A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.
35

Then public domain is not the choice of yours. Public domain means just that. People can use it for whatever purposes, even without telling who the copyright holder is1. Consider a permissive license, that requires everyone reproducing the image to name the copyright holder. Then, people can still sell the photo, but as they have to tell who the copyright ...


16

Bear with me for a second here for some background.... When you downsample a 4000×3000 image to 400×300, you are "discarding" 11.9 million of the 12 million pixels. This clearly reduces "image quality", depending on what exactly you mean by that term. If you go from 1000×750 to 400×300, you're reducing the area by about 6 times. Again, data is discarded, ...


14

I have seen few photos on a news website and I want to use these images on my commercial website. All these images have third party copyrights mentioned. How to know if it is OK to use these images with exact same copyright attributions? You contact the copyright owner of each image and secure permission to use the image. You can't just take the image from ...


14

You might consider using the Pixabay site. From that site: Pixabay is a vibrant community of creatives, sharing copyright free images and videos. All contents are released under the Pixabay License, which makes them safe to use without asking for permission or giving credit to the artist - even for commercial purposes. As for the Pixabay license, ...


10

Simple. Just write your own license†, dictating the terms under which people can use or are restricted from selling usage of your photos. This is very common. Historically, most licenses of intellectual property carried non-generic licensing terms, that were distinct amongst publishers. As the concept of more universal licensing was considered (following ...


8

If I'm reading this correctly... a photographer produced work for you. You wish to sell it. The photographer is happy for you to licence it to others but is asserting their right to be identified as the creator of the work. The photographer is the creator and copyright holder, they should be identified as such. You should not attempt to take credit for ...


8

I think one of the Creative Commons licenses with the NonCommercial clause should do what you want. See https://creativecommons.org/choose/?lang=en where you can choose the features you want for your license.


7

In my opinion we have 2 steps here. The second step: Post processing I'm starting with the second one. The post processing. It is not that heavy at all. I am not using lightroom on this example but it is the same for diferent aplications. Play with the levels. 1) I aumented the gamma (which is a very specific kind of curve) to arround 2-2.3. (probably in ...


7

If photo is royalty-free and requires one-time purchase, can I take picture with camera of my screen and use it without paying for it? No. If stock and non-stock photo was taken from certain website and had title added to it, does that make it legit to use it? No.


6

No, of course you can't do those things. Taking a photograph of your screen is making a copy, just like using a copy machine or a scanner would be. Pay the price, or use public domain or Creative Commons imagery. If someone else's work happens to be in some portion of your photograph but only incidentally, you may be able to argue fair use (or possibly ...


6

Every photographer has a chance to make money with stock, but it depends on many factors. Read this article, which I wrote specifically on this subject, you will find a detailed answer to your question there: Getting Rich with Stock Photography Part 1: Dream or Reality? If you want to try yourself in stock photography, you need to be prepared to work hard. ...


5

An expert said I should use at least 24MB pictures for stock. You sure the "expert" meant 24 MB, not MP? I don't know much about the higher MP cameras, but I can't imagine anything but maybe the 36 MP Nikon D800 having a 24MB file size. If you take a look at Nikon's official website, you'll see file-sizes ranging from 17 to 29 MB. If it's true that you are ...


5

Even if it wasn't illegal in pretty much every legal jurisdiction in the world (maybe with the exception of the countries that are currently in a state of semi-anarchy), it is certainly a moral issue. The reason that people are charging for these photos is that they have almost certainly put a lot of time, effort and monetary investment into the creation of ...


5

As many other people have said better than I, being a professional is measured not just by the quality of your photos but also how you manage the business side of things. Being professional is handling client relations, billing, timeliness, attention to detail and most importantly - networking. Expecting work to fall at your feet by just taking great photos ...


5

My understanding is that an image cannot stand independently if greater than 1000 pixels. This would be using the image itself as the primary design, where if the image is incorporated into a larger design and the image is not the primary object, then you are in the clear. This stipulation is often to prevent the image being sold as artwork by a person other ...


5

Public domain is a legal status of where no copyrights exist, you cannot cause that to happen (w/o dying). **Rights have to be waived or transferred (some rights cannot be transferred). A CC-0 (zero) license is as close as you can come to legally releasing an image into the public domain. CC-0 is a complete rights waiver, but it will not prevent an entity ...


4

Just go to flickr and look for creative commons licensed shots that allow commercial use. You'll find some that require attribution. So use and correctly give the attribution.


4

You will find the larger agencies like Getty are reducing their commissions to photographers, to around 35%. I know one of the smaller agencies offer a better rate. Local Stock ## (100% commission) However I don't know if they actually sell many. Put it this way, I would rather have images at 35% commission that get sold and shown to a very wide ...


4

In my opinion it has not much sense. You want to sell "licences" of your photo. It is your photo and you are licencing it to to the buyers to do "whatever" they please (using the terms and conditions the website states). Do you want to licence a lower quality image? Then yes, resample it. If you want to prove for example in court that you took a photo I ...


4

You're confusing copyright licencing with model releases, they are separate and not actually related. Licencing and copyright govern who is permitted to have the images and if/where/when they can reproduce a work. A model release indemnifies a licensee should they show the subject(s) endorsing a viewpoint that the subject does not hold or shows them in a ...


4

I use a Nikon 1 V2 with a 1" sensor for commercial work fairly often... mostly product type photography. The image quality has a lot more to do with other factors... and whether it is sufficient or not really depends on the requirements. I don't sell to stock agencies, but Adobe Stock has a minimum requirement of 4MP for photos and 1920x1080 for video; ...


4

Other answer give good advice on licenses. However, if you want your images to be free and therefore you can't use a very restrictive license, you just need to make stock photos company's service to lose value. If you distribute your image through an easily accessible and easily searchable canal, nobody is going to pay a large amount to Getty to use your ...


4

Use a standard license A typical user of stock photos will check out multiple photos. Any new license means another day (or more) to research the implications of the legalese, in particular if they are under a different jurisdiction than the one the license was drawn up in. Among standard licenses, prefer Creative Commons license]1 Reasons: Cover all ...


3

Image sharpness is more a function of the lens than the body. The Canon 60d and the 24-105L F/4L are both capable of shooting stock-acceptable imagery. I used the 24-105 as my wide angle lens for a while and I really like it a lot. In the case of the pelican image, the focus seems to be on the wall between the two pelicans on the right, not on the pelicans,...


3

Probably the easiest solution is to define your own assignments, then plan and shoot them. This way it can be anything convenient, but still be a learning process. For more ideas, try looking in regional magazines, which frequently have photo needs. My regional magazine, Our State, frequently requests images of scenic areas of the state, with simple ...


3

I think if you want a way of "just selling" your work to pay for equipment, then the honest answer is "don't do it". If you wan to sell your work it requires a fair bit of effort on your side, no matter whichever way you go. Just for the record, I was thinking along your lines once and had a look at Microstock... I think Dreamstime went to 11 odd Dollars or ...


3

I have tried shutterstock without much luck. It seems that people that actually buy the photos from that site are looking for extremely specific images, so if you don't have what anyone is looking for, you don't make any money.... I have seen local restaurants allow artists to hang works (photos, paintings, etc.) on the restaurant walls with names and ...


3

Stock photo is the one which communicates a message. Artistic photos tend to make a viewer to look for the meaning of the photo, unlike stock photos which must be clear in what they stand for. Stock photos are used mainly for business, for promotion, therefore they need to be specific.


3

Photos taken with digital cameras will, for the most part, show some amount of noise when inspecting them at 100%. The tripod and lenses won't affect the noise because the noise comes from the sensor, something that remains constant regardless of which lens or tripod you shoot with. Generally, you can lower the apparent noise by reducing the ISO but proper ...


3

Everything in life is a tradeoff - If you go the micro-stock route you lose all control, your pictures will be sold for low prices, you will get a ridiculously low percentage and your pictures will be in a catalog with millions of other pictures so the chance of someone actually picking you picture is pretty low unless it's something unique. If you go with ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible