Author Topic: Image licensed (?) and then resold by third party (Read 5919 times)

Nica · « **on:** July 31, 2016, 12:37 »

Hi,

Just a short question:

Obviously one of my images had been licensed (I guesss so if not copied somewhere) and is now resold by someone else.

I can't remember that this is allowed by any agency if it had been licensed at all.

Had anyone else had such experience and if yes what did you do?

N

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2016, 12:54 »

No, no license I know of comes with redistribution rights, and besides, all agencies require you to hold copyright on upload, and that person wouldn't.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2016, 13:46 »

Report them to the agency where they are selling your image.

Nica · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2016, 13:49 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on July 31, 2016, 13:46

Report them to the agency where they are selling your image.

of course I did - no reaction

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2016, 14:09 »

Really? That's strange. Can you link to the person's portfolio. They could have other people's work too. Which agency is it?

Nica · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2016, 23:55 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on July 31, 2016, 14:09

Really? That's strange. Can you link to the person's portfolio. They could have other people's work too. Which agency is it?

https://wanelo.com/trippygypsyshop

disorderly · « **Reply #6 on:** August 01, 2016, 00:41 »

I misunderstood your original question, Nica, and am guessing so did everyone else. As far as I know, most if not all agencies' licenses permit the use of a licensed photo on a product for sale. It may require an extended (higher cost) license depending on the use, and how much of the value of the product derives from the image. For example, someone made calendars a while back using licensed images. Shutterstock went after them, since the photos were much of the value. They got the customer to pay for extended licenses, which made a nice payout. But I suspect a yoga mat wouldn't need more than a standard license.

Nica · « **Reply #7 on:** August 01, 2016, 05:02 »

Quote from: disorderly on August 01, 2016, 00:41

I misunderstood your original question, Nica, and am guessing so did everyone else. As far as I know, most if not all agencies' licenses permit the use of a licensed photo on a product for sale. It may require an extended (higher cost) license depending on the use, and how much of the value of the product derives from the image. For example, someone made calendars a while back using licensed images. Shutterstock went after them, since the photos were much of the value. They got the customer to pay for extended licenses, which made a nice payout. But I suspect a yoga mat wouldn't need more than a standard license.

thank you so much for that clarification

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** August 01, 2016, 06:14 »

A product like that would require an EL, IMO.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #9 on:** August 01, 2016, 09:25 »

your image is not being resold, it is used to create a new product with is then sold, which is allowed by several agencies, such as CanStockPhoto and fotolia

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** August 01, 2016, 10:06 »

Effectively you'd have to know from which agency they'd licensed the image to know whether they should have paid you an extended licence for this usage.

castel · « **Reply #11 on:** August 07, 2016, 00:54 »

Hi there,

I have a similar question.

Can you use a stock image and sell it as a digital download art print (where the image has been slightly tweaked)? So they only offer the art print as a digital download. I've seen this and wondered if some licences allow this or terms and conditions haven't been actually followed.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** August 07, 2016, 07:25 »

Quote from: castel on August 07, 2016, 00:54

Hi there,

I have a similar question.

Can you use a stock image and sell it as a digital download art print (where the image has been slightly tweaked)? So they only offer the art print as a digital download. I've seen this and wondered if some licences allow this or terms and conditions haven't been actually followed.

Normally not, but:
1. I don't know the T&C of all the sites, you'd have to check all the sites you sell through, and their partners. Stuff sneaks in, esp on partners.

2. Apparently some of these sellers have some sort of arrangement with (some of?) the agencies whereby they only pay the extended licence if they actually sell something, which makes policing impossible.

castel · « **Reply #13 on:** August 07, 2016, 07:31 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 07, 2016, 07:25

Normally not, but:
1. I don't know the T&C of all the sites, you'd have to check all the sites you sell through, and their partners. Stuff sneaks in, esp on partners.

2. Apparently some of these sellers have some sort of arrangement with (some of?) the agencies whereby they only pay the extended licence if they actually sell something, which makes policing impossible.

I'm actually not a stock photographer. I am just interested in selling art prints and saw someone doing this (selling them as digital downloads). I traced the images back to stock photos but I have no clue where they purchased it from (as there is multiple photos of the same photo on multiple stock photo sites). From all the extended licences I read so far, it doesn't seem you are allowed to.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Image licensed (?) and then resold by third party (Read 5919 times)

Nica

Sean Locke Photography

Justanotherphotographer

Nica

Justanotherphotographer

Nica

disorderly

Nica

Sean Locke Photography

Microstockphoto

ShadySue

castel

ShadySue

castel

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors