MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: microstock and royalty-free - the same?!?  (Read 8086 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 10, 2007, 16:38 »
0
In the current thread about Zymmetrical, twice I read people saying a royalty-free stock photography is microstock. 

Royalty-free is NOT necessarily the same thing as microstock.  Or do I get things wrong?

Regards,
Adelaide


« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2007, 16:47 »
0
No, you are not mistaken - you find RF images in Macrostock as well as in Microstock. Microstock has its name from micropayments (I think I read that somewhere in a book about microstock).

« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2007, 03:43 »
0
You're right, they are totally different ... like beef is different from the butcher.   :)

What may have lead to the confusion is the fact that the microstocks (as far as I know) only sell RF.

Other agencies sell RF, Rights-Managed, and maybe other categories too.

« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2007, 13:22 »
0
Mircostock means mirco or small payments. I guess it's where you draw the line on what is a small payment. Personally anything under $100 would be microstock. In general royalty-free is microstock (with exceptions in some Corbis and Getty collections). "Totally different like beef is different from the butcher" is a bit of a stretch. I think a better analogy would be going to a butcher shop versus going to walmart to get your meat. Microstock is generally associated with RF.

« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2007, 13:30 »
0
I understand the confusion, though I'm a bit surprised to see this misinterpretation here in this group.

For a buyer, I can imagine that license restrictions may pass unnoticed, so they may think that by being a royalty-free image they can use the same image over and over for whatever they want.  I think images in those CDs sold in the past had this kind of liberate license. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2007, 14:28 »
0
"Totally different like beef is different from the butcher" is a bit of a stretch. I think a better analogy would be going to a butcher shop versus going to walmart to get your meat.

I agree it's a bit of a stretch ... but not that much.

Beef is a type of meat you can buy. The butcher's is just one place you can buy it.

RF is a type of image you can buy. Microstocks are just one place you can buy them.


vicu

« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2007, 16:02 »
0
For a buyer, I can imagine that license restrictions may pass unnoticed, so they may think that by being a royalty-free image they can use the same image over and over for whatever they want. 

A royalty-free license *does* in fact entitle the licensee to use the same image over and over for whatever they want, WITHIN the terms of the licensing agreement (which usually includes stipulations about defammatory usage, number of impressions per usage, number of seats, certain types of commercial usage, etc, and may vary somewhat from site to site).

For instance, images on istock have a license that begins:
"We hereby grant to you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable worldwide license"

Perpetual means I can use the same image over and over, in whatever I want (within the terms), until I reach the maximum quantity of  500,000 impressions. Since advertisements in magazines, newspapers, websites or TV do not count towards the impression (beyond once), I could use an image on 50,000 flyers, 50,000 postcards and an entire ad campaign and then turn around in any number of years (or even simultaenously) and use that image for up to 400,000 printed impressions (not including ads). I can also purchase an extended license which would grant me unlimited usage - forever.

Think of microstock as a store and royalty-free as a product in that store. The two are not interchangeable terms, though they are almost always related. Royalty-free is available at many other price points than microstock. There are many more "macrostock" sites than there are microstock. The ones we hear about most --Getty, Jupiter, Veer, Corbis, Alamy-- are only a tiny smattering of the ones that exist.  SOME of these sites also offer rights-managed and/or editorial licenses as other products in their "store".

The macro and micro are only terms used to differentiate the very low priced stock sites from the "traditionally" priced stock sites.

« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2007, 15:09 »
0
Vicu,

I thought, from previous discussions here and elsewhere, that each use would require a new download.  I could not be able to make a design for client A and use the same image for client B unless I bought two licenses.

In BigStock, for instance, it says:
Quote
Purchasing an image buys you a license to use the image in one product/project. If you are creating several products/projects you must re-purchase photo for each new product.

Even under IS terms, you can only have one back-up copy. Also, it says under Prohibitions:
Quote
install and use the Content in more than one location at a time
therefore I understand that I can't have the same image in two different clients.

The "perpetual" use for me meant that it didn't expire after some time (unlike some RM licenses).

Regards,
Adelaide

vicu

« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2007, 15:34 »
0
Vicu,

I thought, from previous discussions here and elsewhere, that each use would require a new download.  I could not be able to make a design for client A and use the same image for client B unless I bought two licenses.

In BigStock, for instance, it says:
Quote
Purchasing an image buys you a license to use the image in one product/project. If you are creating several products/projects you must re-purchase photo for each new product.

Even under IS terms, you can only have one back-up copy. Also, it says under Prohibitions:
Quote
install and use the Content in more than one location at a time
therefore I understand that I can't have the same image in two different clients.

The "perpetual" use for me meant that it didn't expire after some time (unlike some RM licenses).

Regards,
Adelaide

That is not the case at istock. I'm not familiar with BigStock as I've never purchased an image there. The "content" in regard to that agreement is the digital file. That pertains to the seat limit, only one user working with the digital file at a time. A designer that purchases the license for their use(s) and has one copy of the digital file on their computer can use the content as many times as they want. You are not distributing the istock file to your client (or you shouldn't be, since the license is not transferable). You are distributing your completed work product.

This has been clarified repeatedly by admins on the forums. Some designers will say that "to be fair to the photographer" they will download an image an additional time for each usage, but this is NOT required according to the istock license.

« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2007, 15:39 »
0
Vicu,

I must say this is quite disappointing.  These multiple downloads were a fair deal to me.  Now I'm more convicted not to have certain images in microstock.

Regards,
Adelaide

vicu

« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2007, 17:38 »
0
Vicu,

I must say this is quite disappointing.  These multiple downloads were a fair deal to me.  Now I'm more convicted not to have certain images in microstock.

Regards,
Adelaide

The same is true for royalty-free images purchased through macrostock agencies, many of which are available as part of CD collections. They are meant to be used repeatedly. Of course you stated the BigStock specifies that each may only be used once, so I'd urge all buyers to be certain they read the license for the agency through which they are purchasing an image. Also, keep in mind that if you have an image on BigStock and the same image on IS, you (as the contributor) have no way of knowing which license applies.

« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2007, 20:53 »
0
Correction for Vicu:
1) Perpetual actually refers to the fact that the license doesn't end, it has nothing to do with how you use the image or how many times. The meaning of a word in a contract is either the one found in black's law dictionary or the normal usage. In this case: continuing forever; everlasting.

2) On istock there is a seat restriction. You may install and use the Content in only one location at a time. So if you used it on a website, you can't use the image in an ad campaign at the same time. You would have to take the image off the website, then make your prints, then you can put it back up on the website. I know this is a silly example, but it shows the usage is in fact limited.

Edit:
3) A better example is that you couldn't use the same image on two different websites at the same time.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 20:55 by yingyang0 »

vicu

« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2007, 07:16 »
0
Correction for Vicu:
1) Perpetual actually refers to the fact that the license doesn't end, it has nothing to do with how you use the image or how many times. The meaning of a word in a contract is either the one found in black's law dictionary or the normal usage. In this case: continuing forever; everlasting.
Yes, I understand the meaning of the word, but was extrapolating that to the fact that is NOT forever, everlasting once you've reached that 500,000 impression max. I can see how my statement makes it appear as if I think the word has some inherent meaning involving stock usage. I was attempting (badly) to illustrate the point. Did you really think I didn't know the meaning of the word "perpetual"?
Quote
2) On istock there is a seat restriction. You may install and use the Content in only one location at a time. So if you used it on a website, you can't use the image in an ad campaign at the same time. You would have to take the image off the website, then make your prints, then you can put it back up on the website. I know this is a silly example, but it shows the usage is in fact limited.

Edit:
3) A better example is that you couldn't use the same image on two different websites at the same time.

It is limited, but not to one usage per license. That is the point I was trying to make to madelaide, who believed that each license was valid for one single usage. period. That is far from the truth. I'm sure you could come up with several scenarios which would be disallowed, but the fact is that a license does not limit the number of times an image can be used IN GENERAL.

After two threads where I spent time trying to assist, only to have my every word dissected and misinterpreted, it's really very disheartening.

If the istock forum search was even remotely useful, I could point to dozens of thread where this has been discussed, complete with admin input. Normally I'd at least attempt to find them. But at this point... why bother?

Anyway, thanks very much for the "correction".  I can see now that I was COMPLETELY wrong.

« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2007, 10:37 »
0
After two threads where I spent time trying to assist, only to have my every word dissected and misinterpreted, it's really very disheartening.

Anyway, thanks very much for the "correction".  I can see now that I was COMPLETELY wrong.
Wow, dripping with sarcasm. No one said you were wrong so no need for that.

This was obviously a very confusing topic that needs precision. Especially considering you corrected madelaide with confusing answers. I wasn't trying to frustrate you, only clarify some unclear answers. For instance:

A designer that purchases the license for their use(s) and has one copy of the digital file on their computer can use the content as many times as they want.
or
Think of microstock as a store and royalty-free as a product in that store.
Nothing in your answers was "COMPLETELY" wrong, just unclear. Perhaps I should have said clarification rather than correction so I didn't somehow offend (still trying to figure out how the post offended you).

vicu

« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2007, 10:53 »
0
Don't worry about it yingyang. I should have just left it alone the way it was. Nobody else seemed interested in correcting the mistakes in this thread until I got involved. It shouldn't matter to me if they are mistaken in their assumptions.

As I said, it wasn't just you. A similar thing happened in another thread where someone requested opinions, but didn't really want them unless they agreed with him. I wasted a half hour or so of my life that I will never get back by taking the time to share my experience with someone who didn't really value my feedback at all, no matter how respectfully put forth.

Not to derail this thread though. There are places where my input and experience is valued and that is where I will offer it in the future and return to lurker status here.

Thanks again for your steadfast efforts on this forum, and I sincerely mean that (no sarcasm attached!).

I wish you all well.

« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2007, 05:30 »
0
Correction for Vicu:
2) On istock there is a seat restriction. You may install and use the Content in only one location at a time. So if you used it on a website, you can't use the image in an ad campaign at the same time. You would have to take the image off the website, then make your prints, then you can put it back up on the website. I know this is a silly example, but it shows the usage is in fact limited.

Edit:
3) A better example is that you couldn't use the same image on two different websites at the same time.


Just wanted to point out that this is absolutely not true.  The seat restriction refers to the buying organization.  ie, the regular license is for Bob to have the image and use it at his desk.  If the entire department of 10 wants access to the image, it is supposed to have an extended license.

The image itself can be used on any number of projects at the same time.

« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2007, 11:07 »
0
Correction for Vicu:
2) On istock there is a seat restriction. You may install and use the Content in only one location at a time. So if you used it on a website, you can't use the image in an ad campaign at the same time. You would have to take the image off the website, then make your prints, then you can put it back up on the website. I know this is a silly example, but it shows the usage is in fact limited.

Edit:
3) A better example is that you couldn't use the same image on two different websites at the same time.


Just wanted to point out that this is absolutely not true.  The seat restriction refers to the buying organization.  ie, the regular license is for Bob to have the image and use it at his desk.  If the entire department of 10 wants access to the image, it is supposed to have an extended license.

The image itself can be used on any number of projects at the same time.
Nice to see you sjlocke. What exactly is "absolutely not true"? If I download one of your images and put it on two different webservers that's a violation of the terms. I'm not talking about derivative works, I'm talking about the actual jpeg file. You may only have the image installed in one place at a time. As I said in the original post, it was a silly example because 99% of the time you'd have a derivative work on a website!

I agree that the image can be used on any number of projects at the same time, but you can't use the image at the same time if that means installing the image in two different locations. If I put a copy of the image on my webserver, like on godaddy.com, then I can't have a working copy of it on my home desktop.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 11:32 by yingyang0 »


« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2007, 19:19 »
0
Nice to see you sjlocke. What exactly is "absolutely not true"? If I download one of your images and put it on two different webservers that's a violation of the terms. I'm not talking about derivative works, I'm talking about the actual jpeg file. You may only have the image installed in one place at a time. As I said in the original post, it was a silly example because 99% of the time you'd have a derivative work on a website!

I agree that the image can be used on any number of projects at the same time, but you can't use the image at the same time if that means installing the image in two different locations. If I put a copy of the image on my webserver, like on godaddy.com, then I can't have a working copy of it on my home desktop.

Hmmm.   I guess so - the initial bit about having it on two websites sounded like a different kind of statement.

« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2007, 17:52 »
0
In simple words, can a designer download an image only once and use the image in a website for client A and in a folder for client B?

Cropping an image or pasting it in a folder/presentation/website doesn't qualify as "derivative work", I guess.  Changes in an image should be significant to qualify it as "derivative work".

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2007, 18:37 »
0
In simple words, can a designer download an image only once and use the image in a website for client A and in a folder for client B?

Cropping an image or pasting it in a folder/presentation/website doesn't qualify as "derivative work", I guess.  Changes in an image should be significant to qualify it as "derivative work".
Yes, in simple words a designer can download an image only once and use the image in a website for client A and in a folder for client B (technical violations could occur here but you'd never find out).

I'd personally download the image twice to avoid potential problems and to allow for the client reusing the image, but you don't have to. On most sites, including iStock, the regular licenses are very liberal. That's why I said most of my examples were silly because they probably wouldn't occur, and even if they did you would almost never find out. The only violations I've seen people find out about are indecent uses and using the image in print where the circulation of the prints exceeds that allowed by the license.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
6283 Views
Last post March 08, 2008, 19:13
by Lee Torrens
5 Replies
3883 Views
Last post April 12, 2010, 07:58
by sharpshot
24 Replies
6688 Views
Last post March 10, 2011, 19:56
by Jonathan Ross
3 Replies
2540 Views
Last post March 05, 2013, 20:58
by Angel
20 Replies
5041 Views
Last post July 10, 2017, 15:39
by ravens

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results