The 13th Sign copyrighted Publisher logo |
I’m a writer and a
photographer, with a stock portfolio of 3,500 photos at istockphoto and Getty
Images. When you buy a stock image, you pay for a license to use it and have
the security of knowing you are not breaking any laws. The photographer remains
the copyright holder and can earn a living through multiple small sales. If you
use any photo without payment (if required) or permission, you are stealing
from the photographer.
You would be surprised at which photos sell best. How much
do you think each of these photos has earned for me?
Untidy Wardrobe istockphoto file link
Swamp Hag istockphoto file link
The untidy wardrobe has earned $400 and the swamp hag, which
involved a gutsy paid model, complicated lighting and a unique (!) location -
$20. The wardrobe photo is successful and the swamp hag is not (though of
course I love it). If somebody saw the wardrobe and thought, ‘That’s just an
ordinary photo; why shouldn’t I use it – and I’ll pay if I get caught,’ I’d
lose my income.
All this is a bit heavy when all you want is a little
picture for your blog?
You have three legal options.
1) You could use a photo that is ‘free to use without restriction’ often stated to be ‘under creative commons license’. Here are two of the many sites that offer photos free, even for commercial use.
Pixabay is a gateway to shutterstock and many of the paid stock libraries offer freebies as a taster. Help yourself!
You have three legal options.
1) You could use a photo that is ‘free to use without restriction’ often stated to be ‘under creative commons license’. Here are two of the many sites that offer photos free, even for commercial use.
Pixabay is a gateway to shutterstock and many of the paid stock libraries offer freebies as a taster. Help yourself!
The New York Library
is also one of many sites offering free photos. Be careful. Some ‘free sites’
steal photos. You could be in trouble if you use images these sites should not
be offering.
A creative commons license does NOT automatically mean that you can do anything you like with a photo. You need to read the terms of each photo, which might limit the use or require credit in a given manner.
2) You can pay for Royalty Free stock photos. Royalty Free does
NOT mean free. It means you can use the photo in advertising (e.g. book
jackets) and combine it with other images in any way you want. You can
Photoshop it to death. Check the license use if you have a bestselling print
run – you might need an extended license (usually at about 500,000 copies).
Credit your source where possible and, if you can, the
photographer by name. These are your creative colleagues and, if you use one of
my photos, let me know and I will publicise the fact! Photographers are your marketing
friends!
3) The third option is to use your own (or a friend’s) photos. You
avoid all the legal problems that way, right? Wrong.
Photos that are fine for personal use might be illegal if used commercially and it is your responsibility as photographer (and publisher) to obey the law. Your human subjects have rights so you should have permission from them before using their photo as e.g. a book jacket. Some buildings are copyright protected so you could be sued for using a photo of e.g. the Eiffel Tower at night, without permission.
Photos that are fine for personal use might be illegal if used commercially and it is your responsibility as photographer (and publisher) to obey the law. Your human subjects have rights so you should have permission from them before using their photo as e.g. a book jacket. Some buildings are copyright protected so you could be sued for using a photo of e.g. the Eiffel Tower at night, without permission.
I mentioned ‘Royalty Free’ photos. Every human subject in my
photos has signed a Model Release permitting sale of their photos. There are no
brand names, logos or copyright places. As a photographer, you could be sued
over any of these issues.
The exception is when you use or sell your photos as
‘Editorial’. This is photo-journalism; travel, news or street photography where
you do not always have model permission. Editorial photos can only be used in a
reporting context and cannot be changed (i.e. Photoshopped or cropped in a way
that changes the context). Laws vary by country but, for instance, even for Editorial,
my companies do not allow photos of one child unless model released; several
children or a child with at least one adult are acceptable.
If these were your photos, which of these could you legally use for a book cover?
Lyon Old Quarter istockphoto file link
Man Hiking istockphoto file link
Cordoba istockphoto file link
Answer: all of them require Model Releases or can only be sold for Editorial use. This means that you could use them for a non-fiction (e.g. travel) book but if anybody can be recognised, it’s always safer to have permission from the subject. Number 2 (man hiking) does have a Model Release so is for sale Royalty Free.
Because we photographers are lovely people, this photo (Romance in Paris) is a gift to you from
me, free to use without restriction. Credit is always appreciated and if you
let me know of any use, I will publicise that – I love seeing my photos ‘in the
wild.’ Incidentally, photographers still own copyright to a photo even if there
is no name or watermark on it, or embedded identifying data. Those are mere
reminders to viewers that the photo is copyright – they don’t change its
status.
If you’re not sure it’s OK then it probably isn’t, so unless
you’re willing to go to court, don’t take risks. The main rule is to respect
others’ copyright as much as your own and to appreciate that a photographer’s subjects
(human and property) have rights too. Only use photos you have permission to
use, in the way that you are using them.
I am NOT a lawyer so the opinions given here are based on my experience as a photographer, author and publisher.
I am NOT a lawyer so the opinions given here are based on my experience as a photographer, author and publisher.
First published in 2016 in ALLLi's Self-Publishing Advice Centre