Author Topic: is it legal for a shop to buy an image from any stock agency and sells prints? (Read 10232 times)

Lambros Kazan · « **on:** December 06, 2011, 14:20 »

Hi everyone.
I recently found an image of mine in this store:
http://www.stickit.gr/en/new-products
(This is the photo: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-80092114/stock-photo-acropolis-parthenon-by-night-under-full-moon-athens-greece.html )

These people are selling prints, at any size you ask for, for a price that goes even to hundreds of Euros.

The question is: The licence of RF, covers something like that? Is it legal?

Thank you for your time...

Anita Potter · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2011, 14:25 »

Depends on which agency they got it from and if they purchased the proper license for printing. I know SS doesn't allow print on demand but places like FT and DT might if it had the proper licensing. Is there anyway you could track down which site they got it from?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2011, 14:27 »

It could be a partnership where they either buy the EL after the fact, or they buy a license for each sale on behalf of the buyer and print on their behalf.

stickit.gr · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2011, 14:55 »

Hi, mr Kazan.
I suppose the following license is cover us . And it is purchased from a legal site, selling under your authority the image.
If i am wrong let me know it.
( The ......... , is available on notice)
"All files on ........... are sold with a royalty-free license.

........ royalty-free license allows you to use images in your projects without limitations on time, the number of copies printed, or geographical location of use."
Thank you,
Panagiotis
(i suppose it would be more professional if you have contact with us, asking for images licensing.)

avava · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2011, 15:04 »

Quote from: stickit.gr on December 06, 2011, 14:55

Hi, mr Kazan.
I suppose the following license is cover us . And it is purchased from a legal site, selling under your authority the image.
If i am wrong let me know it.
( The ......... , is available on notice)
"All files on ........... are sold with a royalty-free license.

........ royalty-free license allows you to use images in your projects without limitations on time, the number of copies printed, or geographical location of use."
Thank you,
Panagiotis
(i suppose it would be more professional if you have contact with us, asking for images licensing.)

I'm sorry but I don't understand a word that you say. What place did you download from so I can read all of the licanse.

Lambros Kazan · « **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2011, 15:26 »

I contact Mr Panagiotis and everything is OK. He has the proper licence for it..
Thanks everyone :-)

StockCube · « **Reply #6 on:** December 06, 2011, 15:34 »

Ok, but I wouldn't just take his word for it - what he has cut and pasted above appears to relate to a standard royalty free licence which wouldn't cover him for what is proposed.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2011, 16:06 »

For most sites (all sites?) the standard RF license doesn't cover items for resale, they would need to buy an extended license for that.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2011, 16:23 »

I think FT was the first site to do a deal with a print on demand place that allowed them to show all the FT images via their API and if a buyer wanted to buy a print they would then buy a license for the image and print it. If a second buyer wanted to buy the image, they'd have to buy another regular license for that image.

If you are printing on demand and expect a high volume, the extended license would be considerably cheaper. If you want to offer a lot of choices but don't expect many buyers for any one image, buying individual licenses probably makes sense - after all the buyer could make the purchase and then print what they'd licensed. Making sure that the print shops do pay for additional licenses is the key, and I'm guessing that there's very little policing of such things - we're effectively on the honor system.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2011, 16:33 »

Quote from: stickit.gr on December 06, 2011, 14:55

Hi, mr Kazan.
I suppose the following license is cover us . And it is purchased from a legal site, selling under your authority the image.
If i am wrong let me know it.
( The ......... , is available on notice)
"All files on ........... are sold with a royalty-free license.

........ royalty-free license allows you to use images in your projects without limitations on time, the number of copies printed, or geographical location of use."
Thank you,
Panagiotis
(i suppose it would be more professional if you have contact with us, asking for images licensing.)

No, that typically doesn't cover selling prints. If you tell us where you got it from, we can explain why.

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2011, 17:32 »

Forget about the 'correct' license. I'm pretty sure that the Acropolis and Parthenon are copyright-protected by the Greek tourist board. Without their permission you're not allowed to sell image licenses of them for commercial gain.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2011, 04:53 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2011, 17:32

Forget about the 'correct' license. I'm pretty sure that the Acropolis and Parthenon are copyright-protected by the Greek tourist board. Without their permission you're not allowed to sell image licenses of them for commercial gain.

Boy you are a hard case for copyright aren't you?

First guess is Phidias for the Parthenon, he designed it? But since it was built in the 5th century BC, maybe it public domain by now? The Acropolis is the hill in Athens on which the Parthenon stands. Is this like Ayers Rock where someone is trying to steal the rights that God has for creating it all? In my personal (and distorted) opinion, I'd say the Myceneans own the rights and they expired.

Do you have any documentation, links or basis for the theory that the Greek Tourist Board claims the rights? That would be interesting. It would also mean that all the images on all the sites are in need of upgrading to Editorial or removal. Shhh, I won't tell if you don't.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2011, 09:19 »

Hearing that someone bought a license, even an extended one, for which the artist (photographer) probably got paid $20 or so and then selling prints for "hundreds of euros" leaves a real sour taste in my mouth. It doesn't seem right that everyone makes a killing EXCEPT the guy responsible for the image.

Sadstock · « **Reply #13 on:** December 07, 2011, 13:43 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 07, 2011, 04:53

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2011, 17:32
Forget about the 'correct' license. I'm pretty sure that the Acropolis and Parthenon are copyright-protected by the Greek tourist board. Without their permission you're not allowed to sell image licenses of them for commercial gain.

Boy you are a hard case for copyright aren't you?

First guess is Phidias for the Parthenon, he designed it? But since it was built in the 5th century BC, maybe it public domain by now? The Acropolis is the hill in Athens on which the Parthenon stands. Is this like Ayers Rock where someone is trying to steal the rights that God has for creating it all? In my personal (and distorted) opinion, I'd say the Myceneans own the rights and they expired.

Do you have any documentation, links or basis for the theory that the Greek Tourist Board claims the rights? That would be interesting. It would also mean that all the images on all the sites are in need of upgrading to Editorial or removal. Shhh, I won't tell if you don't.

I recall the Board tried this several years back, but don't know how successful they've been convincing the world that you need to license the rights from them...

gostwyck · « **Reply #14 on:** December 07, 2011, 13:51 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 07, 2011, 04:53

Do you have any documentation, links or basis for the theory that the Greek Tourist Board claims the rights? That would be interesting. It would also mean that all the images on all the sites are in need of upgrading to Editorial or removal. Shhh, I won't tell if you don't.

I know this was discussed on the IS forums sometime ago and I thought at the time that IS was removing such images. If you do a forum search on 'parthenon' IS there is actually a thread titled "Greece off limits" started by our very own SJL in 2007 but it appears to have since been deleted. IS also have hundreds of images of the Parthenon so I guess the GTB's 'copyright', if it ever existed, is not being applied.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #15 on:** December 07, 2011, 14:49 »

The tourist board did try to claim copyright over everything but I think their claim just collapsed because nobody paid any attention to them. That's how things work in Greece, the authorities attempt to impose laws and the citizens just ignore them.

It was a stupid idea, anyway, because they want their monuments to be projected worldwide in travel adverts.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #16 on:** December 07, 2011, 15:18 »

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on December 07, 2011, 09:19

Hearing that someone bought a license, even an extended one, for which the artist (photographer) probably got paid $20 or so and then selling prints for "hundreds of euros" leaves a real sour taste in my mouth. It doesn't seem right that everyone makes a killing EXCEPT the guy responsible for the image.

If the cost of the materials (canvas, frame, printer, ink) and labor to print the image with adequate quality control, which isn't just a push the button and forget it except at low end places like Wal-Mart, are factored in, the site selling the print isn't making a a killing, but just a profit on their sale. That seems OK to me given that they have to buy an XL size to make a print.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #17 on:** December 07, 2011, 16:37 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 07, 2011, 15:18

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on December 07, 2011, 09:19
Hearing that someone bought a license, even an extended one, for which the artist (photographer) probably got paid $20 or so and then selling prints for "hundreds of euros" leaves a real sour taste in my mouth. It doesn't seem right that everyone makes a killing EXCEPT the guy responsible for the image.

If the cost of the materials (canvas, frame, printer, ink) and labor to print the image with adequate quality control, which isn't just a push the button and forget it except at low end places like Wal-Mart, are factored in, the site selling the print isn't making a a killing, but just a profit on their sale. That seems OK to me given that they have to buy an XL size to make a print.

