Author Topic: Items for Resale or not? (Standard vs Extended licence) (Read 4618 times)

Blackx · « **on:** December 29, 2018, 21:46 »

Hi, I am mostly a contributor to microstock agencies, but I started using other's photos too. Hopefully this question is not too of topic here.

I have a photo-manipulation, composed of multiple other photos:

Most notably there are photos of camels+person, manta, luggages and the desert landscape. There are also about 10 other images, but practically unrecognizable.

I made it as a training, so for the photos I bought are using the Standard licence - so far so good I hope.

But what if I present it on my web and someone would contact me to buy a print or something (for their personal purpose). Not that it is a probable situation, but one can dream

And I am also asking for possible similar cases in the future.

In the case of printing for someone else, is it suddenly an "Item for Resale"? And if it is, does these images "play major role in it"? There are the two conditions that would require to have an Extended licence.

The Extended licence is so expensive though, that a single prints would be unlikely to return the investment (or even a handful of prints).

So there is another question: If the Standard licence wouldn't be enough to print it twice and Extended licence is overkill, it is possible to meet the requirements by buying the Standard licence twice? However, there might be a technical issue, that an agency interface generally doesn't let a customer to buy the image twice.

Thanks for any reactions!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2018, 02:38 »

Very nice composite.

You can use the composite image you created from other people's work for your business, training or on your web site to advertise your training. All exactly the sort of the stock is intended for.

You are on very shaky ground if you start trying to sell prints without buying extended licenses for all of the components. If you are giving prints away as a marketing promotion, that would be OK, but if you are taking money for "printing for someone else" that's resale.

If I understand you correctly, almost everything is other people's photos. Saying that each one is a minor part of the whole is really skirting the point. You could take the approach Fotolia used to allow (not sure if Adobe does) where for each print you sell you have to purchase a new standard license on behalf of the buyer (and in your case that would be 15 licenses for each print). You don't say which (or how many) agencies you licensed work from.

You're really better off taking your own photos for composites you plan to sell prints of - there's lots of gray area here, especially if multiple agency license terms are at issue.

Blackx · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2018, 08:34 »

Thank you, Jo Ann! Yes, this is what I feared. I realize this is a weird/gray area, whih is probably leaning towards the Extended licence, but is not very clearly described in the licensing conditions, that is why I was asking.

In this case it is just one agency (Depositphotos) from which I would need two photos (the dunes and the camels). The rest is from Pixabay with a CC0 licence or is so small or is distorted heavily that it really plays a very minor role.

But still it seems that this is still two images too much. I will try to contact Depositphotos to hear their opinion on this and maybe also Adobe Stock to see if there there is a different approach. Thank you for the tip! I will post the answer(s) here.

angelawaye · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2018, 10:14 »

Just a warning, Pixabay has some stolen images on their site. Even if you think they are creative commons, they could have been stolen. A lot of my work is given away for free on those shady websites. It makes me so mad because people get the impression because it's free, they are free to use it however they want (Taking into no account they could be stolen).

Blackx · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2018, 11:12 »

Quote from: angelawaye on December 30, 2018, 10:14

Just a warning, Pixabay has some stolen images on their site. Even if you think they are creative commons, they could have been stolen. A lot of my work is given away for free on those shady websites. It makes me so mad because people get the impression because it's free, they are free to use it however they want (Taking into no account they could be stolen).

Great point and sorry to hear you are able to find a lot of your images on those sites. I encountered a few of my images on some Russian websites (free to use cliparts! etc.), so I understand your frustration.

Blackx · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2018, 15:38 »

Just a side note: I found a weird situation with a photo found three times: On Pixabay and TWICE on Adobe Stock under two different accounts. Not sure what is the origin, but seems that at least one of the Adobe accounts stole it from Pixabay.

https://pixabay.com/en/bird-wings-fluttering-nature-1045954/

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/images/id/224445377

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/images/id/237579501

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** December 30, 2018, 16:15 »

Quote from: Blackx on December 30, 2018, 15:38

Just a side note: I found a weird situation with a photo found three times: On Pixabay and TWICE on Adobe Stock under two different accounts. Not sure what is the origin, but seems that at least one of the Adobe accounts stole it from Pixabay.

https://pixabay.com/en/bird-wings-fluttering-nature-1045954/

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/images/id/224445377

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/images/id/237579501

Pixabay is a weird site. Below the image, there's a link which looks as though it will take you to Shutterstock ('sponsored images Shutterstock), but it actually takes you to Adobe.

Possibly the two Adobe vendors thought as it is attributed as CC0, they could post it as stock (You generally can't though some agencies allow it: but as one can't usually know for sure if something is CC0 for sure, it's a dangerous game). Or maybe one of the Adobe files is the original. Or some other possibility, who knows?
Whatever, it's interesting that both of the Adobe pics have the same keywords, including a lot of totally irrelevant keywords, and no-one has even gone to the mild trouble of identifying the bird (which isn't a hummingbird).

Blackx · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2019, 06:13 »

To let you know the reply of the Depositphotos:

Quote

This usage requires the Extended license.
If you're on a tight budget, we are ready to provide a good discount based on your needs.

Interesting. So it is as we expected, but doesn't completely rule out cases which would get ridiculously expensive with plenty of Extended licences.

Pixart · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2019, 11:58 »

Isn't the license for one end user? Is it different than making a commissioned print for a client? Couldn't he sell it and then purchase all the photos again if he finds a second user and still be legal?

Blackx · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2019, 12:26 »

Quote from: Pixart on January 02, 2019, 11:58

Isn't the license for one end user? Is it different than making a commissioned print for a client? Couldn't he sell it and then purchase all the photos again if he finds a second user and still be legal?

This is what suggested in the last paragraph of the original post. But sadly, Depositphotos website doesn't allow purchasing the same item twice. The "Buy" button simply change to "Download".

However, it is possible that the Envato marketplace (i.e. Photodune for photos) might expect this pattern, so might be actually usable in this case. (Not 100 % sure yet, though)