Yeah I discovered this word when I went to Finland, and I really liked how it sounded so I chose it .

The invoice only says I bought 22 credits, it doesn't give the details of the pictures I bought. I will contact 123rf and ask them directly.

Thanks for these precisions.

It's a shame that everything is so complicated when it comes to copyright. But, well we have to deal with it. And using a stock agency definitely seems to be the safest thing to do.

One thing troubles me though. You can get sued for using a picture without a licence. But how can they possibly know you don't have a licence?
Many images seem to be sold by several agencies, and I guess that Getty wouldn't know if I bought an image they sell on another website, or would they?

Hello!

I am not a photographer, I am a blogger and I recently discovered that taking Creative Commons pictures from Flickr wasn't that safe since there is not guarantee that the picture really is creative commons.

So I looked for a stock photography site, and found out that most of them don't guarantee that the pictures are legal to use. For example I checked Bigstockphoto and according to their terms of use, they are not responsible if I get sued after buying a picture there and using it as intended by the licence.

As a publisher this is a huge problem. The reason I want to buy stock pictures is precisely to pay photographers and avoid any copyright infringement. The fact they don't guarantee the legality of the pictures they sell is strange. And I am surprised it doesn't bother people.

I only found three stock photo providers who do, Istockphoto, Shutterstock and Vivozoom.

 I don't want to use Istockphoto because it belongs to Getty and this company has practices that I hate.

Shutterstock seems nice, but they also offer an extended legal protection. Does it mean the basic one isn't sufficient?

Vivozoom seems dead.

I wasn't familiar with this industry before. And honestly, what I find confuses me a lot. What these websites do is basically selling pictures without checking whether the person they pay really owns the picture. It seems very amateur.

But as I said I am new to this, so i may have misunderstood something.