So I've been wondering about this question for some time

Can i buy a stock picture on say Shutterstock and use it as a background element in a video that i would later submit back to shutterstock?
I can imagine such usage could be abused so to clarify, I create 3d animated videos, so my 3d animated content would be the main subject, the licensed image would be in the background.

Any insights?

No. Everything you submit you must own copyright to.

Clear, thanks guys

Quote from: Stockmaan on May 13, 2018, 11:03

For my stock animations I use 3D models that I created myself . But I need more complex 3D objects.. I would like to buy some 3d objects/models, is this possible? Or I must created all by myself? Which license allows this? Is there some page that sells this?

Tnx

You have to check the license.  I use Turbosquid.

Turbosquid's TOS seems to not permit that:
"You may not redistribute TurboSquid materials as part of any design template, After Effects template, stock photography, video or clip art for distribution or licensing through any online stock media clearinghouse."

DAZ3D allows usage in 2D but not 3D.

Quote from: Stockmaan on May 13, 2018, 11:03

For my stock animations I use 3D models that I created myself . But I need more complex 3D objects.. I would like to buy some 3d objects/models, is this possible? Or I must created all by myself? Which license allows this? Is there some page that sells this?

Tnx

If you need to license an image or 3D object, then you don't own copyright to it.

Well, you don't own the copyright to the "Advanced Lightning" plug-in in After Effects, but I'm sure no one would say you can't use that in stock footage.

It is used in thousands of clips, and in many bestsellers.

3D models from TurboSquid - a big NO! They are very clear about it in their licensing terms.

3D models from NASA - yes. They are clear about it, and so are the stock agencies. But you must say "elements provided by NASA" or something similar.

Hello,

I use a blender for animation. I bought textures for animations and 3d models. Can I send a job to Shutterstock etc?

https://www.cyclesmaterialvault.com/

Selling a digital creation as stock is different from simply selling copies of it.  What you are selling is not the file, but specific usage rights to the file.  You can't sell that if you don't own it.  When you buy a file, you are buying the right to use it in stated ways, but not the right to sell it again. 

There may be some exceptions to that, but they would be rare, and expensive.

Get better software, and make your own designs.  You ARE an artist, aren't you?

Selling a digital creation as stock is different from simply selling copies of it.  What you are selling is not the file, but specific usage rights to the file.  You can't sell that if you don't own it.  When you buy a file, you are buying the right to use it in stated ways, but not the right to sell it again. 

There may be some exceptions to that, but they would be rare, and expensive.

Get better software, and make your own designs.  You ARE an artist, aren't you?

Using a 2D photo as a backdrop for a 2D stock image is also very different from using a 3D asset in a 2D stock video.

If you are in the 3D world, you will quickly learn that no one makes all the elements of a complete scene themselves. No one. No one owns the copyright to all the elements. Do you own the copyright to the standard shapes that come with the 3D software? Nope. Do you own the copyright to the sky elements in the software (sun, clouds, etc.)? Nope.

Now, some marketplaces (like TurboSquid) specifically forbid use for resale in stock products, but other marketplaces absolutely allow it. You are not selling the 3D model as a 3D model. It is rendered and incorporated into a new 2D work.

It all comes down to whether the new product would compete with the original model. Using a 2D photo as a backdrop and just adding something might compete directly with the original. Using a 3D model as an element in a 2D render does not necessarily compete with the original.

You wouldn't think twice about using the materials that come with 3D software in a 2D stock render right? Or trees/leaves from a vegetation generator? Someone else made those leaves.

---

Of course, some people take it too far and sell renders of complete 3D scenes that they bought, without really changing anything. That USED to be allowed, but the agencies are now not too happy about it, for obvious reasons (thousands of duplicates), even if it was allowed by the seller of the 3D scene.

---

It's just like using virtual instruments in stock music (and all other music). Those instruments/libraries are made to be used in new musical works. You can of course not sell the individual sounds as stock sounds, but you can make something new with them, which is the entire purpose of their existence.

I bet you can go through 10,000 stock music tracks and not find a single one where the seller owns the copyright to all the sounds.

If you are in the 3D world, you will quickly learn that no one makes all the elements of a complete scene themselves. No one. No one owns the copyright to all the elements. Do you own the copyright to the standard shapes that come with the 3D software? Nope. Do you own the copyright to the sky elements in the software (sun, clouds, etc.)? Nope.

I don't think it's that uncommon for people to create all of their own elements when making a rendered image or videos.

Quote from: ForrestBrown on May 16, 2018, 12:16

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on May 15, 2018, 01:32

If you are in the 3D world, you will quickly learn that no one makes all the elements of a complete scene themselves. No one. No one owns the copyright to all the elements. Do you own the copyright to the standard shapes that come with the 3D software? Nope. Do you own the copyright to the sky elements in the software (sun, clouds, etc.)? Nope.

I don't think it's that uncommon for people to create all of their own elements when making a rendered image or videos.

Not in a complete, detailed scene. Ask any professional. That would mean weeks (if not months) of work on one scene. It's simply not practical.

Just pool water, sure. Just a single planet on a black (or starry) background. Sure, although textures for planets are usually bought or downloaded from somewhere. But not a forest landscape, with rocks, trees, leaves, twigs, etc. etc., or a realistic interior / exterior.

I'm a professional animator, so your "ask any profession" is just wrong. It definitely depends on the scene you're working on, but I would guess that a significant amount of the computer generated stock images and videos were entirely created by one person without buying 3D models or textures. 

you said: "Can i buy a stock picture on say Shutterstock and use it as a background element in a video that i would later submit back to shutterstock?"

what you are referring to requires what is known as a mechanical license. most stock agencies have no idea what a mechanical license is, so they do not support it. you would have to pay the original stock image owner every time you sell your new work.

so yes, it is legal, but no, it is not likely to be accpeted because stock agencies do not understand or offer mechanical licensing. you will notice that mechanical licensing is not offered in the licensing options of most stock photo agencies.

I don't know why this topic just goes on and on and on.  Just check with Shutterstock.  Specifically, look here:

   newbie:https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000006623?l=en_US

It opens with this paragraph:

"Every image you upload to Shutterstock must be wholly owned by you. This includes any small element you may have used as part of an illustration or photo."

I think that settles it pretty clearly...  No, you cannot use a background from SS in another image and submit as your own. Period. I see no room for wiggles or questions.

Exactly. See reply #1 and #2. Asked and answered, which the OP acknowledged in reply #4. The rest is just pontification. Or to start an argument. As usual.

Quote from: cathyslife on May 21, 2018, 06:23

Exactly. See reply #1 and #2. Asked and answered, which the OP acknowledged in reply #4. The rest is just pontification. Or to start an argument. As usual.

Not to start (another) argument, but those were simple statements of 'no' and 'thx.'  The thread continued with others offering different opinions.  I don't think anyone actually went to the source (ShutterStock) and quoted their specific requirements though.

So, instead of just saying "no" (or erroneously, "maybe"), I am hoping this quote "from the source" will settle any question here. This is not an opinion. It is a legal quote.

And, before anyone jumps in with "but I got away with it," this is the rule SS uses.  Reviews are done by people, who do not always catch every violation.  Personally, I would not create a work that I knew up front was in violation, with the hope I might get away with it...

Read reply #2. Says exactly what you quoted, in a lot fewer words.    Nowhere in my reply is there a �thx.