MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: unnonimus on September 26, 2021, 03:27

Title: Stock Agencies vs YouTube on copyrights
Post by: unnonimus on September 26, 2021, 03:27
funny, Youtube does not have ANY of the crazy copyright restrictions that stock companies have.

YouTube allows you to post videos with tattoos, videos of buildings like the Empire State Building, Hollywood sign, sports venues where you have to buy a ticket, people who are 'identifiable' by their clothes, videos that contain other artwork and photos.

I guess YouTube hasn't learned yet? (this is sarcasm)

The stock companies have been misinterpreting copyright laws for a long time. Hopefully some day they will start reading the copyright laws properly instead of what they have been doing.
Title: Re: Stock Agencies vs YouTube on copyrights
Post by: Noedelhap on September 26, 2021, 04:32
I think that's because there is a difference between selling photos with commercial licenses (featuring people or buildings) and publishing a video for free on a platform like Youtube.
Stock agencies need more restrictions to cover themselves legally when licensing photos. Most of what is published on YT is free for all and considered "fair use". Youtube does take down videos that violate copyright laws.

Title: Re: Stock Agencies vs YouTube on copyrights
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on September 26, 2021, 08:45
Here we go again
Title: Re: Stock Agencies vs YouTube on copyrights
Post by: ShadySue on September 26, 2021, 10:02

The stock companies have been misinterpreting copyright laws for a long time. Hopefully some day they will start reading the copyright laws properly instead of what they have been doing.
Hopefully, some day you will accept the benefits of having your own agency, raking in the profits from the highly desireable (you think) photos the agencies won't accept, while accepting the risk (which you don't believe exists). That would save you the effort and time of posting your hypotheses here, which is pointless.

Have fun.
Title: Re: Stock Agencies vs YouTube on copyrights
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 26, 2021, 13:45
I think that's because there is a difference between selling photos with commercial licenses (featuring people or buildings) and publishing a video for free on a platform like Youtube.
Stock agencies need more restrictions to cover themselves legally when licensing photos. Most of what is published on YT is free for all and considered "fair use". Youtube does take down videos that violate copyright laws.

Nailed it.
Title: Re: Stock Agencies vs YouTube on copyrights
Post by: Uncle Pete on September 27, 2021, 07:40
Correct

Here we go again

(https://i.postimg.cc/CLxs22Vg/beatdeadhorse.gif)