.

I would have liked to leave this group quietly and without any notice but alas, Patti is nowhere to be found and I am not willing to spend any time on something that I feel fake and pretense. Life is too short to live in dishonesty to ourselves. And my attitude in this group became just like that: fake and pretense. So there is nothing else left for me but 'close' the group.

I am not accepting any more deviations to Untold Possibilities. If Patti comes back and decides to go on with the group it will be her decision not mine. I will not be there.

We might meet sometime else, somewhere else.

I thank you for your patience and understanding.

Cheers,

Kinga
==============================

Did you know that there are tons of wonderful copyright free photos? They are called 'public domain images'. It takes a bit more to find the right one for your design (and the resolution is varied although not worse than a lot of DA stocks ), but hey, you don't have to worry about begging for model releases, waiting for permissions and so on! On the long run I bet you even save some time.

"Works in the public domain are those whose intellectual property rights have expired, been forfeited, or are inapplicable. ... Derivative works include translations, musical arrangements, and dramatizations of a work, as well as other forms of transformation or adaptation. Copyrighted works may not be used for derivative works without permission from the copyright owner, while public domain works can be freely used for derivative works without permission. Artworks that are public domain may also be reproduced photographically or artistically or used as the basis of new, interpretive works."  (source)

Here is a list for you to explore images that don't need any kind of permission to use - even commercially. Hooray!

NOTE: although these photos are almost 100% in public domain make sure you check the conditions of the individual pictures (if there are any) and the general terms of use of the site. Some sites may contain both Public Domain and Creative Commons photos - and be aware that Creative Commons photos are not Public Domain images!

Pixabay
Wikimedia Commons
Public Domain Photos
Photos Public Domain
Picdrome
Public-Domain-Photos
4 Free Photos
Public Domain Files
ArsPublik
RePublicDomain
Phototeria
Reusable Art
Free Images Collection
Open Galleries
Easy Stock Photos
Freetems
Public Domain Images
Good Free Photos
My Public Domain Pictures
Best Photos
PD Poster - PD vintage poster art; wonderful source for models!
Totally Free Images
The Best Copyright-Free Photo Libraries
Uncle Sam's Photos

Art Images (paintings, etc.) - Accurate photographs of two-dimensional visual artworks lack expressive content (i.e. indistinguishable from the thousands of other pics of the same subject) and are automatically in the public domain once the painting's copyright has expired (which it has in the US if it was published before 1923). All other copyright notices can safely be ignored. So: carefully check the date of the origin of the the artworks. Great resources for models - I love to use the pre-Raphaelites!

NOTE: unless you have taken the actual photo do not use scanned in photos of an art book. The published photo of an artwork (i.e. the photo itself, not the artwork)  is copyrighted to the author! So the image of Mona Lisa is in public domain BUT if I write a book on it the photos of the Mona Lisa in my book are copyrighted to me/my photographer. If you decide to use a photo that you took somewhere of a Public Domain artwork your photo should contain only the artwork in a non-descriptive manner (in other words: your photo of the Mona Lisa is indistinguishable from the thousands of other pics taken of her).

WebMuseum - check the dates (see above!)
Art Renewal Center - check the dates (see above!)
The Famous Artists

Further links - handle with care! - of  PD and/or CC images:

Public Domain Image Resources

Have fun searching!

Has anyone heard from ? Usually she is very active on DA but I haven't noticed any activity of hers for a while... I am a bit worried, that's all. (Sent her an email and it came back as 'delivery failed'.) Other than that I need to ask her something too.

Written by - please read it.

Seems everybody is talking about sxc...There is controversy in the photomanipulation community here on dA. Read this journal to see what has inspired me to add my own 2c - http://fav.me/d5wzrlo
I wanted to provide my own interpretation of the sxc (Stock Exchange) Image Licence Agreement and what is required by sxc for us to use the stock images offered there.  
While I am definitely not a lawyer, I have used, and helped to write, such agreements for the software company where I worked for over 10 years. I have communicated the rule and intent of such agreements to resellers, other staff, and end-user customers. I have rewritten such agreements so they are expressed in simple understandable English and I will attempt to analyse and explain the Image Licence Agreement as best I can by quoting it and adding my own comments in bold italics
This is what the Image Licence Agreement says -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We hereby grant to

And I can just repeat what I have written in comments - albeit not as levelheadedly as David above:

There have been several misunderstood items:

