Author Topic: Taking photos vs buying photos vs hiring photographers (Read 5278 times)

SME · « **on:** January 18, 2015, 10:40 »

I'm trying to determine the accepted TOS for most stock photography sites.

Shutterstock seems to indicate that you must have full rights to the images you upload. Fotolia says you must have taken the photo yourself.

But I'm guessing some larger contributors have people they have hired to assist in the process, going so far as to take the pictures for the contributor.

So my question is, as long as you have full ownership of the picture along with the raw image and a signed transfer contract from the photographer, are you allowed to use the photo for microstock sites?

And if not, what exactly is the line between hiring people to work under you vs contracting photographers for you (which in essence is what you are doing if you buy images from photographers).

Thanks.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2015, 10:47 »

Presumably the exact legal procedure will vary between countries, so you could maybe say where you are (country) to stop a lot of irrelevant posts.

cascoly · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2015, 13:19 »

and rules will vary by agency, and time -- eg ss no longer allows scans of vintage maps, etc

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2015, 15:01 »

Yes, that ended with No Public Domain and no "Found Photos".

Hasn't hurt the uploads any, has it?

EM every agency makes it's own rules, most have nothing to do with the actual laws. So if you are looking for what "most" agencies require, I'd suggest you start with the ones you work for, or wish to, and treat each individually. There is no "MOST". Just like pay, levels, commissions, partners and reviews, it is different and often changing.

Quote from: cascoly on January 18, 2015, 13:19