pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: License Question - Is this normal?  (Read 4966 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 30, 2011, 16:53 »
0
I was looking through the Bigstock Standard license, and here's how it opens:

"Use of image files
Bigstock licenses to you the use of image files only as provided herein  on a nonexclusive and nontransferable basis upon payment of the required fees. All other rights to the image files and any accompanying materials such as copyright are retained by Bigstock and its members. The license granted to you is limited to one usage per download. For example, if an image is used in a website design and in a business card design, this is considered two usages for which the image license must  be purchased two times. Using an image in multiple products without purchasing the licenses for each usage violates this Agreement."

I've never seen wording related to the "one use per download" before, and this has never been my impression about royalty-free usage.

I didn't see anything like this in other agency terms and it seems like a significant restriction. Any thoughts?


« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2011, 17:31 »
0
I used to think that's the way all the sites operated until Istock told me otherwise.  I'd actually prefer to see the licenses restrict usage to only one item considering buyers can get them so cheaply. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2011, 17:42 »
0
Policing this is impossible at micro prices, and especially when people might post their images to many agencies.

« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2011, 18:00 »
0
I remember a discussion in the past about this, indeed BigStock puts this restriction - it would be much more edible this way - but it is actually impossible to enforce.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2011, 18:12 »
0
I remember a discussion in the past about this, indeed BigStock puts this restriction - it would be much more edible this way - but it is actually impossible to enforce.
Like TS saying buyers can only use them during the duration of their subscription. How could that every be policed?
Added; ..."at micro prices"

« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2011, 20:35 »
0
I've never seen wording related to the "one use per download" before, and this has never been my impression about royalty-free usage.

That would not be "royalty free", and thus their claims their content is licensed royalty free would be false advertising.

"This agreement requires you to  re-purchase the image file photo for each new usage. "
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 20:36 by sjlocke »

« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2011, 20:50 »
0
Quote
That would not be "royalty free", and thus their claims their content is licensed royalty free would be false advertising.

"This agreement requires you to  re-purchase the image file photo for each new usage. "

That was exactly my impression, and thus my confusion!

« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2011, 22:11 »
0
I've never seen wording related to the "one use per download" before, and this has never been my impression about royalty-free usage.

That would not be "royalty free", and thus their claims their content is licensed royalty free would be false advertising.

"This agreement requires you to  re-purchase the image file photo for each new usage. "

The "false advertising"  argument assumes there is a standard definition of "royalty free", which of course there isn't. All the microstock licenses are limited in ways that traditional RF licenses aren't - the IS "royalty free" license is limited to less than 500,000 impressions and on available uses, so doesn't really meet the traditional definition of royalty free either.

« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2011, 22:21 »
0
The "false advertising"  argument assumes there is a standard definition of "royalty free", which of course there isn't. All the microstock licenses are limited in ways that traditional RF licenses aren't - the IS "royalty free" license is limited to less than 500,000 impressions and on available uses, so doesn't really meet the traditional definition of royalty free either.

At it's least common denominator, "royalty free" means you are able to use it more than once without paying additional royalties.  That's pretty non-negotiable.  Otherwise, the words have no meaning.   A "royalty free" one use license would mean you didn't pay to license it in the first place.

« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2011, 23:13 »
0
I remember a discussion in the past about this, indeed BigStock puts this restriction - it would be much more edible this way - but it is actually impossible to enforce.
Like TS saying buyers can only use them during the duration of their subscription. How could that every be policed?
Added; ..."at micro prices"

the ones that make me laugh are uses such as in books and covers (seems like every publisher now only uses subs), 'ok ended our subcription we have to recall all the books we sold with pictures in them as we cant use them anymore' :)

« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2011, 16:33 »
0
Has anyone ever asked about this? It seems like now that they are owned by Shutterstock, this would get updated. I doubt SS would push this type of language in a current license.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5189 Views
Last post November 08, 2010, 18:34
by caspixel
8 Replies
5622 Views
Last post August 28, 2012, 12:48
by ShadySue
5 Replies
3050 Views
Last post March 13, 2015, 13:44
by Jo Ann Snover
0 Replies
2595 Views
Last post December 12, 2016, 07:26
by vladimir
4 Replies
1877 Views
Last post March 09, 2018, 12:21
by farbled

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors