pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buying photos for selling as stock?  (Read 6794 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Donvanstaden

« on: June 30, 2013, 05:43 »
0
What are the legal requirements around buying photos from someone and then selling them as stock?


Ron

« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2013, 07:43 »
0
You can only do that when you purchase the copyrights. Please tell me you are not selling someone else's images. And if you want to sell someone else's images, you need to purchase the copyrights and then you can do what you want with the image. Or you can start your own agency, but then you need to pay royalties.

If you know of someone selling someone else's images, you need to report that to either the copyright holder or the originating agency.

« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2013, 08:06 »
+3
not even the SL-EL at DT allow you that, believe you need to contact the owner of the file, don't contact the agency! ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2013, 08:29 »
0
I assumed the OP was hoping to be able to buy files to sell. IWC, Ron is right, you need to obtain legal transfer of copyright.

« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2013, 11:39 »
0
if you're an agency you can do it.

but then again, is it worth it ? you'll have to edit and keyword and upload and all.


Donvanstaden

« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2013, 12:16 »
0
I only sell my own images but i know quite a few people that have thousands of photos on their hard drives and some have asked me if i would like to buy them as they know i sell stock and this is something they are not interested in. I would probably buy the entire drive content and 'pot luck' if there is anything I could use. Is there a specific copyright purchase form anyone knows of  :-\

« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2013, 01:45 »
0
...Is there a specific copyright purchase form anyone knows of  :-\
A copyright purchase agreement is a very simple and common legal form. Just google "copyright purchase agreement" and you should find where to get one.

Donvanstaden

« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2013, 02:30 »
0
Thanks... I will look for the form... it might be a strange way to look at it but it would be like buying the raw material from a supplier... like  raw cotton from a local cotton farmer who does not have the skills or equipment to process it... I do a lot of PP and change my images drastically from its original state product to create something different that is in demand... hopefullly

« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2013, 02:35 »
0
My own is maybe not my own.
All kinds of legal entities such as a person, a group, a company or an heir can sell images.

They must of course have the rights to do so.
Such rights can be aquired in many ways.
Fx if you find old pictures at your property, but mostly rights are handed from one entity to another  by a contract.

It could be relatively simple

I (entity) hereby sell my copyright of (well described images) to person, so that he in all future can distribute them in any way he wants.
etc etc..
A contract is binding if the entities and the agreement are well described and it is signed. It can even be written on a piece of wood. There are examples.

Things like: " its ok with me, you can sell the photos from last year".
 is not good enough
 
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 11:21 by JPSDK »

« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2013, 02:41 »
0

Donvanstaden

« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2013, 06:02 »
0

« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2013, 10:25 »
0
If any of the images have people in them, you'd need to look at the model releases the original photographer took to see if you need to get new ones in your name or if they have the right to sell the releases to someone else. Copyright in the image does not cover releases for the people in them.

I'd want to look very carefully at what was being sold - or pay next to nothing for it - before purchasing images to use as stock from someone who doesn't sell stock. The likelihood of the images selling seems to be fairly low in situations like that.

Donvanstaden

« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2013, 12:10 »
0
If any of the images have people in them, you'd need to look at the model releases the original photographer took to see if you need to get new ones in your name or if they have the right to sell the releases to someone else. Copyright in the image does not cover releases for the people in them.

I'd want to look very carefully at what was being sold - or pay next to nothing for it - before purchasing images to use as stock from someone who doesn't sell stock. The likelihood of the images selling seems to be fairly low in situations like that.

I am mainly looking at purchasing wildlife photos... it's quite a challenge getting a release signed by a lion... the problem is they don't have any thumbs  ;D


Uncle Pete

« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2013, 12:41 »
0
Sorry but you are both wrong. You only need a contract that authorizes you to license or re-sell the images. The original artist can retain the copyright.

Donvanstaden can become an agent for distribution, without owning the copyright. Just needs a contract making it clear that he has purchased that right.

As far as Microstock agencies. HA! They make their own rules. If they say you can't sell someone else's images, even if you have a contract, the copyright and property release. Then we can't. But back to the basics. Laws and Microstock rules, and not the same thing. Don't assume they are.

Donvanstaden can buy images and re-sell them. It happens all the time. What about buying a complete collection, what was it MonkeyBusiness or Banana-Whatever? How about all the agencies that owned images that Getty bought? Now they own those images and all rights and they are selling licenses to those images.

Yes you can, but I doubt if it would be worthwhile or make good business sense to buy image rights.


I assumed the OP was hoping to be able to buy files to sell. IWC, Ron is right, you need to obtain legal transfer of copyright.

« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2013, 20:04 »
0
Sorry but you are both wrong. You only need a contract that authorizes you to license or re-sell the images. The original artist can retain the copyright.

Donvanstaden can become an agent for distribution, without owning the copyright. Just needs a contract making it clear that he has purchased that right.

As far as Microstock agencies. HA! They make their own rules. If they say you can't sell someone else's images, even if you have a contract, the copyright and property release. Then we can't. But back to the basics. Laws and Microstock rules, and not the same thing. Don't assume they are.

Donvanstaden can buy images and re-sell them. It happens all the time. What about buying a complete collection, what was it MonkeyBusiness or Banana-Whatever? How about all the agencies that owned images that Getty bought? Now they own those images and all rights and they are selling licenses to those images.

Yes you can, but I doubt if it would be worthwhile or make good business sense to buy image rights.


I assumed the OP was hoping to be able to buy files to sell. IWC, Ron is right, you need to obtain legal transfer of copyright.

exactly - the correct answer to OP is 'maybe'?  everything depends on the license from the seller.  eg, my license is pretty liberal, but one of the specific things I don not allow is the sale of a compilation that includes my images.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2013, 21:05 »
0

exactly - the correct answer to OP is 'maybe'?  everything depends on the license from the seller.  eg, my license is pretty liberal, but one of the specific things I don not allow is the sale of a compilation that includes my images.

Yes, I can see why people are sensitive to the question and the issues. We have people stealing our work, which we are already underpaid for. We have misuse of licenses. And I sure wouldn't allow my work to be re-licensed in a compilation. In fact that's why I've tried to drop all the sites that allow all those mystery "partners" where we don't know what they are doing with our images, how they are used and we still get a handful of spare change for each license. Really?

Talk about losing control of ones rights? Partners are the worst thing ever to come along, and it's nothing but dilution and competing with ourselves on the legitimate sites where people uploaded the images. No opt. out for partners is a warning sign to run away.

But imagine someone who has some photos, who doesn't care about Microstock or RF sales and is happy to take a flat fee for the ability of the OP to market them. Back to the basic point. All it takes is a contract, an image release, with date, signed, thumbnail, description and authorizing the "Agent" to re-sell/ license them. (similar to a model release, it's a property release)

But it doesn't need to be a complete copyright buy out.

Les

« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2013, 21:58 »
-2
I only sell my own images but i know quite a few people that have thousands of photos on their hard drives and some have asked me if i would like to buy them as they know i sell stock and this is something they are not interested in. I would probably buy the entire drive content and 'pot luck' if there is anything I could use. Is there a specific copyright purchase form anyone knows of  :-\
There is a very real chance that most of the old disk drive images wouldn't pass the latest agency inspection standards. Those images may have been OK for Flickr or Facebook uploads, and DIY photo book,  but nowadays even experienced shooters encounter often  rejections with their submitted images.

Must be related to length of time those images spent on disk drives. You lose a few bits here and there, and suddenly you realize that most old images are not quite up to par. It's not the same as with old whiskey.




« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2013, 00:55 »
0
I only sell my own images but i know quite a few people that have thousands of photos on their hard drives and some have asked me if i would like to buy them as they know i sell stock and this is something they are not interested in. I would probably buy the entire drive content and 'pot luck' if there is anything I could use. Is there a specific copyright purchase form anyone knows of  :-\
There is a very real chance that most of the old disk drive images wouldn't pass the latest agency inspection standards. Those images may have been OK for Flickr or Facebook uploads, and DIY photo book,  but nowadays even experienced shooters encounter often  rejections with their submitted images.

Must be related to length of time those images spent on disk drives. You lose a few bits here and there, and suddenly you realize that most old images are not quite up to par. It's not the same as with old whiskey.

Old photos may not be up to par because your photography skills have improved, or because your camera was lower quality back then, or because you've taken shots in jpeg and made changes and resaved them several times, but no files just mysteriously degrade when just sitting on disk drives no matter how long.  A disk may become corrupted and you may lose images, but you'll know that straight away.   There's no losing "a few bits here and there".

Les

« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2013, 01:10 »
+1
There is definitely something going on with the old data. You just have to put your mind at ease and think deeper about it, especially the part where I mentioned whiskey.

For example, now when I go on a hiking trip with the camera, I make sure I delete all old images from my memory cards.  Why to carry all extra weight?

« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2013, 01:13 »
0
There is definitely something going on with the old data. You just have to put your mind at ease and think deeper about it, especially the part where I mentioned whiskey.

For example, now when I go on a hiking trip with the camera, I make sure I delete all old images from my memory cards.  Why to carry all extra weight?

Ok, I'm going to assume you're trolling.  I was just trying to put people's minds at ease, but whatever.

Les

« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2013, 01:23 »
0
I wouldn't call it trolling, just a different approach. Actually, I was going to write some of the reasons you mentioned, but then instead of lecturing I decided rather to inject some humour and let people think and come to their own conclusions. Though, the first paragraph was serious.

I spent over 30 years in the character-based computer world, and consequently, I was not brought up on the smilies and emoticons. Those thingies would make it too easy for the readers.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 07:35 by Les »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2013, 07:55 »
0
It might be worth specifically checking the legalities of transferring copyright in your own country, which may or may not be relevant to the suggested links.

E.g. recently I was trawling the internet for examples of RM contracts which I could adapt for a private sale. Almost all those I found were US, with huge paragraphs of legalese some of which definitely wouldn't apply here, and possibly having these in a contract used here would invalidate it. NB 'possibly' - I suspect it would be so, but don't know for sure.

Anyway, in the UK, if anyone should be interested in the future, all info on copyright is found here:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-essential.pdf. The relevant info is on p13:

Although in most cases the economic and moral rights
belong to the person who creates the work (see pg.
8), copyright is a form of property, which, like physical
property, can be sold, bought, inherited or otherwise
transferred, wholly or in part. A copyright owner can do a
lot with their copyright.
Assignment:
An assignment transfers the full (all
economic rights) or partial (some economic rights)
ownership of the copyright from the author to another
person (the assignee) who will then become the owner of
the rights transferred. The rights or right can be assigned
for a limited time or for a particular territory. The copyright
in works that will be created in future can also be assigned.
The author may assign the copyright for a fixed sum. In
some cases, royalties may be paid. The assignee can
then transfer all their economic rights by assignment,
licence or otherwise.

However, no sample legal form is suggested.

For a large number of saleable images being transferred, it might even be worth having a lawyer draw up the papers for you. Clearly this wouoldn't be economically viable for small collections, or those with unproven saleability (e.g. check out the existing opposition and be aware that more will be added almost daily.)

Uncle Pete

« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2013, 10:16 »
0
It might be worth specifically checking the legalities of transferring copyright in your own country, which may or may not be relevant to the suggested links.

(clip clip)

For a large number of saleable images being transferred, it might even be worth having a lawyer draw up the papers for you. Clearly this wouoldn't be economically viable for small collections, or those with unproven saleability (e.g. check out the existing opposition and be aware that more will be added almost daily.)

Absolutely, and I did PM him that same bit, that laws are not International and the location of the Agent and Artist need to be considered.

Also I don't think it's economical or a good idea, at all. Just answering the original question.

There needs to be a specific contract, listing individual images, accurate descriptions, maybe even thumbnails. Much like the copyright registration process requires, to protect both parties. Professional legal advise would be the answer, not an Internet photo forum.  8)

« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2013, 11:39 »
0
No, need to bring lawyers into this.

As long as both parties are mentally sound. Witnesses could be important. They sort of guarantee the entities, and thats an important part.

this is not a big deal, it compares to selling a machine or a piece of land.
It can be done on a piece of paper in handwriting.

But it is relatively important that both parities know what copyright is and are reasonably familiar with legal terms and such know what they sign.

And actually most people know a lot about law per instinct, without ever going to lawschool. Everybody knows about an agreement and consequences of breaking it. Thats something we learn at the playgrond in childhood.
And laws are usually made to mirror common (contrary to exploitive) behavior among people.

So, in this case its all about getting the entities right and describing the good.
Describing the good would in this case mean to both describe the images and which amount of copyright is transferred.

"Full copyright of all my images forever" would do.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 11:44 by JPSDK »

« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2013, 11:16 »
0
Hi All,

 A bit redundant but Yes, this takes place all the time I have sold my own images to agencies and made some very solid sales its just a copyright transfer. I know of one photographer that sold their entire collection for an amazing amount of money. If you are going to buy images I suggest you consider starting your own agency. The more holy owned content your agency has the better the price from a potential buyer when you go to sell your agency.

Hope this helps,
Jonathan


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
58 Replies
23782 Views
Last post April 15, 2011, 09:25
by click_click
18 Replies
5349 Views
Last post October 09, 2012, 19:54
by luissantos84
4 Replies
3534 Views
Last post January 18, 2015, 20:44
by SME
16 Replies
9521 Views
Last post September 18, 2015, 12:48
by chuckcars
16 Replies
4412 Views
Last post February 03, 2019, 12:31
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle