HELP!! Anybody else out there unknowingly violating stock photo licensing agreements?

[Arete]

It was recently brought to our attention that the church I am on staff at has been completely violating the terms of licensing for almost all of the images we've ever purchased from the various photo vendors out there (iStock, 123RF, Dreamstime, Pixmac, Fotolia, etc).

We didn't realize that these each image we purchase can only be used once. ONCE! Like, if I buy a pic of a family, I can't use it on our small groups promo and on a Children's Ministry brochure, for example. Each time we want to use the same photo it would need to be repurchased, as per the licensing agreement. Also didn't realize that purchased photos cannot be stored on a network, nor can access be given to other members of our staff team. Can be stored on one hard drive only (plus back-up copy). Been violating that term of use as well.

All that said, stock photography from these "cheap" places out there just got a whole lot more expensive. We're a large church and use stock graphics all the time. Like, ALL the time. But we most definitely do not have the budget to continue purchasing photos the way we do yet stick to the licensing that says we have to re-buy everything for subsequent uses. And we can't afford extended licensing on what we do buy. $100+ for a photo to be used on a slide or as a thumbnail online is not an option.

SO... my question. Where do you all get your stock photography without breaking the bank? I see that there are a ton of great resources out there with memberships available for ministries (offering unlimited downloads/uses), however, all of these sites only provide low-res graphics primarily to be used on slides & other projected media. But we need access to high-quality, high-resolution photography. Are there any resources like iStock that are ministry-centered? I don't mind buying photo credits and/or paying per download, but I'm looking for something more geared for ministries that lets the purchased graphic be stored and used on future pieces as well.

Thoughts anybody?

[dewknight]

I don't use much stock photography, but I usually get it from http://sxc.hu/ or sharefaith.com

[thr-ve]

Hey Arete,

Can you give an example of a license agreement that states that? I've never heard of sites only allowing single use before.

I've heard that putting files on networks is not allowed, but that's quite a vague area, considering network can mean so many things.

[Arete]

Here are some quotes right out of iStock's standard licensing agreement:

iStock (istockphoto.com/license.php)

"Seat Restrictions. Only you are permitted to use the Content, although you may transfer files containing Content or Permitted Derivative Works to your clients, printers, or ISP for the purpose of reproduction for Permitted Uses, provided that such parties shall have no further or additional rights to use the Content and cannot access or extract it from any file you provide. You may install and use the Content in only one location at a time, although subject to the Prohibited Uses and the other terms of this Agreement, you are entitled to utilize the Permitted Uses an unlimited number of times. You may physically transfer the Content and its archives from one location to another, in which case you may use the Content at the new location instead. If you require the Content to be in more than one location or accessible by more than one person, you must download the Content from the Site for each such use or obtain an Extended License for a multi-seat license for the Content. You may make one (1) copy of the Content solely for back-up purposes, and you must reproduce all proprietary notices on this single back-up copy."

"[you may not...] install and use the Content in more than one location at a time or post a copy of the Content on a network server or web server for use by other users."

Most other sites have very similar verbiage, which you can check out if you wish...

123RF.com (123rf.com/license.php)

Pixmac.com (pixmac.com/page/usage)

Fotolia.com (us.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#1.)
Fotolia actually states that their photos are not to be used for political or religious purposes, as well.

In any case, it's easy to see why people violate these agreements.... Who actually reads all that fine print before downloading a graphic?

[thr-ve]

I think "seats" and "permitted uses" is what you're asking about, right?

You can use the file on only one workstation, or "seat", but can use the file an unlimited number of times for permitted uses.

This is taken from the iStock Agreement that you quoted:

you are entitled to utilize the Permitted Uses an unlimited number of times.

As a church, you shouldn't be too worried about the licensing of the stock files you purchase. As long as you pay for the files and don't distribute more than 500,000 copies with any of the files, you're just fine. I've never heard of a stock company coming after a church for files they purchased, kinda bad PR for them.

I'm no lawyer or politician, but I'd say if you purchased the file then you can use it as much as you wish perpetually, especially if your church doesn't make profit off the print materials or publications.

Hope this helps.

[KeckCreative]

Flickr has a creative commons section. http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons

I generally find almost everything I need from it. The quality is of course mixed and sometimes you have to weed through a lot of useless stuff, but it is essentially free. I typically stick to the Attribution (Only, NonCommercial and/or Share-Alike subcategories) mainly because I usually do some sort of derivative (color correction, cropping, special effects) to them. Now using CC Attribution material means you have to give credit for its use. We do this at the end of our service with on screen acknowledgements (also part of our CCLI license requirements for projecting lyrics). the creative commons section has some 50+ million photos, so you usually able to find something that works.

[KeckCreative]

Something I forgot. I usually avoid photographs of people from flickr because it difficult to know if there was a model release. If I am going to use photos that contain people, I use true stock photo sites.

[katanna]

The other problem with Flickr is that you never can actually tell if the user who uploaded the photo is actually the owner of the photo. IE: ANYONE can upload ANY photo.

Case in point: after the earthquake in Haiti I was looking for some Creative Commons photos on Flickr, and I found LOTS of photos, MOST of which were NOT under CC but were downloaded by users and re-uploaded as CC.

My point is: When you use sites where anyone can upload photos (like Flickr), just be careful about what you use!

Matthew

[daver2]

Hi Arete,

First of all - welcome to CMN!

Second - I think you have been misled in what you can and can't do. This is why it is important to read the small print of any licensing terms and understand what they actually mean in practice. If possible, see if you have a contract/licensing lawyer in the Church - or if someone has access to one as a friend.

My reading of the snippet that you posted is:

"Only you are permitted to use ..." - this is means the person originally licensing the images - usually the person spending the cash. In a Church environment I would argue that the Church paid the money so is the licence holder and the "you" is a "role" within the Church.

"You may install and use the content in only one location at a time". This usually means you can install the images on one computer. If you want to use them on another computer - you have to delete them from the first computer first and then install them at a second location.

You may use the content an unlimited number of times. Having bought the license - you can continue to enjoy the content without further payment.

The terms specifically state that you can physically transfer the content from one location to another.

The license doesn't specifically forbid you to install the content on a network. It only states that the content can't be installed in more than one location (e.g. 2 PC's) or be accessible by more than one person. I read this to mean that you can install the content on a network providing only one person has access to the content. This can be achieved by limiting access to the content to a single network logon by access control lists on the directory(s) containing the content. This will, however, be up to you to demonstrate if challenged.

Hope this is of some use?

Dave

[KeckCreative]

Matthew. Good follow up advice about Flickr. You absolutely correct about using due diligence as it relates to Flickr or similar photosharing sites.

[tedanderson]

Because copyright laws and EULA agreements are so doggone litigious, it's nearly impossible to use the material for its intended use without unknowingly being in violation.

One way that I handle this issue is to look at from the copyright holder's point of view regarding the intent of the user. For instance, I have several graphical images that I created over the years that are copyrighted and that I sell on Flickr and similar sites but if someone decides to give a copy to their friend or they use it to make 50 invitations to their kid's birthday party, then it's not a big deal as far as I am concerned. I've even seen one of my creations that was "stolen" by a school that enlarged it and printed it on a banner for their spring function. They should have purchased it but they probably weren't aware that it was intellectual property subject to copyright. Even in this situation, there was no harm or foul.

HOWEVER, let's say that the Geek Squad at Best Buy buys my image for $50 and then they use it on all of their vehicles to promote their company. That would require a discussion about their violations.

[macjunkie]

I am a big proponent to having a volunteer photographer and archiving photos yourself. If you find someone who is interested in photography that seems to have a good eye I think starting your own stock photo collection is a great idea. I would still use stock photo website as well but how much more appealing would are content be if we used our own people.