MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Agenices views on stock photos of people on erotica books  (Read 20973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2014, 08:54 »
0
So there you go. There are many things to consider when choosing who to work with. Commissions is just one part...
The trouble is that we don't usually find out this stuff until an issue occurs. Otherwise, we just have the release and the licence T&C to go on.
Also the problem at micro prices is whether the agency will take on the legal costs to sue an abuser. They might wait to see if a model sues a photographer, then see if the photographer will in turn sue them.
One problem with the micro model is that there's not much money to fight expensive lawsuits.
Certainly something to consider if using models.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2014, 08:57 »
0
Photographers need to perhaps hire models who understand this.
You need to be aware that at the prices paid to photographers for micro images, 'hiring' models is out of the question for many, unless there is a reasonable expectation of hundreds of sales ensuing, so lots of togs use family and friends.
Still, caveat models and photographers.

« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2014, 14:09 »
0
Why should we have to ask whether an agency considers premade book covers SL or EL, or whether erotic fiction is porn or not? It should be spelled out clearly in the license agreements.
Usually it is, with 'sensitive use' often the term used, rather than porn.
It's the buyer's duty to check the terms of use and adhere to them.

I disagree that this is a clear spelling out, since the OP has found that some agencies interpret erotica differently than others.

But I do agree that buyers need to ask agencies. However, so much would be prevented with a chart listing different possible uses and whether they are permitted or not. The agencies caught up with PoD, why not publishing?

« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2014, 14:14 »
0

There should be a separate model release that a model who is OK with this can sign, and these images could be made available at a premium price.
SS has a version of this, but they have a frankly ridiculous model where either all your photos have to be 'in' or all out.


I agree that a separate release and designation is a good idea. However, it has to be spelled out clearly, and not given a vague term like "sensitive use." My experience with authors and cover artists is that they don't understand these licenses.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 14:19 by Ava Glass »

« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2014, 14:28 »
0
Most of them havent even seen or read the licence terms.

[OT] So imagine how many ELs we're losing.  >:( :'(


Oh man, you don't want to know about premade book covers then.

Okay, maybe you do:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php?topic=155206.0

It's another issue where buyers have to go and ask each agency how the use falls under their license--in this case whether or not the use is seen as merchandise for resale. It's not spelled out, and it's frustrating.

I did an ask-around similar to what the OP did with erotica, and it turns out that many photogs might be missing out on ELs.

BTW, Depositphotos allows this use with a SL as long as only one cover is sold to one client. They are the only agency I use when I'm using microstock for a premade and not something from places like DAZ or Renderosity (totally different kind of licensing).

« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 18:22 by Ava Glass »

« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2014, 15:42 »
0
I totally agree. Every time I have contacted an author,  escort agency, sex dating site or whoever have misused images, they all said that they have acted in good faith.

I disagree with your grouping of erotic fiction authors with escort and dating websites. The wording of many license agreements specifically prohibits escort and dating website use. I've yet to see a license that mentions erotic fiction by name.

They have been under the impression that they can use stock photos however they want as long as print run is not exeeded. That seems to be the general understanding. Most of them havent even seen or read the licence terms.

My experience with authors and book cover artists is that many of them focus too much on this section:

Quote
In print media, digital media, product packaging and software including magazines, newspapers, books (including print-on-demand books), e-books, advertising collateral, letterhead, business cards, product labels, CD and DVD cover art, applications (including mobile "apps"), and opt-in e-mail marketing, provided that no Image is reproduced more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) times in the aggregate, and that the Images cannot be readily unincorporated from such digital media or software;

I once saw a respected book cover artist quote this to justify her sale of PoD art prints that incorporated stock images. Obviously, she later learned she was wrong.

Can't really say that the agencies are very helpful in these matters either. Their main focus is selling images and make profit, not going after "tiny" issues like this. If you are lucky you get a reply that they will look into it, and then nothing happens. It pretty much up to the photographer to deal with it and thats both time consuming and difficult.

I don't think it's a good idea to leave the agencies completely out of these situations. What if a photographer sees his or her pic on the cover of an erotic romance novel, jumps to conclusions, thinks it's for sure a prohibited use, and gets Amazon to take the book down. Then the author gets the stock agency involved and the agency sides with the author. I'm not a lawyer, but couldn't the author potentially sue the photographer for loss of income due to a bogus violation claim?

Isn't it better to check with the agency first?


Overall, I think the best solution is to pressure the agencies to look into erotic fiction so they can come up with easily-understood terms of what is allowed and what is prohibited.

Because there aren't just a handful of these books. This isn't just a few isolated incidents. There are hundreds of thousands of erotica and erotic romance books on Amazon alone. The vast majority of these books use microstock for their covers. This is a big deal.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 20:07 by Ava Glass »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2014, 15:54 »
+1
Most of them havent even seen or read the licence terms.

[OT] So imagine how many ELs we're losing.  >:( :'(

Oh man, you don't want to know about premade book covers then.
Okay, maybe you do:
http://www.kboards.com/index.php?topic=155206.0

A curse on whoever invented RF.  ::)

« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2014, 16:31 »
0
That is why i have trouble getting shoots with young kids. I tell the parents about the restricted use rights but mention that nobody can really control how they might be used.

Based on that they shouldn't put up photos of their kids anywhere at all. Not even an MR and/or TOS, even less controll.

« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2014, 16:32 »
0
I totally agree. Every time I have contacted an author,  escort agency, sex dating site or whoever have misused images, they all said that they have acted in good faith.

I disagree with your grouping of erotic fiction authors with escort and dating websites. The wording of many license agreements specifically prohibits escort and dating website use. I've yet to see a license that mentions erotic fiction by name.

Can't really say that the agencies are very helpful in these matters either. Their main focus is selling images and make profit, not going after "tiny" issues like this. If you are lucky you get a reply that they will look into it, and then nothing happens. It pretty much up to the photographer to deal with it and thats both time consuming and difficult.

I don't think it's a good idea to leave the agencies completely out of these situations. What if a photographer sees his or her pic on the cover of an erotic romance novel, jumps to conclusions, thinks it's for sure a prohibited use, and gets Amazon to take the book down. Then the author gets the stock agency involved and the agency sides with the author. I'm not a lawyer, but couldn't the author potentially sue the photographer for loss of income due to a bogus violation claim?

Isn't it better to check with the agency first?


Overall, I think the best solution is to pressure the agencies to look into erotic fiction so they can come up with easily-understood terms of what is allowed and what is prohibited.

Because there aren't just a handful of these books. This isn't just a few isolated incidents. There are hundreds of thousands of erotica and erotic romance books on Amazon alone. The vast majority of these books use microstock for their covers. This is a big deal.

Sorry, I was not my intention to group them together. Not at all. Was just of examples of buyers that I have dealt with in the past regarding image misuse. My experience is that authors are actually very helpful when they are informed about the issue, and every time I have contacted with one, they have been helpful and understanding and replaced the cover. (Which is really easy to do with e-books compared to printed copys of course) 100 % of them have said they were not aware of restrictions for using stock images. Can't say that's so easy with the other examples (escorts etc) mentioned.to them all that helps is a DMCA.

Of course it is better to contact the agency. Hopefully they assist.
What I would do is to try my best do get contact info to the author first and try to solve the issue in a friendly matter with him/her first without any takedown action.
Problem is that these authors aren't so easy to find contact info to.


Overall, I think the best solution is to pressure the agencies to look into erotic fiction so they can come up with easily-understood terms of what is allowed and what is prohibited.

Totally agree!

« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2014, 23:05 »
+2

My experience is that authors are actually very helpful when they are informed about the issue, and every time I have contacted with one, they have been helpful and understanding and replaced the cover. (Which is really easy to do with e-books compared to printed copys of course) 100 % of them have said they were not aware of restrictions for using stock images.


Yup. Authors are generally decent human beings.  :)
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 23:46 by Ava Glass »

« Reply #35 on: March 07, 2014, 21:07 »
0
Edit: After being in contact with Depositphotos again, we have received a different response. After reviewing some examples of covers that we sent them, the management/CEO has informed us that this is not an approved use according to their license terms. Photos from Depositphotos can not be used on erotica.
I am glad that all micro stock agencies share this view, they just need to be better informing the buyers about this now.



Aw, I wish you had made a new post to bump this thread up. That way, we could have seen the new info.

I'm not surprised you got a a different answer. This came up about DP on a self-pub author forum recently:

Quote
I just checked, being clear on the 1 cover, 1 buyer, sold 1x aspect. I was told that because it was made in advance of the client, it qualified as a template (in the "preset format for a document or file" sense1) and therefore would need the Extended License.


I went back and asked DP again and got this:

Quote
"If you sell one book cover to more than one client, it is considered to be a template. If you sell one book cover to one customer only, the standard license will cover that use."



So confusing dealing with the agencies. I'm kinda done. I think I'll focus on my LuxRender.



BD

« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2014, 21:38 »
0
Thank you for posting Ava. Are you an author?

« Reply #37 on: March 07, 2014, 21:49 »
0
Not at the moment. I've made stock art using LuxRender with aimed at book covers. I've also made premade book covers using a combo of Depositphotos stock and my renders, but I want to make sure the stock licensing for my covers is all good. Unfortunately, the agencies haven't caught up with self-publishing and haven't made the license terms clear enough, so we have to ask and rely on what a rep tells us.

« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2016, 02:04 »
0
Some of these are so strange. Some of the licenses prohibit basically anything that would contain the stock content purchased because the content itself would pretty much automatically require that the project be indecent or whatever.

Even simple stuff like a "Warning, Contains Adult Content" banner, which can be bought on pretty much any of these sites.  You'd pretty much have to use that with content that would be objectionable, no?

And many sites contain photos with "indecent" nudity (as opposed to perhaps just artistic nudity). It would be difficult to see how some of those models/photographers/stock sites could object if paired with other content of the same nature.

Granted, that's not the kind of thing the photographers on this thread are worried about, but it does seem odd.

I like the idea of stock sites providing additional labeling for content that doesn't mind being used in these contexts. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
5535 Views
Last post January 04, 2008, 00:42
by ParisEye
5 Replies
3818 Views
Last post March 06, 2009, 01:07
by basti
17 Replies
7289 Views
Last post November 04, 2010, 12:58
by Digital66
3 Replies
1942 Views
Last post July 27, 2011, 23:12
by pancaketom
2 Replies
2753 Views
Last post March 27, 2014, 06:11
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle