| » Forum Index » General comments » Topic: The ambiguity of stock library regulations! |
|
Posted on 14/01/05 10:07:19 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
An interesting discussion point cropped up on iStockphoto.com. They have several forums, one of which being Photo Requests (for which I made the house under construction image). I posted a question regarding submission of composite images, whether it was permitted or not. Someone replied, pointing out that using someone else's images in a montage and adding them to your own portfolio is a no-no, because you'd be selling them on as your own. Now, that's a fair point and one I had completely overlooked - but it posed the question: What is the difference between having these images available for download - whether it's to fulfill a request or just random uploads - and downloading the images to create a design for an external client. Surely, the download fee would be paying for the work that went into the image, which is not really reselling it, as it would be classed as a new design? Does this make any sense, or am I being daft? _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 14/01/05 10:18:07 PM |
|
tabitha 1
Guest Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
This side of this hobby has always baffled me. Just to add to this discussion, where do we stand as to the use of Googled images?? Any work that I have done that has been used for anything other than my hobby I always make sure that I take the pics myself or get them through a family/friend source, but I feel sure that a time will arise when I need something not available on my doorstep? _________________ "She had lost the art of conversation but not, unfortunately, the power of speech." George Barnard Shaw. |
Posted on 14/01/05 11:02:59 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
You couldn't legitimately use an image found on google for commercial purposes as you wouldn't own the rights to it. There are a lot of good public (ie. free) stock libraries out there, a few of which have been listed here in the forums before. The problem with stock libraries arises when you want to redistribute the image for tutorials, etc., which in most cases is not allowed under their terms and conditions (as I found out the hard way!). The answer is, as you said, to take the photo yourself. _________________ A happy-go-lucky chap, always dressed in black |
Posted on 15/01/05 12:14:41 PM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply  |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
This has always been a problem for me. Free stock photography is hard to come by or at least hard to source the images your looking for. Google is convienent but you know you cannot use such images for any commercial venture due to copyright infringements, even free source Stock Photography can have restrictions upon commercial usage - so you are left with the option of paying for Stock Photography which even then can be restricted. My budget is tight if non-existant and therefore bridging the gap between doing something as a hobby and doing it for profit seem all the more wider because of my lack of funds - even showing off my portfolio is problematic because a lot of my animations have been made via found images on Google. I could take my own photographs, but without models, props, studio lighting etc. I'm limited in what I can do and it's always the case that when you need an image for a montage you can never get all the elements you need with just your own camera. Even Googling is a problem because when I need an image shot from a certain angle with the right subject matter it can be an almost impossible task - so then I start to think laterally on how I can take other images and montage them together to get what I want - but that of course means having to find even more images. Oh well this is a fact of life as a montager and I wish it was one which could be so easily overcome. Becky (frustrated montager) _________________ mad as a badger and twice as furry |
Posted on 15/01/05 1:24:37 PM |
|
mj
Guest Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally published without notice. For further information about copyright amendments in the URAA, request Circular 38b. The Copyright Office does not take a position on whether copies of works first published with notice before March 1, 1989, which are distributed on or after March 1, 1989, must bear the copyright notice. Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office. The first large print sentence leaves everyone in jepordy when copying from the net. The last sentence in the second bold print negates the first sentence if the copyright is not posted on a web site. The way I read this, and I am most likely wrong, if I were to take 2 images that were copyrighted and made a collage from them then the other two do not have the right to claim ownership. Which would then make me the copyrighter. I am not sure about the laws in other countries. Let me know your thoughts. _________________ -Never met a PS'er I didn't like- Will Rogers |
Posted on 15/01/05 7:04:37 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
MJ, I've often pondered on the whole montage from copyrighted images thing and have likened it to the music industry: It's all a matter of how much you use and what you use. In music, how could someone tell that you've pinched their drum rhythm or a snippet from a guitar riff and used it your own composition, similarly, in a montage, if you use Tom Cruise's body and stick someone else's head on it, unless the photographer (or drooling TC fan) recognises it, you're pretty safe. However, if you use the aformentioned person as it was in the original image, you've probably got problems, the same way as if you use someone's song and just add a couple of your own bits to it. The copyright laws are a pain, mainly because they are so hard to police, particulalrly with the internet. I had an image disqualified from Worth once because the photographer recognised it and complained. _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 15/01/05 10:04:03 PM |
|
mj
Guest Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
I have to agree with you David, as you, I have fought with this too many times. I still hold the contention that any photo that has been manupulate from the original becomes another art form and the original copyright is invalid. ( opinions are like mouths, everyone has one). I belive that at Worth 1000 there is a click. The same people win every new contest. I know my work is not a 10 but the highest I ever got was a 4 and I am better than that.  _________________ -Never met a PS'er I didn't like- Will Rogers |
Posted on 15/01/05 10:09:58 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
I'm saying nothing....  _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 16/01/05 08:21:15 AM |
|
John-BoB
* Posts: 29 Reply  |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
So if someone posts an image and does not have a copyright on there page I can use there picture for comercial use? Thats what I got out of it anyway. Isn't that what those stock places are for? To sell photos for comercial use? |
Posted on 17/01/05 5:05:40 PM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 7000 Reply  |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
The use of images for commercial purposes, such as selling them to newspapers and magazines, is very strictly regulated - even if you only use a bit of a person. I once did an image for Time Out magazine that used a photo of the actor Ross Kemp, which was one I'd had on file for years (it had originally been sent to me by a newspaper for a montage). Even though I cut the head off the body and used it in a different setting, and it ended up less than 1cm high, the photo library where it came from contacted me and demanded a fee for its use. I had no option but to pay it, or face a troublesome court appearance. There are only two sources of truly "free" images. There are online image libraries such as morgue file, which are run by people who believe photography should be generally available. Then there are websites caught in their own legal funding loopholes, such as the various sites for the US department of Defense whose photos are in the public domain, and therefore useable. Finding pictures of recognisable celebs, however, is a major problem. Unless you're supplied them by a publication for specific use in that publication, you're facing fees if you're caught out. This especially applies to putting recognisable pics of people on CD-ROMs and distributing them that way. Why do you think I use photos of George Dubya in the book? It's not because I'm a fan, you know! |
Posted on 18/01/05 08:03:09 AM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
I think Stock Exchange and ImageAfter have the same ethos as Morguefile - Imageafter supplied a lot of images to one of the Photoshop technique magazines, so they're re-distributable as well - altoug some of their images are a little on the small side (1280x960). _________________ A happy-go-lucky chap, always dressed in black |
Posted on 03/03/05 9:31:25 PM |
|
Sarah Peckman
* Posts: 1 Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
So Steve, how did you get the ok from David Duchovny to make him bald in Chapter 6?  (love it)
I gotta know! ~Sarah |
Posted on 03/03/05 9:52:57 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
The images were back to front, Duchovny really is bald, Steve gave him hair _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 04/03/05 08:06:21 AM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 7000 Reply |
Re: The ambiguity of stock library regulations!
I didn't stick his head on the CD! That's where the difficulty comes - not from using the people's images, but by distributing them. And that's why I can't put images on the CD for most of the Case Studies, since they have celebs in them. Welcome to the forum, Sarah. Steve |