(1) Someone suggested to Jade (?) that sxc.hu changed management. It did NOT. Have no clue why and how this has come up. The notification of changed management has been on their front site since 2009 (!) when the founder Hungarians sold it to Getty/iStockphoto. Someone did not notice it up until now  

(2) Based on their official legal documents that are publicly displayed on the site (please go and read it carefully before you are jumping into conclusions!) everything is fine with using it in any kind of derivative artwork - the only thing you need to pay attention is, the individual photographers' condition (like here in DA, duh!). Drawing conclusions based on a rep that does nothing else but keep repeating that you cannot sell or redestribute the original photographs without making any changes in them, and NOT based on the site's official legal document, is a silly thing (to say the least) in my opinion. I am not going to change my use/attitude towards sxc.hu because of this, and will keep using them in my art, sorry. I don't do anything illegal based on, I repeat: their official legal document. Until it is changed that is the main Terms of Use and not its subjective interpretation.

(3) It is well worth what David (   ) writes about this; mainly what he writes about accepting DDs. I agree with him 100% - mainly because the use of sxc.hu has been misinterpreted and the decision was based on this misinterpretation.

(4) Now a whole bunch of groups will not accept sxc.hu resources that sent down chills to a lot of photomanipulators here - it has been a totally unnecessary tension, again, based on badly misinterpreted conditions. Now THAT'S what really frustrates me now, not the use of sxc.hu (which is crystal clear for me based on their official legal licence agreement, and not on (mis)interpretations by anyone).

With this I have done dealing with this silly issue both in journals and in comments. Not worth the time.

Edit: got a reply from the rep (the exact same wording as everyone else - showing that it is a canned answer) - full of incorrect statements. I would give a prize to the person who collects the most mistakes, but alas, they prohibit me to 'disclose' their secrets My decision on sxc.hu stocks has not changed a bit; if anything it strengthened it.

Practically it says that because DA is selling images they prohibit to use their stuff; that collages are not original art works (!); on the other hand it also says that derivative work is not allowed UNLESS the original photographer agrees (which we claimed all along - and it is not different from the DA rules); quotes the DA Terms of Agreement that says that DA needs to have a "(...) licence" to your derivative work to be able to show it on its (DA's) site. In other words, they say that (1) you don't own the copyright to your own derivative work because you used sxc images (which is bullshit itself; you don't own the copyright to the used sxc photos (duh!) but yes, you do to your original collage), and (2) consequently you cannot show it in DA. Well... Again, this is NOT in their terms. Period. This is made up. Go and read yourself. Wrote them again - just because I won't let them get away with bullshit. Our lawyer friend backs me up 100%, by the way. I truly wish they sue me - but they won't because one professional look on their Licence Agreement and DA's agreement proves that Mr. D (the rep, seems to be the only one there) is talking bullshit.

And just for you to know, again, from the reply of the rep, cd covers are 'decorative' works that are allowed to use sxc stuff as elements of the design (!) but digital collage is not as it is derivative.

This is so hilarious that I don't even know what to say; to satisfy this smart Mr. D.  I will call all my pics 'cd covers' from now time on

So here - take it as you want. Good news, bad news, who knows. See the comments too - I still think there was just an ignorant customer service rep - the statement is clearly contradicts their own image licensing agreement (see the legal document on their own site).

About sxc.hu stockGreetings!
A few of you have been really worried lately about using stock from sxc.hu here because of the change in their ownership. Basically, you were concerned that their license says that you cannot redistribute their stock in whole or in part, by itself or combined with other elements, without the written approval of the original photographer.
As we all know by now, creating a photomanipulation is considered "making a derivative image." And we know we can't make premade backgrounds without permission from the photographers, as doing so is redistributing their work.
I advised a couple of you to check with the Help Desk and sxc.hu to find out the whole truth before making rash decisions about your group that could potentially make everyone panic.
Using my own personal account, I wrote to sxc.hu to find out what the story was. Here's what I said:
I was just wondering whether creating phot

OK, call me naive.

I hope the DA stock providers that I have come across so far can tell that I am really not trying to be sneaky or disrespectful; I am aware that (1) what they do is undoubtedly a form of art, is equal to any other genre, and (2) it is not very easy to create a stock photo with outstanding quality. I am aware of all this. So I am following their rules as much as I can. Honestly.

However.

I have gotten to a a point when I am trying to avoid any kind of DA (model) resources in my manips, and here are the reasons.

