Ok lets see what everyone thinks about this one!

I am talking about the licensing uses for EL's at varying agencies and what everyone thinks about them!

Take for instance Fotolia you get an EL and they get to run print runs on it and make a fortune off of it while you pretty much get pennies for it.
This is why i halted uploading to Fotolia once i found out about the licensing terms of usage.

I am spread over some 11 or more sites and cant remember all of them and have to write them down to keep track of them.

So last night i found out that CanStockPhoto has a similar EL license terms of use as Fotolia has.

Take for example:

They buy an image for $25 and use it 10,000 times so their cost per POD is .0025 or pennies now if the average POD sale for them is lets say $50 and they get that for 10,000 POD's then they make $500,000 AKA one half million dollars!

Looks like i need to stop shooting and start buying so i can sell the stuff on Ebay, Graiglist, Fine Art America, Zazzle and wherever else i can.

So does everyone like their work being sold this way or not?

I mean why should someone other then me be able to use my work to get rich and i cant?

Well, you are selling on microstock agencies. That's what microstock means. You could always pull your photos and place them on midstock agencies like Alamy, or get into Getty or Corbis and place your images there. Those would make you far more money.

I understand what you are saying and agree to a certain point, but no one is holding a gun to your head to sell on any agency. It's your choice.

If you noticed what i said about what i did with Fotolia.

Fotolia has one of the worst licenses around, very permissive, confusing and contradictory.

Ok lets see what everyone thinks about this one!

I am talking about the licensing uses for EL's at varying agencies and what everyone thinks about them!

Take for instance Fotolia you get an EL and they get to run print runs on it and make a fortune off of it while you pretty much get pennies for it.
This is why i halted uploading to Fotolia once i found out about the licensing terms of usage.

I am spread over some 11 or more sites and cant remember all of them and have to write them down to keep track of them.

So last night i found out that CanStockPhoto has a similar EL license terms of use as Fotolia has.

Take for example:

They buy an image for $25 and use it 10,000 times so their cost per POD is .0025 or pennies now if the average POD sale for them is lets say $50 and they get that for 10,000 POD's then they make $500,000 AKA one half million dollars!

Looks like i need to stop shooting and start buying so i can sell the stuff on Ebay, Graiglist, Fine Art America, Zazzle and wherever else i can.

So does everyone like their work being sold this way or not?

I mean why should someone other then me be able to use my work to get rich and i cant?

If you are able to turn your images into items that sell 10,000 times at a price of 50$ - go for it.

If you assume it happens all the time just because it is possible in theory - you have lost all sense for reality.

Of course I would like to get more money for ELs or sometimes stricter license terms by the agencies (did you know that FT not even requires an EL for unlimited print run? That is covered by the regular license, so you could see your image on the cover of a magazine with over a million print run and you just received a sub download for it...).
But if you look at it from the other side: Lower prices for ELs might mean that you get more sales. If somebody is trying to sell products with images on them (t-shirts, posters, mugs,...) he will need to factor in the license price into his calculation (on top of production and marketing and other costs...). If prices are too high, that will mean less business. The big question (where I don't think anyone has the answer) is where the sweet spot is...

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on January 25, 2012, 08:26

Ok lets see what everyone thinks about this one!

I am talking about the licensing uses for EL's at varying agencies and what everyone thinks about them!

Take for instance Fotolia you get an EL and they get to run print runs on it and make a fortune off of it while you pretty much get pennies for it.
This is why i halted uploading to Fotolia once i found out about the licensing terms of usage.

I am spread over some 11 or more sites and cant remember all of them and have to write them down to keep track of them.

So last night i found out that CanStockPhoto has a similar EL license terms of use as Fotolia has.

Take for example:

They buy an image for $25 and use it 10,000 times so their cost per POD is .0025 or pennies now if the average POD sale for them is lets say $50 and they get that for 10,000 POD's then they make $500,000 AKA one half million dollars!

Looks like i need to stop shooting and start buying so i can sell the stuff on Ebay, Graiglist, Fine Art America, Zazzle and wherever else i can.

So does everyone like their work being sold this way or not?

I mean why should someone other then me be able to use my work to get rich and i cant?

If you are able to turn your images into items that sell 10,000 times at a price of 50$ - go for it.

If you assume it happens all the time just because it is possible in theory - you have lost all sense for reality.

Of course I would like to get more money for ELs or sometimes stricter license terms by the agencies (did you know that FT not even requires an EL for unlimited print run? That is covered by the regular license, so you could see your image on the cover of a magazine with over a million print run and you just received a sub download for it...).
But if you look at it from the other side: Lower prices for ELs might mean that you get more sales. If somebody is trying to sell products with images on them (t-shirts, posters, mugs,...) he will need to factor in the license price into his calculation (on top of production and marketing and other costs...). If prices are too high, that will mean less business. The big question (where I don't think anyone has the answer) is where the sweet spot is...

I dont need to sell my images!

I can go buy some of the best around from Micro sites which allow POD with an EL and then do what i want with them like sell them as fine prints at Fine Art America or even create a Zazzle store and sell all kinds of things.

Quote from: dirkr on January 25, 2012, 11:02

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on January 25, 2012, 08:26

Ok lets see what everyone thinks about this one!

I am talking about the licensing uses for EL's at varying agencies and what everyone thinks about them!

Take for instance Fotolia you get an EL and they get to run print runs on it and make a fortune off of it while you pretty much get pennies for it.
This is why i halted uploading to Fotolia once i found out about the licensing terms of usage.

I am spread over some 11 or more sites and cant remember all of them and have to write them down to keep track of them.

So last night i found out that CanStockPhoto has a similar EL license terms of use as Fotolia has.

Take for example:

They buy an image for $25 and use it 10,000 times so their cost per POD is .0025 or pennies now if the average POD sale for them is lets say $50 and they get that for 10,000 POD's then they make $500,000 AKA one half million dollars!

Looks like i need to stop shooting and start buying so i can sell the stuff on Ebay, Graiglist, Fine Art America, Zazzle and wherever else i can.

So does everyone like their work being sold this way or not?

I mean why should someone other then me be able to use my work to get rich and i cant?

If you are able to turn your images into items that sell 10,000 times at a price of 50$ - go for it.

If you assume it happens all the time just because it is possible in theory - you have lost all sense for reality.

Of course I would like to get more money for ELs or sometimes stricter license terms by the agencies (did you know that FT not even requires an EL for unlimited print run? That is covered by the regular license, so you could see your image on the cover of a magazine with over a million print run and you just received a sub download for it...).
But if you look at it from the other side: Lower prices for ELs might mean that you get more sales. If somebody is trying to sell products with images on them (t-shirts, posters, mugs,...) he will need to factor in the license price into his calculation (on top of production and marketing and other costs...). If prices are too high, that will mean less business. The big question (where I don't think anyone has the answer) is where the sweet spot is...

I dont need to sell my images!

I can go buy some of the best around from Micro sites which allow POD with an EL and then do what i want with them like sell them as fine prints at Fine Art America or even create a Zazzle store and sell all kinds of things.

I misunderstood you, I didn't get the "print on demand" part.
But: can you point me to the license terms of any microsite allowing PODs? I have yet to see that, and whenever I looked, it was not allowed...

ruxpriencdiam: Correct me if I am wrong but I think you have to create your own images for Zazzle, I don't think you can just buy someones else's photo and use it on your products. I'm not sure how Fine Art America works though but I would be pretty pi**** off if someone could just by one of my images with an EL and legitimately sell it in this way.

I believe they can with an EL, many Yuri selling out there..

Thanks for your response luissantos84 but did you mean it is OK for Zazzle or Fine Art America or both?

Quote from: KuriousKat on January 25, 2012, 12:09

ruxpriencdiam: Correct me if I am wrong but I think you have to create your own images for Zazzle, I don't think you can just buy someones else's photo and use it on your products. I'm not sure how Fine Art America works though but I would be pretty pi**** off if someone could just by one of my images with an EL and legitimately sell it in this way.

dirkr: Apparently you should find this on the CanStockPhoto Enhanced License

I missed Duncan's statement before my post.
Looks like my interpretation of their license terms differs from his (see my post in the thread in the Canstock forum).


In that case I fully agree: PODs should not be allowed, not even via EL.

I'm surprised that a User Agreement is sufficiently unclear that it leaves itself open to interpretation! Isn't this the legal contract between purchaser/contributor/CanStockPhoto? It would be interesting to test that one in a Court.....

Heres the problem regardless.... Whos gonna catch these people and whos gonna spend the countless hours and days searching to find these people....The sites?? Forget about it. They help when and if we find them. There was a site posted on SS last week in the Netherlands that does nothing but put up Images to use as Prints and wallpaper for your living room at prices in the thousands of dollars. No credit is given. I wrote them as did others asking to see the license they have to do this. They wrote back saying all is legit. they bought them at DT and can do anything they want. OK....lets see, If I spend a few thousand dollars and buy the top Landscape Images and open a POD site and charge $500/$1000 for a print. Im good to go? The artist gets nothing except a Sale....Once. The site makes Money and I can print as many as I can sell without so much as a credit to the artist.. That sucks Big Time and sites should be ashamed for allowing this. Thats a big Black eye in My view about this business.

+1 that's the site i was speaking about somewhere on theses forums where they buy an EL and then do POD's for upwards of $3000 a pop and all you the photographer gets is the measly $25!!!!

Something is really wrong with that.

I think Bottom Line is it's on us,to really read whats going on. The last 2 days im going back to all my sites and opting out of print sales for my Paintings and artistic stuff. The pure stocky stuff, I don't care. No one is going to print them anyway at least I don't think so. My fault for letting these go through in my haste of speedy uploading. I just find it odd they would even offer that option. My Bad I assume. OH WELL. another 3000 to go. LOL.

I think Bottom Line is it's on us,to really read whats going on. The last 2 days im going back to all my sites and opting out of print sales for my Paintings and artistic stuff. The pure stocky stuff, I don't care. No one is going to print them anyway at least I don't think so. My fault for letting these go through in my haste of speedy uploading. I just find it odd they would even offer that option. My Bad I assume. OH WELL. another 3000 to go. LOL.

I agree that the bottom line is with us, and that we really all need to read all the terms and conditions of each individual site. I also  think someone said earlier in the thread that there is usually an 'opt-out' for Els if you are not happy with the terms of the licence.

Reading up and opting out gives us an element of choice and control but it is very difficult to make an informed decision if the wording of a licence agreement is misleading.

Quote from: KuriousKat on January 25, 2012, 12:22

Thanks for your response luissantos84 but did you mean it is OK for Zazzle or Fine Art America or both?

Zazzle, never looked much into Fine Art America, have a few there too but the yearly fee is holding me off

Zazzle agreement states as follows:
You must own all rights (including copyright) in the image and text you upload or have the written permission of ALL persons who own (a) the rights to upload the image or text and (b) the rights to authorize the uses permitted in the User Agreement. If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons. If you upload any image or text that violates our User Agreement, your account may be terminated.

Even POD licensing doesn't give you the copyright! I guess the problem is that too many contributors to Zazzle and the likes are either ill-informed or simply don't care.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on January 25, 2012, 13:08

Quote from: rinderart on January 25, 2012, 12:58

Heres the problem regardless.... Whos gonna catch these people and whos gonna spend the countless hours and days searching to find these people....The sites?? Forget about it. They help when and if we find them. There was a site posted on SS last week in the Netherlands that does nothing but put up Images to use as Prints and wallpaper for your living room at prices in the thousands of dollars. No credit is given. I wrote them as did others asking to see the license they have to do this. They wrote back saying all is legit. they bought them at DT and can do anything they want. OK....lets see, If I spend a few thousand dollars and buy the top Landscape Images and open a POD site and charge $500/$1000 for a print. Im good to go? The artist gets nothing except a Sale....Once. The site makes Money and I can print as many as I can sell without so much as a credit to the artist.. That sucks Big Time and sites should be ashamed for allowing this. Thats a big Black eye in My view about this business.

+1 that's the site i was speaking about somewhere on theses forums where they buy an EL and then do POD's for upwards of $3000 a pop and all you the photographer gets is the measly $25!!!!

Something is really wrong with that.

Yeah, that you didn't beat them to it.

LOL. Good thing is . I must have thought about it a long time ago I got about half way In and I already Opted out. Just for my paintings.

There might be even bigger problem with classic RF license, not just with EL...
I heard that you don't need EL for image use on postcards...

So, if buyer need an image for postcards for example, standard RF license allow him reproduction of the same image for 250.000 copies, only for subscription price of cca 0.30$
Maybe 250.000 is not too big number for New York Paris or London postcards, but for some little town somewhere in Croatia is lifetime edition... I have seen lot of my pics on postcards in the nearest tobacco shop...
I am desperate!  

So, tell me where are we here?

The most important part of this issue of ELs and PODs is the transference of rights.

RF licenses, even ELs, are usually not transferable to third parties (the opposite would be absurd given the nature of RF).
POD user agreements require the user to be able to grant the POD site a worldwide transferable license.

If a buyer gets an EL and makes the POD himself or a POD site buys an EL, it's all right. Otherwise the ELs and POD agreements are not entirely compatible.

Rinder.. We are being abused.
...
Thats because there are 800 million photographers out there. In Indian ad China,
...
So Rinder, this is globalisation, get used to work for a bowl of rice every day.
its all good.

JPS

I don't see lot of Indian or Chinese contributors who participate on this forum.... Do you?
I can't find any more link of Fotolia contributor chart that you can see how many contributors are there, in India and China...
There was incredibly small number of contributors from that part of world...

Quote from: KuriousKat on January 25, 2012, 16:01

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2012, 15:30

"If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons."

An extended license would be permission, imo.

I don't think so.....

As per Zazzle: You must own all rights (including copyright) in the image and text you upload or have the written permission of ALL persons who own (a) the rights to upload the image or text and (b) the rights to authorize the uses permitted in the User Agreement. If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons. If you upload any image or text that violates our User Agreement, your account may be terminated.

So, you must either own the copyright or have written permission from All persons who own the image rights, (artist),  and the rights to authorise the uses permitted in the User Agreement, (Stock Site). An extended licence would only fulfil the second part of this  but you would still need the artist to relinquish the copyright in writing.

"Written permission" = "the license agreement of the site you downloaded from that allows such usage".

Yes, but it states written permission from ALL persons AND ownership of copyright. No RF EL gives the artist's copyright to the purchaser and the licence agreement only provides the relevant usage rights not the required image rights.

Quote from: borg on January 25, 2012, 16:19

I heard that you don't need EL for image use on postcards...

If you want to sell those postcards, you'll need an EL.

Are you sure?

Once before I posted here same problem and old contributors were told that buyers don't need EL for postcards till 250K of copies...

Quote from: JPSDK on January 25, 2012, 16:50

Rinder.. We are being abused.
...
Thats because there are 800 million photographers out there. In Indian ad China,
...
So Rinder, this is globalisation, get used to work for a bowl of rice every day.
its all good.

JPS

I don't see lot of Indian or Chinese contributors who participate on this forum.... Do you?

Thats right. They are still not so abundant. But they are out there. And they will find the way. But since they are super economical with their time, you will not find them chatting on the forums, but being busy uploading.
There is a language problem, be happy for that.

Quote from: KuriousKat on January 25, 2012, 18:04

Yes, but it states written permission from ALL persons AND ownership of copyright. No RF EL gives the artist's copyright to the purchaser and the licence agreement only provides the relevant usage rights not the required image rights.

No it doesn't.  It says "OR".

You are right - it does say 'or' but it also says:
or have the written permission of ALL persons who own (a) the rights to upload the image or text and (b) the rights to authorize the uses permitted in the User Agreement. If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons

I am pretty sure that any way you slice this one, you can't legitimately buy a stock image and use it in your products for a Zazzle store.

I remember joining this forum just because another thread that was related to this issue and I found it to be an issue that interested me enough to join in and talk.

Zazzle says a lot of things on its Non Exclusive License Agreement, many are incompatible with the average RF license.
Some of those incompatible points are:

- Zazzle requires the uploader to grant a license (nonexclusive, worldwide, transferable, sublicensable right to use, reproduce, publicly display, sell, and distribute the Design in or on Products and in advertising, marketing, samples, and promotional materials for the purpose of promoting the Site and Products) to Zazzle. How can a RF buyer grant this kind of broad license to others without it being dangerous to RF business model itself?

- Zazzle requires the uplaoder to represent that:
* You are the owner of the Design or that the Design is in the public domain; and
* You have the legal right grant this license to Zazzle and to enter into this Agreement; and
* To your knowledge, no one else claims ownership of, or exclusive rights to, the Design; and
* Zazzle may legally make and sell Products incorporating the Design without infringing the rights of any third party and without being obligated to make any payments to, or obtain any permission from, any third party; and


I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me that the requirements cannot be fulfilled by any RF buyer.

It wouldn't make any sense to RF business if a buyer could make such claims or could give third parties licenses like the one Zazzle requires. Zazzle agreement is not much different from those of agencies. If a buyer can upload to Zazzle, it can upload also to almost any other site with a similar agreement, like other agencies.

Quote from: KuriousKat on January 27, 2012, 09:37

You are right - it does say 'or' but it also says:
or have the written permission of ALL persons who own (a) the rights to upload the image or text and (b) the rights to authorize the uses permitted in the User Agreement. If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons

I am pretty sure that any way you slice this one, you can't legitimately buy a stock image and use it in your products for a Zazzle store.

The person who uploads the image to the stock site has (a) the rights and (b) the right to authorize the uses in the UA, which would be what is allowed by an extended license (written permission).

I know that I'm am not a lawyer, (and I'm not trying to be difficult - honest!), but it's the bold part I was going with. If you sell an image under an RF licence, even with an EL, you still OWN the image, therefore anyone wanting to use it on a Zazzle products would still need to obtain your written permission would't they? The licence on purchase from a stock site doesn't give ownership but just certain usage rights I think.

It would be great if someone could give a definitive answer as I may well be labouring under a lot of misapprehensions.

My issue with their license terms is the book and CD/DVD cover being allowed with the standard license.

Same as iStock, then.