MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Tom1984 on September 10, 2015, 13:58
-
Hello,
... it's more a general question out of curiosity: 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? I'm not talking about resale-rights for putting the photo on a mug and selling the mug but for resale rights for the photo (as it is).
Thanks in advance
-Tom
-
Do you mean sell it as a print or license it?
-
I mean selling the photo as (modified) stock photo on a platform like Envato or CreativeMarket
-
Of course it's possible to do it if the copyright holder agrees to it and the rights are secured.
-
Short answer: no. Every stock agency I'm with requires a submitter to have the copyright to the work they submit. If you didn't take a photo or create a vector, you're not the rights holder. There are a few exceptions like Work for Hire contracts and Dreamstime's Sell the Rights option, but in every other case I'm aware of, you can't license an image and then claim ownership. Keep in mind that customers license images; they don't buy them and can not assert any claim of ownership as a result.
I'm probably oversimplifying, and I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty confident of my ground.
-
NO
-
The answer is yes.
-
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 out there who buyout the copyrights for someone's stock portfolio, they then can then sell licenses to the photos themselves.
-
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...
-
How much are you willing to pay, I think everyone of us is open to it at the right price.
-
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.
-
You cannot go to a stock photo agency, buy a photo, then put it up on your own stock photo website and resell. No. Generally that is called redistribution.
-
You cannot go to a stock photo agency, buy a photo, then put it up on your own stock photo website and resell. No. Generally that is called redistribution.
You can go to Dreamstime and do just that.
-
You cannot go to a stock photo agency, buy a photo, then put it up on your own stock photo website and resell. No. Generally that is called redistribution.
But you can go directly to a contributor and buy the copyright for their photos from them. You could then put it up on a stock site to be licensed.
-
Of course you can buy whatever rights the holder is willing to sell (in most territories though some countries have some inalienable moral rights belonging to creatives). There's no simple EL or similar license that will allow you to do it of course, otherwise we'd all be out of business. DT and 123 have much higher priced buyout licences that could allow it? (Can't be bothered to look into the terms right now)
-
You cannot go to a stock photo agency, buy a photo, then put it up on your own stock photo website and resell. No. Generally that is called redistribution.
You can go to Dreamstime and do just that.
You are talking about buying the copyrights. As many others have stated before you, yes, you can buy a copyright from someone, then actually own the image where the copyright has been transferred.
I am addressing a different situation. One in which some think that by purchasing an image from a stock photo agency that they are allowed to then resell that image. I am NOT saying that is what the OP thinks, but his question was a little vague. And I am pretty sure you know the difference.
-
You can purchase the right to resell - there are packages of images you can buy that way:
http://www.royalshot.com/ (http://www.royalshot.com/)
http://www.freepik.com/deal/stock-photos-with-resell-rights--only- (http://www.freepik.com/deal/stock-photos-with-resell-rights--only-)$79_133.htm
Search for photos and reseller rights and you'll see bucket loads of ho-hum images.
You can also write a contract to transfer copyright to you from the person who currently owns it - but make sure that the person selling them to you really has copyright (versus a scam where they are selling you rights they don't possess).
-
You cannot go to a stock photo agency, buy a photo, then put it up on your own stock photo website and resell. No. Generally that is called redistribution.
You can go to Dreamstime and do just that.
No, I don't think so.
From their page (http://www.dreamstime.com/about-stock-image-licenses (http://www.dreamstime.com/about-stock-image-licenses)):
"Sell the Rights (SR-EL) - this license represents a full ownership of the downloaded image. The buyer can use it exclusively (exclusivity applies from the moment that the file was downloaded using this license), and include it in any type of design with just a few restrictions: sensitive subjects may still apply and the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo. The agency will disable the image immediately after the buyer acquired this license. The photographer is required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occurred, but no longer than 72 hours. The photographer acknowledge and agrees to provide the buyer with full ownership for the file retrieved using the SR-EL license."
I don't know if that also means you can't use the licensed image as source material in some kind of photoshop work and then re-sell that work, haven't looked into the license terms exactly.
-
So the buyer gets full ownership but can't resell it, seems contradictory. Hard to figure out what selling THE rights and full ownership mean, sounds like they don't actually mean THE rights just some rights and it's not full ownership but limited ownership. Is there a more complete explanation of this somewhere?
-
You can purchase the right to resell - there are packages of images you can buy that way:
[url]http://www.royalshot.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.royalshot.com/[/url])
[url]http://www.freepik.com/deal/stock-photos-with-resell-rights--only-[/url] ([url]http://www.freepik.com/deal/stock-photos-with-resell-rights--only-[/url])$79_133.htm
Search for photos and reseller rights and you'll see bucket loads of ho-hum images.
You can also write a contract to transfer copyright to you from the person who currently owns it - but make sure that the person selling them to you really has copyright (versus a scam where they are selling you rights they don't possess).
Thanks for the links. I found some similar websites, too. But also "Royal Shot" excludes selling these images on stock photo websites like iStock. They only allow you to sell these photos on a website you own/control.
"Q: I would like to purchase RoyalShot Packages and offer the images for sale on stock photo sites such as istock.com? Is that OK?
A: NO, You are prohibited from selling our Packages on 3rd party sites such as istock.com. You must OWN or CONTROL the website domain you wish to resell RoyalShot images."
But I am looking for photos which I can sell on Stockphoto websites, I don't have and I'm not planning on having an own website for stock photos.
-
So the buyer gets full ownership but can't resell it, seems contradictory. Hard to figure out what selling THE rights and full ownership mean, sounds like they don't actually mean THE rights just some rights and it's not full ownership but limited ownership. Is there a more complete explanation of this somewhere?
Yes, sounds contradictory. I haven't found a different or more complete explanation on the DT site.
-
It might be cheaper to hire someone to take photos for you under a "work for hire" contract than trying to buy copyrights to already established images.
-
Only a few read the OP correctly, because the answer is yes. Of course it is legally possible to resell a photo you didnt take.
-
So the buyer gets full ownership but can't resell it, seems contradictory. Hard to figure out what selling THE rights and full ownership mean, sounds like they don't actually mean THE rights just some rights and it's not full ownership but limited ownership. Is there a more complete explanation of this somewhere?
You can use the image in any way you want (moral standards provided), for products, unlimited print runs, for as many clients as you want.
But the main key for buyers to buy out those rights most likely is the exclusive use. They can't license the photo as a photo but they can protect themselves from others to license the same image in the future. The only risk is that the image has sold in the past and those licenses can't be revoked. It's basically what big companies still pay five digits for in the rights managed market, just with a lack of sales history.
-
So the buyer gets full ownership but can't resell it, seems contradictory. Hard to figure out what selling THE rights and full ownership mean, sounds like they don't actually mean THE rights just some rights and it's not full ownership but limited ownership. Is there a more complete explanation of this somewhere?
You can use the image in any way you want (moral standards provided), for products, unlimited print runs, for as many clients as you want.
But the main key for buyers to buy out those rights most likely is the exclusive use. They can't license the photo as a photo but they can protect themselves from others to license the same image in the future. The only risk is that the image has sold in the past and those licenses can't be revoked. It's basically what big companies still pay five digits for in the rights managed market, just with a lack of sales history.
They use the words "sell the rights" and "full ownership", who owns the copyright when the buyer buys the rights and has full ownership of the image? If all they were getting was exclusive use then they wouldn't get full ownership and they wouldn't be buying the rights, they would be buying some rights and have no ownership.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (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.
-
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. [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/terms[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/terms[/url])
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.
-
It could certainly be clearer.
-
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.
-
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.