If you have any questions, please look first to the Resurgere F.A.Q.. If you do not find answers there, then post your question on that page.
What ever happened to the spirit of sharing amongst the artistic community. For good lord as long as the person is willing to give credit back to the one who took the original photo shouldn't that be all that is needed? It's getting to the point around here that even if you just use something as a reference guide for body position people are freaking out about you (stealing) their art. Am I the only one on here who truly believes in free stock! If you gather pictures for the use of artists then dang it let them use it how they will. As long as they don't go running around with an unchanged image claiming it to be their own then why should there be a problem? And if they do it doesn't matter if you got a copy right or not you can still get em for it... I'm sorry but all the regulations that so many people are putting on their stock is absurd.
Us copyright law is pretty clear wrt derivative works and what sort of use is fair and what is illegal. If people are freaking out about you stealing their images, you likely literally are. That's just the way things are, the majority of stock images in the world are not even free for any use you, have to pay fees. Many photographers make their living shooting just stock. It is disappointing to see people rant when We give privileges to people for free that from most stock producers they would be obliged to pay for.
The restrictions we have here in the ToU are simple standard license to protect our producers and give them a reenforced basis for legal action if there is abuse they need to fight in court, abuse they expose their work to by posting hi res copies as stock. If you want to use the stock for something outside the privileges our terms give just ask the producer. Prints, for example. We say, "no prints, without asking permission", we do not say "no prints". There is a substantial difference there. If the producer says, "no prints" then you can whine to them, but do not whine at us for something we did not say. We put regulations into place to protect our producers, not to inhibit artists
You should re read the copy right laws and talk to some commercial art graduates. There is a difference between art and stock. And that is there for a reason. Once something is labeled as stock it is like the community pencil. Stock in the legal books in regards to imagery states an open license for use, publishing, and distribution. Those artists that produce photography for stock and sell their work do not label their work as stock but individual works of art that are open to use as stock pertains when a purchase is made.
Well I'll have to ask my copyright lawyer, I am not a lawyer myself. But the copyright laws in Title 17 define "pictorial and graphic works", not 'art work', as protected work forms and section 106 gives exclusive rights to their owners to make derivative works based on the copyrighted work. To my knowledge there is no difference in the protection give to art work then to any other form of image, such as journalistic photos, or personal family snap shots, etc. So I do not see how describing your pictorial work as stock rather then art gives up this sort of exclusive right and make the work royalty free. I doubt Shutterstock.com & iStockphoto.com would be called what they are called, or that Getty would describe many of their works as 'stock photography' if it would make the work royalty free as you claim it would.
believe what you will... weather you realize it or not your in the minority and for a good reason. Stock is listed as a tool and is not under copyright. Ask your lawyer what the definition of Pictorial and Graphic Works is. And I pray you got a lawyer that actually specializes in this field. Believe it or not I'm not trying to start fights. I'm a Commercial Arts graduate. Journalistic photos are not now nor have they ever been considered stock and if there is anyone out there who is advertising them as so they are actually in fault. The reason all personal family photos of any form are protected is for the privacy of the individuals in them not for the photo it self. Someone could take a photo of you and as long as you were edited out of it so that you could not even be identified by an outline they could use any background in it that they pleased. In fact it happens often. The clause on this one is if the individual in the photo is any form of public entity. Like if you found a personal picture of Elvis. You could do anything you wanted with it because his image is considered public domain by the very carrier he chose but touch any of the pictures of his children without permission and you'll be in jail so fast your head will be spinning. I can't remember if I stated this before or not (and it's now 4am here, I'm tired I'm not looking it up lol) but stock falls under the public domain category. Same as celebrity images. There is that fine line between them and all I'm actually trying to do is educate people on it so those who do not want there images used as random stock don't have to deal with the troubles. I know I get hot headed and probably got to vocal before with it. And it would have been imposable for me to have copied the one work I was accused of. It was a photoshop of my own eyes. But because of the misunderstanding of what is copyrightable material and what is not someone else who has the same stigmatizm(it can sometimes cause what looks like a tiny hole in the iris like it does with me) assumed I had stolen their work.
as a side note... not trying to start anything... the judge that ruled the case ruled in my favor and told the girl that even if anyone does actually do as she thought I had that as long as it is different enough from the original in order to be sustained as it's own work that it is no longer considered within the domain of her identity... or something like that... like I said I'm tired. just answering some of these then going to bed... good night.
This newsletter is the final chapter of my time as a stock gallery director - I wanted to thank the stock community for all the wonderful, inspiring imagery they've offered me and countless others. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed !