MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How do you recognize an API client of Adobe?  (Read 2333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SVH

« on: July 15, 2021, 10:12 »
0
Hi all,
I was wondering if and how you can recognize a website that is an API client of Adobe or not. I have two links of photo's of mine that are sold commercially.
The first one looks like an API client. You can see the watermark of Adobe and I guess when they sell something they buy a SL license for each sale.
The second one is a company that bought the photo through a standard license with Adobe and then uses it commercially to sell wallpaper. But no watermark of Adobe, no mentioning of Adobe anywhere or me, the artist.

So can the second website still be selling the photo's legally with just the standard license because they made a special arrangement with Adobe or so? And how can you tell from looking at the website without asking them or Adobe if they made such an agreement? Because if you can't then there is no use ever checking if your photo's are properly licensed or not. You obviously can't bother the seller or Adobe all the time when in doubt.

1. https://www.foto4art.nl/nl/zelfklevend-fotobehang-0-szukaj-434278208-full-moon.html
2. https://www.fotobehang.com/dromige-strand.html

Thanks for your insights already  ;)


« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2021, 12:52 »
+3
The short answer is that I don't think you can be sure unless there is some FAQ on the web site that talks about the image source. You can make some reasonable guesses based on how the site behaves.

It's a good bet that the first site is using the API as you can do a keyword search and see a bunch of photos from Adobe stock in a page of search results.

The second site has very few results for common search terms (such as lake or beach) so it looks as if they've purchased licenses for those images specifically.

With the exception of a couple of fringe sites that included items for resale rights with a standard license (like Creative Market did, possibly still does), none of the stock sites permit that from a single standard license purchase. They would need to purchase one standard license per customer to avoid violating typical license terms.

As far as policing sites where you find your images, it doesn't hurt to keep an eye on who is selling what (or giving what away) just to know about the market into which we license our work. If you saw something obviously wrong (such as offering an image for download which no license permits) you might pursue it with a DMCA notice.

In an ethical, balanced marketplace, the agencies would, as part of the costs they bear, police the licensing of images and protect their artists' copyrights. I haven't seen any evidence of that in many years.

SVH

« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2021, 15:19 »
0
Thanks Jo Ann for your answer.
In the end I just wrote an email to Matt Hayward because it's Adobe we are talking about. I guess, if he doesn't answer, I will just file an DMCA notice and hope that will help. Also because Adobe itself, via general communication, is not responding anymore and they think it's an API client without looking properly. Probably because they get so many questions about real API clients. I contacted the seller and they said that it was to costly to buy the EL if the picture wouldn't sell as wallpaper so they bought the SL instead. But if they would sell they promise to buy the EL. Which is completely not the strategy of an API client. The buy an SL for each sale. That's why I think it's a clear case of abuse of the SL. And if Adobe doesn't care then Adobe is maybe not the place to put your photo's for sale if you hope for the occasionally extended license. Because if this selling company can do it like this, with consent of Adobe, everybody is able to do it. Maybe it's a new business oppurtunitiy for all of us. Buy the best photo's from Adobe with an SL and sell then commercially as T-shirts, prints and whatever. And if they ask you why you never bought a EL license, just say you never sold anything with those specific photo's of theirs.

« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2021, 07:02 »
+1
at the end STANDARD getting EXTENDED without any care on contributors! That is the future!
Alamy: They buy for PERSONAL use and use it different!
Everywhere now like that, right?
Etsy and all these free pic sites also: taking the best and sell for themself.
SS: does no care about thiefs.

And so on, and so on.

Great motivation to upload our best photos/videos, isnt it?

Who knows: Maybe Wirestock will get an agency with following licensing:
standard only in very small size - to small for prints and mugs.
big sizes only for extended.

???


SVH

« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2021, 13:49 »
0
So, after a pretty long time, I finally convinced the Adobe support employee the bought license was not the right one and then I got directed to the copyright stock department. There, unfortunately, it did also cost some time to get an answer and get them to take action. But finally today I saw that the client who paid peanuts for the photo's to sell them commercially went and bought the extended license, which obviously they should have done in the first place.

So, even though it took a hell of time, compliments for Adobe settings things straight with their client.

And it shows in the end:
If infringement takes place and you find out, it (sometimes) does pay to make a case of it.

Next time though, I will write directly to the copyright department instead of the customer support. Just had to know where to write to :)



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
43 Replies
19081 Views
Last post November 30, 2008, 19:30
by microstockinsider
72 Replies
23725 Views
Last post September 07, 2011, 23:25
by RacePhoto
6 Replies
5688 Views
Last post November 29, 2012, 11:25
by Sean Locke Photography
3 Replies
4057 Views
Last post October 11, 2015, 10:12
by sweetgirll
4 Replies
4173 Views
Last post April 01, 2018, 15:01
by MarcvsTvllivs

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle