Hi all, is this common knowledge? I woke up feeling paranoid about stock images for some reason so I started reading through the Shutterstock license agreement. I've skimmed through it before but I must have missed the following;

 

 

"[You must not] Publicly display an Image: (a) as a standalone file in any digital format on the internet; or ( in any digital format without imposing technical or written restrictions intended to prevent the use of such Images by third parties,"

 

[uPDATE]

 

After speaking with SS it appears as long as you ensure typical users can't download the images via right-click you'll be seen as adhering to the license agreement. Better get a quick bit of jQuery up and running...

Edited March 7, 201412 yr by Dcruize

After speaking with SS it appears as long as you ensure typical users can't download the images via right-click you'll be seen as adhering to the license agreement. Better get a quick bit of jQuery up and running...

 

These companies need to realise that disabling right click is pointless.

 

I saw that Getty images have opened up a library where you can embed photos free of charge. I don't like that idea either, but it's progress.

 

in any digital format without imposing technical or written restrictions intended to prevent the use of such Images by third parties

It sounds like you just need to state that the image is not to be reproduced. Wouldn't that be a "written restriction"? If they think its sufficient to disable download via right click then at least you're covered. Personally, I wouldn't bother. They must know its useless.

As a photographer with a small portfolio of microstock (but not at Shutterstock) I am certainly concerned about copyright issues, but this seems over the top to me.

 

I would think that if someone is going to steal a photo off a website, they are the ones who are at fault, not the person who used a stock image that they had purchased.

I've very quickly scanned the Dreamstime license and can't see that sort of restriction. They say "It is also forbidden to make the Media available on a website for
download (as wallpapers for example), although you may use the Media in a
concept in as many websites as you want, for any number of clients. For
Web use, you must not use the Media at a width exceeding 800 pixels
unless it is included in your site`s design. If the Media is part of a
design and manipulated accordingly, the Media width can be higher than
800 pixels."

 

"Buying the high-resolution Media (purchasing the license) does not
transfer the copyright. You may not claim that the Media is your own and
you may not sell, license for use, or in any way distribute the Media
for reuse. We recommend that you credit the agency and the Contributor
when you use an Media. By this you benefit the community at
Dreamstime.com, of which you are an integral part, and help increase
your success as part of the community, which, by growing contributions,
gains quantity and quality."

 

Nothing I can see at a quick glance about trying to stop people nicking it.

Edited March 7, 201412 yr by Jane B

I would think that if someone is going to steal a photo off a website, they are the ones who are at fault, not the person who used a stock image that they had purchased.

 

I don't understand that either.

The alternative they suggested to the right-click disabling is to cover 33% of the image with text. I'm amazed they can get away with such vague and unenforcible nonsense. Define 'text', can I theoretically cover 33% of the image with text done as an overlay blend at 1% opacity? I've wasted half a day going through all my clients sites and adding a pointless right-click blocker to stock images, I think I'll start spending more time trying to convince clients of the benefits of using a photographer (or stick to sxc.hu...). Are there any other decent free stock image sites people use?

 

On the positive side it's given me something to blog about!

Edited March 7, 201412 yr by Dcruize

I use Fotolia but I've never read their license agreement. I really don't see how Shutterstock can enforce that and stay in business.

I reckon around 80% of people who can use the internet know how to print screen (my mother knows how to do this) so if the image thief was in that 20% that dont know how to print screen, they would probably have to find something else to steal.

 

On a serious note I think Ill get myself a decant camera in the future and get real photos. Its better anyway if you think about it. Never liked using stock photography

Flickr has some great images that you can often use for commercial purposes. Some require credits, it's always worth checking.

I agree it's better to use a photographer, but what do you use when the client is selling non-tangible services? :/ Personally I think editorial-style images on websites are over-rated, I hate the way the web is moving towards video content and slideshow crap like this http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_all_questions_answered_in_a_slideshow?#slide=1 .

Flickr has some great images that you can often use for commercial purposes. Some require credits, it's always worth checking.

 

Totally! Especially for unusual topics such as wig-making

On a serious note I think Ill get myself a decant camera in the future and get real photos.

 

If you ever want to have fun by stirring up indignation amongst a bunch of photographers (think poking a stick into an ant hill) that statement would do it

http://www.morguefile.com/ has some free photos and so do http://www.dreamstime.com/free-photos what they tend to do is show you the free images that match your search and then tempt you with the higher quality ones that you could have if you pay a few pounds.

 

Also http://www.sxc.hu/

Many thanks Jane, I'll give them a try if I can't convince clients to go down the real photographer route!

 

If you ever want to have fun by stirring up indignation amongst a bunch of photographers (think poking a stick into an ant hill) that statement would do it

 

For added laughs make the following change; "On a serious note I think Ill get myself a decant camera phone in the future and get real photos."

Of course, a real photographer can make a masterpiece with a camera phone

 

I'm saying it as a joke but I know of people who probably can. Not me though.

It doesnt matter, whatever statement you make it will offend someone somewhere.

 

I prefer dealing with businesses that have real images on their website. Otherwise the images only real value is to look nice, not show their level of work.

 

But its up to the individual

I'm not offended - but it is kind of like saying "I think I'll get a copy of Photoshop and then I'll be a designer because that's what the professionals use".

 

But yes, real images are nice - and I'm amused not offended.

Glad to hear it Jane

I'm not offended - but it is kind of like saying "I think I'll get a copy of Photoshop and then I'll be a designer because that's what the professionals use".

 

But yes, real images are nice - and I'm amused not offended.

 

I have a client who thinks that since I'm a designer I must be good at photography.

 

I can assure you that's not the case even though I have a good camera. That said I am able to recognise a good photo which is more than a lot of people can say. So if I accidentally take one at least I'll know it.

Any business who takes their online presence seriously would hire a photographer to get their images - same way they would hire a professional designer / developer rather than a high school student to create the website. Those that don't have a budget for things like that I'd rather not work with.

Any business who takes their online presence seriously would hire a photographer to get their images - same way they would hire a professional designer / developer rather than a high school student to create the website. Those that don't have a budget for things like that I'd rather not work with.

 

The first image on your company's homepage looks remarkably familiar, why didn't you hire a photographer?

 

 

Assuming businesses who use stock images are not taking their online presence seriously (akin to using a high school student) feels a bit elitist. Of course it is best to use a real photographer whenever possible but there are times when it's not practical to do so (especially when dealing with non-tangible services). Blog posts/news items are perfect examples - you need a quick decorate skyline image to accompany an article, do you a) send a photographer up in a helicopter or b ) grab a stock image? You could argue for "c) neither, if it's not needed don't include it" but that's a different discussion altogether!

Edited March 10, 201412 yr by Dcruize

I get your point, I guess in some circumstances there are valid reasons to use stock images, for us this is just a quick fix as we will be redesigning soon. I might add I'm not the chief decision maker where I work but I will mention to him when we redesign to put more effort into getting unique imagery.

The examples you mentioned are also valid reasons that I didn't consider in my statement. I was getting at the use of stock images by the types of clients who just want everything on the cheap - those are the clients I'd try to avoid.

I wouldn't say stock photos are inherently bad. We all know that images of people are great for selling products or ideas and yet how many companies have staff that is wiling to be photographed and put on the front page of a company's website? Hiring a photographer is one thing but a photographer and models is another.

 

What is so off-putting about stock imagery is that fake generic look and inappropriate use of images. Although I have yet to see a design that would make good use of something like this: it is a pretty good photo in and of itself and could arguably be used well in the right context.

Edited March 11, 201412 yr by mantis