Not a long time ago a reliable management company wanted to pick up some of my designs to offer them to their clients as 'ready-made' book covers, cd-covers, etc. I would have gotten paid IF and WHEN a design is sold (50% - the usual ratio). However, they can't do so legally of course until they get the model releases from the models I used in my designs. So I tried to get into contact with the stock providers - 99% of the cases the situation is totally hopeless and frustrating.

A lot of them haven't even replied to me - some of them evidently haven't touched their DA accounts for months or years. Now, that would not be a big problem, if they did not create a very loud and aggressive list of what I should do to be able to use their stocks either commercially or outside DA. But of course they publish long "you can't..." lists, and when I try to follow their instructions and try to either buy a commercial licence or try to find out what they want me to do they are nowhere to be found.

Some of them asked so much money that it was much more than I would have gotten for the cover (we are talking about hundreds of dollars here - that's what they wanted). I tried to tell them that I couldn't pay as much and instead, offered them a fair price plus complete credits, but in vain - they all refused this.

Some of them have no clue where their model is - they cannot get in touch with them to ask for a model release (made me think whether in this case is it legal to offer these model pics as free resources...?)

Anyhow, by now I have bitterly realized that if I am looking for resources probably better to start with professional stock photo sites - there are quite a few that don't charge an arm and a leg for commercial use. Even better to use copyright free pictures and illustrations (which I am trying to do from now on and also, trying to avoid human figures in my pics - both of which are quite a challenge and mostly,  just take away my fun from this genre).

Let me state something again: I would never try to rip off any DA members. Never, ever. I was willing to offer a fair resolution to the stock providers. I don't want to make a fortune from my art; in fact I do not want to live on art as I like to keep my artistic integrity (i.e. choose what, when, with whom I work). What I do I do it for fun and I don't care if I never make a penny on them. So here we are: I don't care that this contract with the management company just did not work out, big deal. But yes, there are young people here for whom an offer like this would be wonderful and a great starting point in their professional career; but judging from my experience it will never work out.

Yes, I am very bitter and frustrated. Because artistic integrity is one thing - but artistic responsibility is another.

P.S. There are of course refreshing exceptions from this phenomenon:   offered her work for digital manipulation with a fair deal (independently from the case above) and was very, very generous with me. Thank you very much to them in the name of any artist.

Check out this Photostream (and her others) here:

[link]

I have found quite a few of my photomanips there as her "own". I recognized several art pieces from DA - and I have notified whomever I could. But you'd better go there and check out whether your artwork was stolen or not.

EDIT: What s/he does is, takes our pics, either cuts out the main motif and puts it in an other environment, or 'recreates' the picture with small changes (and in a ridiculously bad way too...)

I am wondering...

There are deviations, among them really excellent ones too, that somehow 'show up' again and again. I mean, first they were submitted, say 6 months ago, I added them then to my folders (as I liked them), and lo and behold basket-of-gold, after some months I am getting them again in my box as 'new deviations'. I have a very good visual memory so I know at once that 'I have already seen this'... and sure enough, checking out either the original submission date or my favs, there it is...

I am not talking about newly edited old works of course; in that case the artist usually adds (or should add) a note either in the title or in the description ('updated' and such). I am talking about submitting the very same piece twice or even more.

Is this some kind of obnoxious way to solicit more views? Honestly, if it is so, I find it quite annoying and disrespectful for one's watchers.

I love DA but there are some things in DA that I honestly find imbecile and immature (not to speak of the hidden agenda - 'get money out of the users even if we say that the service is free' - which is absolutely fine, I just don't like hypocrisy). One of them is this llama-stuff. So I am happily ignoring it without any hesitation.

But now I got a notification that devart gave me a Brush Lover badge. Coming from that source I am assuming it is some kind of... what? Reward? Another "game" that similar to the llamas? Recognition? What the hell is it? And why should I be happy (am not sarcastic - I honestly don't know)? And what are they good for? Anyone cares about whether I have a badge? (I surely don't, sorry.) Or am I just missing something here?

OMG, my talented collab partner, and I won a first prize in a Dark Halloween challenge at - wow, WOW.

Thanks to the judges and thanks to to be such a generous partner! It was so much fun to create a manip in the midst of my crazy, time-lacking period! Although I don't seem to have time to take part in challenges nowadays I found this collaboration (in which the ever-patient organizers paired up an experienced photomanipulator with a less experienced one) very inspiring. Such a great way to give back to the community - one of things I wish I had thought about first

So thank you & &

Here are a few from the wonderful submissions:

by &
by &
by &
by &

You can check out all the pictures here.