Question re: istockphoto.com license agreement

[richschmidt]

I was just re-reading the license agreement over at istockphoto.com (where I get about half the images I use in PowerPoint backgrounds, etc.), and I see some bits that worry me. It looks like using those images for PPT, bulletins, etc. is fine... but sharing those graphic files here on the MXC so that others might use them may be against their license. Specifically:

PROHIBITED USES:

...

(a) use the Content in design template applications for resale, including, without limitation, website templates, flash templates, and brochure design templates;

...

(e) incorporate the Content in any product that results in a re-distribution of the Content (such as electronic greeting card web sites);

It seems that the types of things we share here would be considered "templates" since any church could grab them, add their own song lyrics or message points, and re-use them. Granted, they're not for sale here, but (e) seems to prohibit re-distributing the Content PERIOD. Unless it's in a promotional item, which is OK, apparently because it's assumed that a promo item couldn't then be re-used by someone else.

I was just wondering if the rest of you read that the same way I am. I think I'm in a different frame of mind today than I was the first time I read that license, so my brain is interpreting bits of it differently this time....

Thanks,
Rich

PS - Sorry, forgot the link: http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php

I'm going to be really interested in this thread .......

Originally Posted by richschmidt

It looks like using those images for PPT, bulletins, etc. is fine... but sharing those graphic files here on the MXC so that others might use them may be against their license.

I had some discussions a month or so ago with the folks at istock about this very part of the license and that is pretty much how they interpret it. I would think sharing them here in any way would be in violation of the license.

[richschmidt]

Hmmm... I'd think that sharing it for the purpose of critique... or even just sharing it in order to let others see what you're doing (like a website that puts their PowerPoint online)... would not be against the license. But distributing it as a template or with the express purpose of redistributing it... that would be out.

I have to say that I'm disappointed in that clause in the license agreement.

Anybody here have a different conversation with them that'll cheer me up?

Peace,
Rich

[IamWallaman v2]

I, unfortunately, cannot see any other way around it.


I'm sorry, Rich...

I guess I'd better check my sources a bit more closely as well. I'm not an istock user but you never know if one of the other places has one little, itsy-bitsy piece of text in the license that totally forbids any MXC distribution...

I may have start taking A LOT of my own pics...

[[Admin] skstarkiller]

Under permitted uses it states,

(d) create Derivative Works (namely an original work within the meaning of the Copyright Act (Canada) which incorporates but is not substantially similar to the Content) by incorporating the Content into your own work;

I would argue the stuff that most of us post here uses it in accordance within the framework of the derivative works clause. For example, I usually edit or distirt or incorparate all my stock phtos within my works so that they are basically unusable outside of my work. I do suppose I need to be more careful when I am uploading psd files. As a matter of fact I just deleted a psd I had posted today that had an iStock photo as one of the layers.

[richschmidt]

Right. PSD files are problematic that way. And as long as what you upload is really unusable in another setting (like, it has church-specific details plastered all over it), then they wouldn't have a problem with it.

But a lot of what we upload here is stuff that another church could potentially download and use as-is. If we're doing that, we can't include istockphoto.com (or istockpro.com) images in them...

Peace,
Rich

[blwells45]

Originally Posted by IamWallaman

I may have start taking A LOT of my own pics...

I'm w/ IamWallaman on this one. When at all possible, I'm finding it easier to take my own pics.

istock's EULA is kind of confusing because it seems to contradict itself sometimes. If you read some lines, it almost sounds like you can't use the images for anything other than just to look at. Then others say, you can use them in designs. Then, you can use them in some types of designs, but not others. Its all very confusing.

Since, i/we do not own istock, it doesn't really matter how we feel about their policy. However, I do understand that they are trying to provide some protection so that a) the images do not end up on 50 million websites and b)so they can make a buck and I can't blame them for that.

[wendue]

But what about this part of it?

You may...
3. (d) create Derivative Works (namely an original work within the meaning of the Copyright Act (Canada) which incorporates but is not substantially similar to the Content) by incorporating the Content into your own work;

The key is the phrase is "but is not substantially similar to."
I have always understood this agreement to mean that we can't just take a photo, slap a slight filter or hue on it, and then post or sell it somewhere else.

[richschmidt]

Right. We can create derivative works... and then, apparently, are still limited as to what we can do with those derivative works.

As I re-read the part you quoted, I got hopeful for a moment. "Hey, what if the restrictions I listed applied only to the "Content" and not to the "Derivative Works"?

But no... Re-read the prohibited use (e) that I quoted above. It uses almost identical language in terms of "incorporating the Content," just talking about a "product" instead of a "derivative work." If I incorporate some of their Content into a PowerPoint slide, then post that derivative work/product here for re-distribution, I'm causing others to have access to their Content (or a portion of it).

Hop over to their license & re-read the paragraph immediately under the "PROHIBITED USES" heading. It's pretty restrictive: "You may not provide a copy of the Content, or any portions thereof, to anyone or allow anyone to gain access to the Content, or any portion thereof, except as permitted above."

But you're right, too... We can't "just take a photo, slap a slight filter or hue on it, and then post or sell it somewhere else." We could use that photo, modified or not, on a website or in a "product," but however heavily we modify it, we can't then make it available for others to grab & incorporate into some other product...

I'll email 'em and ask, just to be sure...

Peace,
Rich

[richschmidt]

Sorry it took me so long to return to this. Here's the content of an email I received from istockphoto in response to my request. My request is included at the bottom.

It sounds like we're OK to post stuff here that uses stock images from istockphoto.com as long as those original images aren't accessible -- ie, as long as someone can't just pull the original stock image out of our design & reuse it. Or we could always include a watermark, if need be.

Peace,
Rich

---

Hello Rich,

Thanks for contacting iStockphoto.com. My name is Chris and I thank you for visiting iStockphoto.com and allowing us the opportunity to assist you in this matter.

I think your biggest concern would be 4(e) of the prohibited usages:

Incorporate the Content in any product that results in a re-distribution of the Content (such as electronic greeting card web sites).

It would be on the safe side to incorporate a watermark such that the image could not be reused in anyway. Thus if this was the case, posting it up online for users to critique is fine.

As long as the images are derivitive works, then the usage for online invitations is fine. If the original image is accessible then it would result in a re-distribution which would not be allowed.

If there is anything else I may do for you today, feel free to let me know using the provided link below.

Kind regards,

Chris
iStock Customer Relations



Your Message:


Quick license question:

I've been using photos from istockphoto.com for a while now to create PowerPoint presentations that are used at our church. This is clearly allowed by the license.

I also participate in an online community where church media folks (paid and/or volunteer) get together to help each other, including sharing their work with each other for critique, idea generation, and possibly for others to use, if it fits their setting.

This, of course, is the license question: Am I allowed to share derivative works with that online community that incorporate photos from istockphoto.com? If not, what is it that makes it problematic? The possibility that they could be reused? If so, then would it be permitted if such works were watermarked or otherwise obstructed in such a way that they could be shared for purposes of critique or idea generation without possibility of reuse?

A related question connects with the mention of online greeting cards in the license. Does this apply even to derivative works? For example, if I create a graphic for PowerPoint at church, can that then be used on our website as part of an online invitation so that people can invite their friends to church? It's a promotional item... that's similar to an online greeting card. Can that same work be made available on our site as a desktop wallpaper? Etc.

(I suppose that question becomes: do all the license restrictions that apply to "the Content" also apply to "Derivative Works" that incoporate the Content?)

Thanks for any help,
Rich Schmidt

www.LivingHope.info