Microstock Images

[dj_doubler]

Hi all,

As I am new to the sublimation game and dont have many hours left in the day to do alot of designing... what are your guys thoughts on buying the lisence to press onto the mugs?

Anthony

[JSR]

I haven't bought any to press onto mugs and things yet (but I'm considering it).

I have used microstock sites for other projects, though. The one I use the most is www.dreamstime.com. It's the only one I found that is totally clear about what you're allowed to do with the images and what to do if you want to do more things with them.

If you find an image you really like, you can pay for exclusivity or "buy the rights", which might be very useful if you want to avoid people copying your design. The only downside with that is that there are invariably "similar" images that might affect just how unique your design is.

There are plenty of other microstock sites out there.

[daviddeer]

I quite agree. Some royalty free sites are quite devious about rights, costs etc. Royalty free doesn't always mean you can print them for commercial use (see wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography)). You could always invest in a good camera. Sometimes suppliers have ready made transfers an example here (http://www.targettransfers.com/d/0003/Target-Originals) or sub the work out, there are plenty of budding graphic designers on this forum.

[JSR]

I quite agree. Some royalty free sites are quite devious about rights, costs etc. Royalty free doesn't always mean you can print them for commercial use (see wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography)). You could always invest in a good camera. Sometimes suppliers have ready made transfers an example here (http://www.targettransfers.com/d/0003/Target-Originals) or sub the work out, there are plenty of budding graphic designers on this forum.

Yes, it's the unclear rights issue that makes it difficult to use certain sites out there. An example here would be that Target Transfers you link to. The designs look great, but I'm struggling to find anywhere on the website that says what I could do with those designs. Can I press them to a t-shirt and then sell the finished item on to my customers, or are they for "personal use only"? Clarity is key, and the lack of clarity makes it impossible to buy.

"Royalty-free" isn't the same as "free", it just means you don't have to pay a royalty for each use of the design. It doesn't mean you don't have to pay anything at all.

Talking to a graphics designer is one option, but the downside is working out a payment. The designer is putting in a lot of work and expects to be paid for that work, as they should. But you're only going to be able to afford him if you're sure you're going to be able to sell enough of the end product. This isn't an issue with microstock because the designers/photographers hope to sell to many people and so the non-unique price can actually be quite cheap.

[Matt Quinn]

It's worth mentioning too that there are potential pitfalls due to many of these agencies being located outside the UK...

For a start, they may be selling/passing on material to which they themselves don't actually hold the proper rights! And allegations to that effect are often laid at the door of some surprisingly big players in the field!

Whether in the right or not you life is to short to 'stuff the mushroom' of dealing with harassment and possible threats of litigation from an offshore entity... Who may well be in a position to litigate via a UK court.

Legally, if you buy a licence in good faith from a third party which is then challenged by a rights holder, your argument is with the third party. However the rights holder's argument is still with YOU! - Many a dodgy web designer has sailed their clients way up 'sh-sh-shady creek' this way! - In fact, if I remember correctly, at least some of those caught out by the Corbis/Getty Juggernaught had used material from a template site; others had used 'free artwork' from an old coverdisc...

MUCH confusion in general surrounds rights administration in people's minds... And a lot of this has to do with the influence of U.S. copyright doctrine on what information is available via the 'net... The UK "Fair Dealing" principal for instance being quite different from the "Fair Use" provisions of US law...

- Likewise US provisions over 'registration' of copyright works. Under the Berne convention (to which the UK is a signatory) compulsory registration is barred; and in fact there is no official UK copyright register! - Though a few firms masquerade as such...

In principal there is nothing basically wrong with using microstock sites... Personally I'd want to be very sure though that the 'licence' I was buying actually 'held water' under UK law; and that I was buying from a legitimate UK-based company over which I might be able to assert my legal rights...

[JSR]

In principal there is nothing basically wrong with using microstock sites... Personally I'd want to be very sure though that the 'licence' I was buying actually 'held water' under UK law; and that I was buying from a legitimate UK-based company over which I might be able to assert my legal rights...
With good microstock sites, it should be possible to contact the originally supplier of the work if you're in any doubt of how you wish to use the work.

But common sense plays a part as well. Big brands like coca-cola and football clubs aren't likely to be putting their work on a microstock site so, if you see such things, tread very cautiously.

In the case of the site I use, the supplier of the work has to agree to the license just as the buyer of the work does. They also have to secure model releases where necessary and, while model details are not available to the buyer, proof-of-license documents are.

Proof-of-license plus a degree of common sense, together with reading all the smallprint, will go some way towards ensuring you stay on the right side of the law.

In my case, I was looking for photos I could use to form a montage for book covers - but most microstock sites didn't seem to list book covers in their license terms. If it doesn't say it, you can't use it. If they say you can use it for everything, then you probably can't use it for anything.

It's fine to recommend seeking out UK sites, but if your product becomes available in other countries (such as the US), then having a UK-only license isn't likely to help.

[Matt Quinn]

It's fine to recommend seeking out UK sites, but if your product becomes available in other countries (such as the US), then having a UK-only license isn't likely to help.

No reason why a world wide licence couldn't be obtained from a UK agency... The point is to source your licence from within a territory that gives you some recourse to the local (i.e. UK) court system.

As many have found to their cost, it's bad enough having a rights owner come after YOU... But having sourced the 'offending' material from India, or the U.S., Russia or some African state you'd need exceptionally deep pockets to pursue your own case. - IF that's even possible... Same applies to other creative material such as websites, stock music etc...

It's like everything else... You pays your money, you takes your choice - And in business you take the risks too...

[JSR]

I guess it all comes down to trying to find the best microstock site that suits. I know I spent ages looking for a site from which I could purchase images for my book covers, and most of the small print/terms and conditions/licence terms were so convoluted and obscure that you really don't know what it is you're allowed to do.

No wonder people get confused and use the images wrongly. Why these things need to be so complicated defeats me.

I've been reading the forum on the Dreamstime site, and it seems like most contributors are very sensible and friendly people. It's a shame if the small minority of "sue first, talk later" type ruin what seems to be a good system for helping both contributors and users.

[Matt Quinn]

Why these things need to be so complicated defeats me.

Agreed... On the face of it they really don't have to be.

However... There's a bigger and more complex debate with microstock as to whether it's really a sustainable business model. And, sadly, the whole rights management field seems to have become 'infected' by certain 'types' who seem to seek to marginalise everything and every body except their own profits.

Obfuscation seems to be their tool of choice; and one has to be wary... All part of the modern day culture of spin, smoke and mirrors sadly...