there's no mention of making these public domain, so they are only free as in beer, fwiw
Probably that pros don't do that as much. It's another thing to give pictures for free when you're not selling them anyway, and another to give them for free when making them is your job.
Think of it like your cousin Joe vs Ed Sheeran doing a free concern at the local park.
I didn't use "albums away for free" because, seriously, hipsters and boomers aside, who buys albums these days?
If anyone downloaded already and could setup a torrent that would be nice. These photos are gorgeous, but not sure if he is know for one (or more) in particular.
That's exactly the kind of thing you can't really do without a clear license, as GP post insinuates.
People used to make the same arguments about introducing artificial light. So overdone!
I mean if you recreate it in order to learn the technique, that's good.
It's like in the bbc show where they were sawing logs in front of an orangutan and the orangutan copied the action, but didn't really know why.
To be clear I don't have any problems with this photographer's work, just remarked that each and every waterfall looks the same on Flickr.
the owner would need to grant a license to be free as in beer. These are fully copyrighted, that website is a catalog, and the copyright holder is offering prints for sale. technically, there is no right to download them beyond the browser and browser cache.
We need labels for "free to train AI models on", at least until/unless the governing bodies declare that all is fair use.
I think "allow our future AI overlords to learn from your work without royalty or credit" is a hard checkbox to sell for a lot of creators. At one point I moved all my cloud photos* from Google to Adobe Lightroom because the latter did offer a checkbox to the effect of "don't use my photos to train neural nets" (or maybe it was a more innocuous 'improve our future products', I can't recall, but it was explicit enough to make me switch)
*including photos of clouds