|Royalty free question|
| 6:11 am on Jul 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I want to create video from royalty free images of people, and to upload that video on YouTube(I will pay for these images).So can I do that.I read in the license of that images.I can create videos, but I can't distribute the images.So isn't uploading a video distribution?And if yes, can I remove "embed" option?
Thank you in advance
| 7:56 am on Jul 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
There is a option to allow embed or not.
| 7:21 pm on Jul 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Read the license agreement very carefully and if you have any doubt about the exact meaning or rights I would show it to a copyright attorney. With the explosion of content on the Internet copyright issues are becoming more and more an issue so make sure you are on the right side of the law on this one as a mistake could be rather costly in terms of legal fees and damages.
| 7:46 pm on Jul 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I read in the license of that images.I can create videos, but I can't distribute the images. |
So why would anyone want to buy images that you're not allowed to let others see? Seems rather odd.
If I buy royalty free images and use them in a magazine I'm putting together, what happens when that magazine is published? Well, under normal circumstances it would be distributed to the readers and to shops and other outlets. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever in the land of the royalty free.
If I use royalty free images in an email newsletter I'm sending out that's all right too. So why can't you use them in a video? That doesn't make sense.
As Fortune Hunter says, do make sure you read the licence very carefully. Better still, why not contact the image library concerned and ask for clarification?
| 6:19 am on Jul 31, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Thank you very much
Can you recommend me good copyright attorney?
And if there is not clear can I do that or not, so is there other type of images that I can use for my purpose(not royalty free)?I want to pay for images and to work 100% legally.
And what can happen if I pay for royalty free and infringe their copyright?
Here is a part of the license:
"3. You may, subject to the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement, access and acquire the Content via 123RF, and use the acquired Content for the following purposes, provided you do not violate the rights of any third party:
(a) as a part of commercial or advertisement purposes in magazines and newspapers.
(b) as a design element on a website, video game, or CD-ROM but NOT in connection with any Web site template or software product for distribution or use by others.
(c) as part of marketing, advertising, or promotional materials, including print ads, mailers, handouts, and packaging.
(d) in connection with your business or entity, eg corporate identity documents, and letterhead.
(e) as decor in an office, lobby, or public area, restaurant, or retail store.
(f) in a PowerPoint presentation provided that a reasonably prominent statement is included on the same page as the Content as follows: "Certain images and/or photos on this page are the copyrighted property of 123RF Limited, their Contributors or Licensed Partners and are being used with permission under license. These images and/or photos may not be copied or downloaded without permission from 123RF Limited"
(g) as design elements in video, film, or television broadcasts.
4. You may NOT
(a) distribute the Content, electronically or in hard copy, except as specifically authorized under paragraph 3 above;
(b) authorize any third party to use the Content for any purpose or resell, sublicense, or otherwise make available the Content for use or distribution separately or detached from a product or Web page;
(c) share Content across a network, on a CD, or in any other way;
(d) under any circumstances, use automated or programmatic means or methods to download Content;
(e) use Content in any logo or part of any trademark;
(f) under any circumstances use Content in connection with any pornographic, obscene, immoral, defamatory or illegal materials; endorsement of product(s); sensitive mental/health/other similar aspect of contexts or subjects. "
| 10:53 am on Jul 31, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You might want to remove the name of the image library!
Reread their T&C's again, especially these parts:
|"3. You may... access and acquire the Content via blahblahimages, and use the acquired Content for the following purposes...: |
(g) as design elements in video, film, or television broadcasts.
I can understand how and why it might appear confusing, but see no problem at all in you using their images in your video (unless you violate Section 4F!). :-)
| 6:59 am on Aug 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
OK, but what about 4c and 4d?That video will be uploaded on YouTube, and so everyone will be able to download it.Isn't that a problem?If yes, and I disallow "embed", will that help me?
And about 4f, what if I use photos of girls, and use words like "sex", "porn", and ect?I will do that only to boost my traffic.My video will not contain adult materials, and the sites that I will promote will not contain adult?
| 8:21 am on Aug 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
They are referring to the image itself - the content - not the video that you put it in.
You cannot offer the image to others in a way that allows them to use it for themselves, ie, use it without paying the photo library. They're just seeking to preserve their income, that's all.
Once you've used the image in your own context, the only thing they're concerned about is if it violates sections 4 e & f.
If you're unsure about how section 4f relates to you, you're better off speaking to the supplier. My feeling - but I am not stating that my opinion is correct - is that you will not have a problem. You know the nature of your project, I don't. If in any doubt about specific use ask the image library.
[edited by: Syzygy at 8:22 am (utc) on Aug. 1, 2008]
| 2:18 pm on Aug 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|So why would anyone want to buy images that you're not allowed to let others see? |
What I was suggesting is that there are different levels to the rights you purchase when you buy royalty free photos. If you are going to purchase a picture and just place it one time on your own web site that may be one thing, but if you are going to purchase it and use it as a magazine cover for an issue that will have a print run of 10,000 that may be another matter entirely. I know that one of the site's I use has something they call an "extended license" which is more money than their normal rates, but allows you to use the photo in a way where it will get a lot more exposure.
I am not sure if a video on youtube will constitute a display of a photo that would require another level of rights, but it may and that is why I think you need to read the license agreement.
In graphic design circles the story about the designer that came up with the now famous Nike Swoosh was paid $30 bucks for the logo, but as anyone knows it is now worth millions. The point is that artistic entrepreneurs are getting smarter about their work and saying that limited use of their work is one price and a massive use of their work will be a higher amount, possibly much higher amount.
| 11:27 pm on Aug 1, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|If you are going to purchase a picture and just place it one time on your own web site that may be one thing, but if you are going to purchase it and use it as a magazine cover for an issue that will have a print run of 10,000 that may be another matter entirely. |
Not if it's royalty free! This is the whole point if it. Once purchased you may use the image as you wish - forever...
If your favourite photo library is placing restrictions on how you use royalty free images may I suggest that it's time to find another source.
| 1:07 am on Aug 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Not if it's royalty free! This is the whole point if it. Once purchased you may use the image as you wish - forever... |
I agree royalty free is supposed to give you unlimited rights, but I do believe that some sites and sources may charge you more to get that royalty free status if you are going to use the image in a way that gets a ton of exposure vs. a little.
The source I primarily use is istock.com and all of their images are considered "royalty free" meaning for every exposure of the image, just like every sale of a book I don't pay the creator a fee. However if I expect to use the photo in a way that will get zillions of people looking at it vs. a lot less than that, I believe they charge a higher fee for what they call an extended license, which means I pay a higher rate to get that "royalty free" status.
Seems pretty straight forward to me and fair, but maybe I am missing something.
| 7:56 am on Aug 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Image libraries have been tinkering with Royalty Free for a while. One sizeable library I used to use regularly restructured its fees so that the amount you paid was for a one time use! D'oh!
If you wanted to use an image more than once they expected you to pay a higher rate. That's not Royalty Free, it's desperate money grabbing.
Many libraries have been feeling the pinch as the online market has grown. Similarly, competition in this area has expanded dramatically over the last few years and now there are many suppliers of lo-res images designed for use on websites.
There might be a greater volume of images being used, but they're being sold at a considerably lower rate. Libraries are having to change existing rules in order to extract premium rates from users who buy at this end of the market.
However, in my book the purchase of a Royalty Free image means that I can do with that image whatever I want and for as long as I want. I will not do business with any supplier who tries to tell me otherwise - and there are plenty out there to choose from...
[edited by: Syzygy at 7:57 am (utc) on Aug. 4, 2008]
| 8:55 pm on Aug 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Royalty Free image means that I can do with that image whatever I want and for as long as I want. I will not do business with any supplier who tries to tell me otherwise |
I agree that is what Royalty Free should mean, but I am not sure that is the definition that will continue to retain as time goes by. There are a lot of artists out there who rightfully or wrongfully depending on your point of view think that unlimited use for a one time low fee is not fair to them. Now I guess they have the option of raising their royalty free price to a huge dollar amount and then let you have unlimited access, but I think the days of low fees and unlimited use are numbered. It sounds like you have a good list of suppliers and hopefully it stays that way, but I am not sure it will.