Author Topic: Legal question: Is it possible to buy and resell photos? (Read 13819 times)

Difydave · « **Reply #25 on:** September 11, 2015, 08:52 »

Personally, and legal position aside, I'd want the definitive permission of both the site I was buying from, and the site I was selling through, in writing, before I'd sell anything that was outside the normal rules.
In other words not just "Refer to the licensing terms" but something like "Yes it is OK to sell content you have not produced provided you have been assigned the copyright."

AS far as the likely quality of any "bought outright" content. I think Jo Ann sums it up with "Ho-hum"
Is anyone going to sell content they are sure they can make money from, for someone else to do so?
Selling to a client for their own exclusive use is as already said a different thing to selling for resale.

wordplanet · « **Reply #26 on:** September 11, 2015, 10:03 »

When they talk about "buy the rights" it depends upon what rights they are buying.

DT licenses different rights such as those explained above where a customer is buying the right to use a photo exclusively for a year so the photographer can't license that photo anywhere during the one year period, but they have no protection from those who have licensed it previously using the image, which is why they pay hundreds not thousands for the privilege. For an RM image where you know the history, a buyer will usually pay a lot more for exclusive use because they know exactly what they are getting.

Buying out the copyright is a totally different right - that gives you ownership of the image and the right to license it yourself as stock. People may pay thousands to tens of thousands for that privilege, it depends upon the photo and would be based upon the projected income that one could earn from it.

Items for Resale and buying the copyright are not the same thing. the resale license lets you sell prints, mugs, T-shirts etc. but does not let you license the image as stock.

tickstock · « **Reply #27 on:** September 11, 2015, 10:15 »

Quote from: wordplanet on September 11, 2015, 10:03

When they talk about "buy the rights" it depends upon what rights they are buying.

DT licenses different rights such as those explained above where a customer is buying the right to use a photo exclusively for a year so the photographer can't license that photo anywhere during the one year period, but they have no protection from those who have licensed it previously using the image, which is why they pay hundreds not thousands for the privilege. For an RM image where you know the history, a buyer will usually pay a lot more for exclusive use because they know exactly what they are getting.

Buying out the copyright is a totally different right - that gives you ownership of the image and the right to license it yourself as stock. People may pay thousands to tens of thousands for that privilege, it depends upon the photo and would be based upon the projected income that one could earn from it.

Items for Resale and buying the copyright are not the same thing. the resale license lets you sell prints, mugs, T-shirts etc. but does not let you license the image as stock.

DT says the buyer gets "full ownership" and "The photographer acknowledge and agrees to provide the buyer with full ownership for the file retrieved using the SR-EL license." They also say that the contributor owns the copyright, how the buyer has full ownership and the contributor owns the copyright is beyond me. Either the buyer doesn't get full ownership, they get an exclusive use license or they get full ownership which using normal language includes the copyright. I would think if I gave you full ownership of my image that would include the copyright because if you have full ownership then I have no ownership, it can't be 100% for one party and 50% for another can it?

wordplanet · « **Reply #28 on:** September 11, 2015, 11:07 »

Under sell the rights, the only restriction I see is that it can't be relicensed by someone claiming that they created the image. So they have exclusive ownership of the image since the photographer/illustrator has to disable the image and all similars, but they don't have the right to resell it as their own work. When a pro photographer sells the copyright, this restriction is often contained in the contract and does not contradict full ownership, it goes to attribution rather than ownership. http://www.dreamstime.com/terms

A photographer can also sell the copyright and give another the right to relicense it. It depends on the contract. When I referred to selling the copyright, I was speaking in general terms and not referring to DT in particular. I used them as an example of a limited time exclusive license without a copyright buyout. Hope that's clear now.

tickstock · « **Reply #29 on:** September 11, 2015, 11:20 »

Quote from: wordplanet on September 11, 2015, 11:07

Under sell the rights, the only restriction I see is that it can't be relicensed by someone claiming that they created the image. So they have exclusive ownership of the image since the photographer/illustrator has to disable the image and all similars, but they don't have the right to resell it as their own work. When a pro photographer sells the copyright, this restriction is often contained in the contract and does not contradict full ownership, it goes to attribution rather than ownership. http://www.dreamstime.com/terms

A photographer can also sell the copyright and give another the right to relicense it. It depends on the contract. When I referred to selling the copyright, I was speaking in general terms and not referring to DT in particular. I used them as an example of an exclusive license without a copyright buyout. Hope that's clear now.

I guess it depends how you define "full ownership" (along with half a dozen other terms) in DT license, I think a normal reading would include copyright. The terms are written so poorly that they barely make sense (I don't think they are coherent at all). It's like they wrote that "license" up ad hoc.

wordplanet · « **Reply #30 on:** September 11, 2015, 11:34 »

It could certainly be clearer.

FlowerPower · « **Reply #31 on:** September 11, 2015, 18:57 »

Quote from: PhotoLA on September 10, 2015, 14:41

Quote from: Tom1984 on September 10, 2015, 14:38
Quote from: PhotoLA on September 10, 2015, 14:36
Yes.

You can buy the copyright of a photo from someone. Once you own the copyright you can do whatever you want with that photo, including licensing it as stock.

There are people who well buyout the copyrights for someone's stock portfolio and then license the photos themselves.

What would be the best way to find those people? In my opinion it's just a game of numbers. I'm really fast with photo-editing in Lightroom and have some strong sales already. I just don't find that much time to travel/take photos anymore, that's why this idea popped into my head...

I've seen people post on this forum that they were looking to buyout people's portfolios.

And I received a PM from sombody offering to sell his SS portfolio and account. He wanted some $5000 making claim it was worth it. In 2012. I'd bet it didn't make $5000 in 3 years. Won't make $5000 in 10 years. Bad investment.

I won't sell on DT, DP or FT those answers are non.

unnonimus · « **Reply #32 on:** December 11, 2016, 17:39 »

QUESTION: "Is it legally possible to buy stock-photos from an individual or company with the rights to resell them in their original or modified form? "

Yes, if you have a mechanical license. A mechanical license would allow you to resell the photo, and for each sale, you would pay a portion of the profits to the original rights owner. However, I doubt you will find a stock photo agency that offers mechanical licenses.