MicrostockGroup
Microstock Footage Forum => General - Stock Video => Topic started by: LP_Stock on May 13, 2018, 07:33
-
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.
-
No. Everything you submit you must own copyright to.
-
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
-
Clear, thanks guys
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
There's a difference. You don't hold copyright to the model itself, but the result of using it, ie., a rendered image, you would. No different than any other "object". Because you light, color, choose the angle, etc.
The Turbosquid thing may be new. It's been a while since I used them.
-
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/ (https://www.cyclesmaterialvault.com/)
-
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/ (https://www.cyclesmaterialvault.com/)
That depends ENTIRELY on where, and under what license, you bought those textures and 3D models. You need to spend some time reading licensing terms.
By the way, wouldn't it be easier to use a computer for animation?
-
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?
Totally agree with 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.
-
Yeah I read through the licenses for every 3D model place I could find in 2014 and the only ones I could find that allow renders for stock were CG Trader and Daz 3D. There were a couple of other smaller ones, but they're not worth bothering with as the models and the range weren't very good. Turbosquid was the first place I checked and they didn't allow it, not sure if that changed at some point, but they don't currently.
Fotolia allow images to be used in derivative products for resale, if you get the extended license. Specifically lists one of the allowed uses as 'videos for resale' with no mention of that excluding stock footage for resale.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yes, that's why I specified detailed/complete scenes.
If what you're selling is two palm leaves waving in the wind, yes, I would hope they were created by the seller.
But any exterior real estate render - not as likely. Bushes, grass, textures, street lamps, etc. are usually created by someone else. An interior render of a kitchen with all the plates, floor textures, outlets etc. No, the majority didn't model all (or any) of that themselves.
The popular space animations you see with satellites, galaxies, astronauts, space vehicles. Nope. Models from NASA and other places.
Satellite dish time lapses on Earth. 3D models from someone else. Solar panel videos. 3D models from someone else.
Anything with the Earth, which is in thousands (tens of thousands) of popular videos. Did they model the world map? I can guarantee they did not. Willing to bet $$$ on this one. ;)
3D cityscapes? I see a lot of City Kit and other city generators...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.”
-
No. Everything you submit you must own copyright to.
Well, you said this, which is correct in a way - you must of course own the copyright to the completed work.
That does not, however, mean that you must own the copyright to every single element in the image. Because you don't. Same in a photograph, you don't (and can't) own the copyright to all the elements in a photo (well, most photos).
Most licenses on stock asset sites (like Shutterstock) do not allow usage as elements in new stock assets, so they would have to come from somewhere else.
-
Read reply #2. Says exactly what you quoted, in a lot fewer words. ;) Nowhere in my reply is there a “thx.”
It also reads as "just another opinion." No better or worse than all the rest. No reference to a source document to back up the assertion.
That is all I am trying to provide. An end to the bickering, by referencing the source. The company that the OP was asking about using. I don't see how it can get any more objective and clear than that. Not just me saying "No." But ShutterStock directly and explicitly saying "no, not in any way shape or form" (OK, I paraphrased, but the actual quote is above... :) )
-
OK, here it is:
"You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock. This means that you cannot submit work obtained from other sources (e.g., online image search results or websites), or incorporate such work into your content submissions, unless you have permission to do so."
Regarding NASA elements:
"If you submit images that incorporate NASA elements that are in the public domain, Shutterstock may accept the image as long as the following text is included in the title for that image: “Elements of this image furnished by NASA.”
-
LOL. And the pontification goes on.
-
LOL. And the pontification goes on.
It's called clarification, since your answer was not complete, and it's not as simple as "no".