My photo printer, which I sometimes use in my business for proofing, is not the highest end model but way up the line from what consumers buy, uses premium paper and inks and it still costs my pennies per print when factored out over the capacity of an ink cartridge etc. etc. Any place specializing in doing high end prints on any medium is going to buy in quantity which brings the cost per print down substantially.

Add in high end canvas (if bought in bulk is still not terribly expensive) top quality framing and shipping and perhaps you're right but it's still one hell of a profit margin.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #18 on:** December 08, 2011, 00:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 07, 2011, 14:49

The tourist board did try to claim copyright over everything but I think their claim just collapsed because nobody paid any attention to them. That's how things work in Greece, the authorities attempt to impose laws and the citizens just ignore them.

It was a stupid idea, anyway, because they want their monuments to be projected worldwide in travel adverts.

No disagreement with anyone here, it's the concept that gets me. Not only Greece but the whole Italian "Freedom of Panorama" complications. Each country in the world is an individual case.

Greece: the "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place without the consent of the author of the work and without payment of any remuneration.

Italy: The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state owned things with some artistic, historic, archeologic or ethnoantropologic interest; libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities unless explicitly removed on a case by case basis.

Great Britain: National Trust and Heritage seem to own everything interesting and claim the rights because they maintain the history and antiquity.

Kenya: copyright on artistic works "does not include the right to control reproduction and distribution of copies, or the inclusion in a film or broadcast, of an artistic work situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public." (I mention this because my Step-Daughter went there on AFS and they said, if you take a picture of the flag, a soldier or a Govt. building, you can be arrested. I thought that extreme was of interest.)

But the point was still, can someone buy a license from some of the sites and make art prints without an EL? Are they limited to one for each print or one license and they can print all they want.

Please Lambros what agency sold it so people can understand what's going on?

Lambros Kazan · « **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2011, 10:41 »

I think -Jsnover- has cover this subject..
Fotolia - 1 lisence per print... ( Don't really now how can this be tracked yet, after the first download )
Thank you jsnover, thank you all for your replies..

Drew007 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2012, 12:54 »

Am I allowed under most Enhanced License Agreements to print and resell manipulated photos (by various photographers) @ 36"x48"?

This is not a on demand situation, as there will be a limit 10-20 prints of my Photoshop CS5 manipulated images on Gatorfoam with text on the image. In the future my offerings may include mugs and mouse pads.

Essentially the photo is just the starting point for my manipulations, this also may include montages.

I don't want to exploit any artist / photographer under any circumstances - please advise.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2012, 13:26 »

Quote from: Drew007 on January 04, 2012, 12:54

Am I allowed under most Enhanced License Agreements to print and resell manipulated photos (by various photographers) @ 36"x48"?

This is not a on demand situation, as there will be a limit 10-20 prints of my Photoshop CS5 manipulated images on Gatorfoam with text on the image. In the future my offerings may include mugs and mouse pads.

Essentially the photo is just the starting point for my manipulations, this also may include montages.

I don't want to exploit any artist / photographer under any circumstances - please advise.

You would need to buy Extended Licenses, per image.

Drew007 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 04, 2012, 13:35 »

can that get pricey?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #23 on:** January 04, 2012, 13:49 »

The exact terms and prices for extended licenses vary from agency to agency - generally the more rights, the higher the price. So printing items for resale might have a limit on the number of items in some extended licenses (iStock) but not at other agencies. In all cases I don't think it matters what the item is - so a mug, mousepad or poster would all just count as an item under the EL for items for resale.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** January 04, 2012, 15:10 »

Quote from: Drew007 on January 04, 2012, 13:35

can that get pricey?

Yes. Hopefully the purchase would pay off for you.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: is it legal for a shop to buy an image from any stock agency and sells prints? (Read 10232 times)

Lambros Kazan

Anita Potter

Sean Locke Photography

stickit.gr

avava

Lambros Kazan

StockCube

traveler1116

Jo Ann Snover

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

RacePhoto

digitalexpressionimages

Sadstock

gostwyck

BaldricksTrousers

Jo Ann Snover

digitalexpressionimages

RacePhoto

Lambros Kazan

Drew007

Sean Locke Photography

Drew007

Jo Ann Snover

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors