Author Topic: My experience with buying photos from Adobe Stock (Read 12176 times)

Holmes · « **on:** September 17, 2015, 12:26 »

My experience with buying photos from Adobe Stock

I had to upgrade to Lightroom/Photoshop 6 CC to get my new Canon 5Dsr 50mp files to open. (amazing camera btw).

When you launch the PS app, a splash screen appears pitching ADOBE STOCK. OK, so I thought I would give it a shot. The link navigates to the Search page where I put in “surfing”. I found a nice photo with a guy surfing and his board had many visible logos on it…. BUT there was NO mention of editorial use only. There was NO mention of ANY restrictions for usage.

So I buy the photo for sale for $4.99 (40% off sale for a few days - Sub plans are offered). They only sell the largest file size. When I try to DL it, I find out that it will take 24 hours to process it. Since I just singed up I guess they need to verify me.

This morning, I found my file (not easily) and was able to download it. STILL no mention of ANY usage restrictions even though there are company logos all over the shot. AND it was out of focus (you can’t zoom in on previews).

Alright, This morning I give it another go with the KW “tennis” and found a nice shot of a woman playing with the word “HEAD” clearly on the racket. No mention of ANY restrictions. Only one size. Buy button. I click. Immediate Download to my desktop. DONE. Nice shot and in focus for $4.99. No waiting.

Clearly, Adobe has decided to make buying photos effortless with ONE CLICK Downloads, NO USAGE RESTRICTIONS, NO EXTENDED LICENSE issues, ONE SIZE buying, right into Photoshop!

Could be a game changer.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 17, 2015, 12:47 »

Glad I'm not uploading there.

dirkr · « **Reply #2 on:** September 17, 2015, 13:00 »

Fotolia does not offer an editorial option, so I assume that any logos / brand names and such are most likely an oversight of their review process.

I'm sure you can find that on any site.

It's a bit worrying though that they don't display any license restriction, because they should apply. They have their terms on their website (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf) and that clearly spells out the difference between standard and extended license. So in theory that does exist (and maybe buyers accept those conditions implicitely somewhere in the process of buying a CS subscription, but that does not really help if they don't know).

MxR · « **Reply #3 on:** September 17, 2015, 13:21 »

Fotolia, Stocksy and especially Istockphoto are full of pictures out of focus.
Fotolia and Stocksy: composition prevail on the technical aspects like noise of focus.
IStock only check that images not have logos and if you have the right PR or MR: accepts everything without problem.

Them, are agencies like shutterstock whit focus addiction.

The logos... is sure that are little logos or not very relevant, i have accepted images in fotolia with logos that i forget erase (istock rejected this images and them i can see the logo on the aprovved image)

wordplanet · « **Reply #4 on:** September 17, 2015, 16:09 »

I just had a selective focus image of a laptop rejected for slightly blurred "logos" - for want of a better word - on the keys themselves - I had to blow it up to 200% to see anything and remove them. They have probably gotten much stricter of late.

Disturbing that the download doesn't give you the license terms & restrictions. I'm guessing ease of download is their primary goal right now to get customers hooked. Thanks for sharing your experience.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #5 on:** September 17, 2015, 18:47 »

Thanks for sharing.

What I'd really like to know is if this image is now in your CC library and if you you are part of a team CC subscription can the other team members use this image?

Holmes · « **Reply #6 on:** September 17, 2015, 19:39 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on September 17, 2015, 18:47

Thanks for sharing.

What I'd really like to know is if this image is now in your CC library and if you you are part of a team CC subscription can the other team members use this image?

Dunno, I did not select to have my images etc go to the cloud (* hate that term) and It is just me at home doing post. But i imagine it could be as you have described with the click of a few check boxes.

Holmes · « **Reply #7 on:** September 17, 2015, 19:40 »

Quote from: MxR on September 17, 2015, 13:21

The logos... is sure that are little logos or not very relevant, i have accepted images in fotolia with logos that i forget erase (istock rejected this images and them i can see the logo on the aprovved image)

Nope, logos are VERY apparent.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #8 on:** September 18, 2015, 05:48 »

Quote from: Holmes on September 17, 2015, 12:26

Clearly, Adobe has decided to make buying photos effortless with ONE CLICK Downloads, NO USAGE RESTRICTIONS, NO EXTENDED LICENSE issues, ONE SIZE buying, right into Photoshop!

Just to be clear: They are not showing any restrictions in the download/purchasing process. That doesn't mean, they don't exist.

Because as an Adobe customer, you are agreeing to their overall Legal Terms (http://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html) which also includes the "Adobe Stock Additional Terms" (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf) which also include the "usual" Extened License requirements.

However, at this stage you are not able to purchase an Extended License through Adobe Stock itself but you will be asked to license the file through Fotolia. At least that's how Adobe presented this step at their CC 2015 launch event.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #9 on:** September 18, 2015, 09:24 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on September 18, 2015, 05:48

However, at this stage you are not able to purchase an Extended License through Adobe Stock itself but you will be asked to license the file through Fotolia. At least that's how Adobe presented this step at their CC 2015 launch event.

Lets hope Adobe build in Extended Licensing into CC soon, otherwise it's lost revenue for everyone. One to keep an eye on.

weymouth · « **Reply #10 on:** September 18, 2015, 09:55 »

Michael Jay is absolutely correct. I have heard many buying from Adobe/FT saying the Procedure is very easy and very well explained.

On the note of out of focus shots, well take Shutterstock as an example, none of their reviewers have learnt the art of depth-of-field selective focus or anything. So whats the best of two evils?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 18, 2015, 09:58 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on September 18, 2015, 05:48

Quote from: Holmes on September 17, 2015, 12:26
Clearly, Adobe has decided to make buying photos effortless with ONE CLICK Downloads, NO USAGE RESTRICTIONS, NO EXTENDED LICENSE issues, ONE SIZE buying, right into Photoshop!

Just to be clear: They are not showing any restrictions in the download/purchasing process. That doesn't mean, they don't exist.

Because as an Adobe customer, you are agreeing to their overall Legal Terms (http://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html) which also includes the "Adobe Stock Additional Terms" (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf) which also include the "usual" Extened License requirements.

However, at this stage you are not able to purchase an Extended License through Adobe Stock itself but you will be asked to license the file through Fotolia. At least that's how Adobe presented this step at their CC 2015 launch event.

This suppresses sales of extended licenses, IMO. I think the issue has less to do with the existence of the EL and the legal agreement and more to do with ease of purchase and the marketing of them. Not mentioning them at all in the buying process and making customers jump through additional hoops to purchase them will surely deter people from doing the right thing in cases where an EL is appropriate.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #12 on:** September 18, 2015, 11:25 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 18, 2015, 09:58

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on September 18, 2015, 05:48
Quote from: Holmes on September 17, 2015, 12:26
Clearly, Adobe has decided to make buying photos effortless with ONE CLICK Downloads, NO USAGE RESTRICTIONS, NO EXTENDED LICENSE issues, ONE SIZE buying, right into Photoshop!

Just to be clear: They are not showing any restrictions in the download/purchasing process. That doesn't mean, they don't exist.

Because as an Adobe customer, you are agreeing to their overall Legal Terms (http://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html) which also includes the "Adobe Stock Additional Terms" (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Terms_en_US-20150313_hpc.pdf) which also include the "usual" Extened License requirements.

However, at this stage you are not able to purchase an Extended License through Adobe Stock itself but you will be asked to license the file through Fotolia. At least that's how Adobe presented this step at their CC 2015 launch event.

This suppresses sales of extended licenses, IMO. I think the issue has less to do with the existence of the EL and the legal agreement and more to do with ease of purchase and the marketing of them. Not mentioning them at all in the buying process and making customers jump through additional hoops to purchase them will surely deter people from doing the right thing in cases where an EL is appropriate.

Does anybody even get extended license sales anymore? I'd guess this usage is so heavily abused that extended licenses may eventually go away for most micro sites fairly soon.

I don't think most micro buyers even know what an extended license is. And for the ones that do know why would they care? So what if they breach terms? Who's checking? Nobody except for maybe Getty. And even when Getty goes after infringers the thieves raise a big stink and try to shame big bad Getty for asking them to pay for what they stole.

When I pulled most of my images from Istock I suddenly got a few calls asking how they could license the images because they had them planned for projects. When I asked about usage, several of them planned on using images for resale. When I asked about extended licenses they had no idea what I was talking about. So they were planning to use my cheap images, with the wrong license, to probably make a boatload of money and I would get a percentage of a few dollars. No thanks. On my website where I now only license images as RM I got a $450 sale a couple days ago. And 100% of $450.

I understand the idea of making it easier for buyers to buy. To make more sales. But is the end result really more money in the pocket of contributors?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 18, 2015, 11:44 »

How could it not be more money in our pockets? I had several ELs per month until SS changed the terms, which adds up to a couple thousand dollars a year. Now I get maybe one or two a month, which is still several hundred dollars a year. Clearly some buyers know what they are and follow the terms of use, because once they were able to use a regular license for larger print runs they stopped buying ELs. Not everyone who licenses stock is clueless, though of course many are.

fiftyfootelvis · « **Reply #14 on:** September 18, 2015, 12:14 »

Those copyright restrictions are there to protect both vender and the purchaser from legal action.
Adobe not mentioning them does not mean that your client won't get a cease and desist letter from Head's lawyers.
And that is the kind of thing that turns clients into ex-clients.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #15 on:** September 18, 2015, 12:14 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 18, 2015, 11:25

On my website where I now only license images as RM I got a $450 sale a couple days ago. And 100% of $450.

I understand the idea of making it easier for buyers to buy. To make more sales. But is the end result really more money in the pocket of contributors?

Paulie, Would love to see your site. I'm busy reserving URL names, planning etc. Thanks.

chuckcars · « **Reply #16 on:** September 18, 2015, 12:48 »

Quote from: Zeus on September 18, 2015, 12:14

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 18, 2015, 11:25
On my website where I now only license images as RM I got a $450 sale a couple days ago. And 100% of $450.

I understand the idea of making it easier for buyers to buy. To make more sales. But is the end result really more money in the pocket of contributors?

Paulie, Would love to see your site. I'm busy reserving URL names, planning etc. Thanks.

Ditto. TIA

C

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: My experience with buying photos from Adobe Stock (Read 12176 times)

Holmes

Shelma1

dirkr

MxR

wordplanet

stock-will-eat-itself

Holmes

Holmes

MichaelJayFoto

stock-will-eat-itself

weymouth

Shelma1

PaulieWalnuts

Shelma1

fiftyfootelvis

PeterChigmaroff

chuckcars

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors