MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Use of Photoshop plug-ins?  (Read 9001 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 29, 2007, 02:44 »
0
Hi, I have a small dilemma/question that could have ethical answers, but also answers concerning the law and/or Microstock rules.

I am talking about the results of photoshop plug-ins like Xenofex, Flood, Mystical Lighting, Lunar, Splat, Eye Candy
These are all software packages that can create saleable effects.  In fact, I have three questions about using such effects as the MAIN subject of a photo :  (a) is copyright law allowing this? (b) are the microstock sites allowing this? (c) what is your personal opinion (ethics) about it?

I know I have seen examples on the sites, especially the flood effect, but rarely as the main subject on an image.  I have also seen great pics of non-existant planets and skies suppose they were created with the Lunar plug-in, would that be OK (for copyright, microstock rules and ethics) ?  In this case copyright problems might not come from other photographers, but from the makers of the plug-ins?

Just as a comparison : we cannot use fonts created by other people, so can we sell an image with (just an example) a lunar-created moon ?
There IS a difference of course : the images created with the plug-ins remain unique.
Thanks for your input!



« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2007, 08:10 »
0
I use none of these plug-ins but I think usage restrictions should be clearly indicated by creator or the owners of the software,if they allow resell of reproduced files than I don't see any legal or moral issues in that.

« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2007, 12:54 »
0
Thanks Stokfoto.  I followed your advice and went looking for the user agreements of these plug-ins.  That was easier said than done!

As for Alien Skin (Xenofex), there wouldn't be a problem.  I found the agreement and it was only about warranty and software copyright (not about the images created with it).

Mystical lighting goes much farther :  quote :
The software contains copyrighted material, trade secrets, proprietary material and unique visual imagery that is generated from the software algorithms that is proprietary to the Licensor and is not
for resale by the Licensee. You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise reduce the software to a human-perceivable form. You may not modify, network, rent, loan, distribute or create derivative works based upon the software in whole or in part including the creation of effects products or content for resale.

I suppose that means :  no selling of pictures with their effects in it?  (sorry, English is not my mother language, but I do my best).

And for the other plug-ins :   I simply cannot find their user agreements anywhere!


« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2007, 13:12 »
0
...
I suppose that means :  no selling of pictures with their effects in it?  (sorry, English is not my mother language, but I do my best).
No, it means that you cannot sell or distribute their software in any form.

« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2007, 15:15 »
0
Thanks for explaining the legal English.  So in general there's no problem with the makers of the plug-in software packages.

What about the microstock sites?  I did a search on space/planets and found quite a lot of renderend planets and non-existant stars, but I have no idea what software was used to create them and how much creativity was involved.  The same goes of course for other rendered subjects like lightning, starbursts etc.  They seem to be accepted, even as the MAIN subject of the image, but were they created with photoshop plug-ins?

« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2007, 15:28 »
0
I saw a tutorial some time ago teaching how to make a planet in PS or PSP.  It even looks easy after you see it, but I would have never thought of that.  Not that I am very creative anyway.  :)

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2007, 05:30 »
0
Mystical lighting goes much farther :  quote :
The software contains [...] and unique visual imagery that is generated from the software algorithms that is proprietary to the Licensor and is not
for resale by the Licensee. [...]  You may not modify, network, rent, loan, distribute or create derivative works [...] including the creation of effects products [...].



English is not my first language either, but as I understand this, you can't sell images made using this software ("unique visual imagery" & "including the creation of effects"). Which means that it's just a toy or something you could use only for personnal use (i.e. for example your personal web-site ?). But maybe I'm wrong. Any lawyer around ?


RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2008, 14:00 »
0
...
I suppose that means :  no selling of pictures with their effects in it?  (sorry, English is not my mother language, but I do my best).
No, it means that you cannot sell or distribute their software in any form.

Right and it also says, you can not take parts of their software and use it in other software. You can't use images created by this software and use it or sell it, in other software.

There's nothing that says that you can't sell original photos you created using the effects in their package.

graficallyminded

« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2008, 11:23 »
0
Here's my personal viewpoint on this issue:

Plugins are made for the purpose of creating graphics.  I've never found anything wrong with using them for stock.  Anyone can use a basic plugin, but can you combine elements from different plugins, or use them in combination to come up with something unique?  That's what I try to do.  It takes a little bit more time and more playing around, but it's worth it.

« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2008, 14:00 »
0
I was doing a search on this topic because I saw a bokeh photo with starbursts and wanted to know how to do it lol.   (never thought to search for "plug-in" duh!)

Anyway - do all sites accept this combination of photos and plug-ins?  I saw this photo on shutterstock today

 http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2180741-abstract-background-of-holiday-lights.html

and that is what got me thinking about this.

« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2008, 15:38 »
0
I don't use these things either, but if the images you create with them are original and unique I don't see that there's a copyright issue. The plug-in is a tool.

If, for example, someone sells a certain type of stamp that gives a decorative effect in pottery, they can't copyright the pots made with that stamp.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2008, 15:46 »
0
I think that if images created with the software were restricted from sales, then no one would be allowed to sell graphics created with Adobe Illustrator.


« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2008, 16:20 »
0
I think that if images created with the software were restricted from sales, then no one would be allowed to sell graphics created with Adobe Illustrator.

If you purchase AI, you have rights over what you produce with them. If you use an evaluation or an educational license, you can't sell your creations (as far as I know). If the plug-in is part of PS, and you have a full license, I guess it's ok.  If it is however a 3rd party free tool, it may have restrictions.  Many of the "free extras" you get when you purchase a software have restrictions.

Regards,
Adelaide

RacePhoto

« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2008, 17:24 »
0
I think that if images created with the software were restricted from sales, then no one would be allowed to sell graphics created with Adobe Illustrator.



Things like Noise Ninja and Neat Image should make it perfectly clear, that you can use Plugins on your own images and sell them.

You can't resell their technology, or use it as part of something else that you distribute. The license and copyright has nothing to do with edited photographs.

« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2008, 22:00 »
0
I was doing a search on this topic because I saw a bokeh photo with starbursts and wanted to know how to do it lol.   (never thought to search for "plug-in" duh!)

Anyway - do all sites accept this combination of photos and plug-ins?  I saw this photo on shutterstock today

 http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2180741-abstract-background-of-holiday-lights.html

and that is what got me thinking about this.


I am the author of ( http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2180741-abstract-background-of-holiday-lights.html) There was no plug-in used in that photo. It's a blurred focus of christmas tree lights with a few stamps of little stars. That's all...

« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2008, 22:09 »
0
I am the author of ( http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2180741-abstract-background-of-holiday-lights.html) There was no plug-in used in that photo. It's a blurred focus of christmas tree lights with a few stamps of little stars. That's all...


I probably used the wrong word in choosing "plug-in" because I could not find a good way to describe it.  Thanks for posting some info about it.  It's a beautiful photo!

« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2008, 22:14 »
0
I am the author of ( http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2180741-abstract-background-of-holiday-lights.html) There was no plug-in used in that photo. It's a blurred focus of christmas tree lights with a few stamps of little stars. That's all...


I probably used the wrong word in choosing "plug-in" because I could not find a good way to describe it.  Thanks for posting some info about it.  It's a beautiful photo!


I think I came across a little too harsh. I meant to add a smile face at the end of my post! 
Anyway, thanks for the compliment! ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3723 Views
Last post January 30, 2007, 06:39
by rossco
5 Replies
4709 Views
Last post February 02, 2007, 07:55
by Photoguy
0 Replies
2577 Views
Last post March 09, 2007, 23:11
by Istock News
5 Replies
16524 Views
Last post May 21, 2008, 00:58
by snurder
5 Replies
5713 Views
Last post March 03, 2009, 10:11
by maigi

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle