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 ...


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 ...


9

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 my ...


9

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.


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

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 ...


5

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 ...


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

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 ...


4

Good light. Rafael's answer covers this very well. With regard to photos taken in less than ideal light you will find your options in processing much more limited. As the old saying goes, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still just a pig." Correct exposure. With negative film we exposed for the shadows to get enough density. With digital we expose ...


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

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

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 ...


3

You can always sell them through someone you trust who's not a minor, such as your parents. There just needs to be an adult who can sign a contract and can adopt the responsibility that the contract sets out, on your behalf. Underage people can still earn money from their pursuits (think child actors), it's just for practical reasons there needs to be ...


3

I don't think that your photos would necessarily sell better on other stock platforms. Most already feature many photos that are very similar to yours, as well as many that are of higher technical (less noise, no sensor dust) as well as photographic quality (composition, subject matter). So the chance of anyone even running across your specific photos are ...


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

The image is a bit "jpeggy", there is artefacting in the flat colour areas & at high contrast edges which a machine AI system might reject. Example of jpg artefacting at contrast edges The image size is also a bit small for a modern stock library; it's about 3mp compared to the 20mp or more that they might be expecting to see these days. I ...


2

Visible noise is caused by not having enough light. How noise works You can think about your camera has having a fixed amount of noise (not accurate but close enough to reality to understand how noise works) If you have a totally black picture (like taking a picture with the lens cap on) all you see is the noise, it's visible but has a relatively low ...


2

I think this is off-topic here, but simple Google "stock images for non-profit". For example this has a good overview Quality, affordable choices for your nonprofit


2

A royalty free image with a one time purchase means that the person purchasing it is granted the rights to reuse and distribute the image as much as THEY want. It is not giving rights to everyone who they distribute it to to then redistribute it. With royalty free images, you don't have the copyright to the image, you only have a right to redistribute ...


2

Fred Miranda has in my opinion the best photography community on the internet right now. Try the appropriate Presentation board or the Photo Critique board.


2

Ask seven working photojournalists and you'll get ten different answers. This is because many will alter their workflow depending upon the specific assignment, how time sensitive the subject matter is, and how the image will be distributed (newsprint? magazine? Web? Etc.). In general, if an assignment is very time sensitive, they'll: Shoot straight to ...


1

The type of image makes no difference as to whether you can edit it. That will be determined by the terms of contract when you purchased the image. First, you would have to be granted the right to make copies. Then the edits would have to be minor so as to only be considered an edited copy and not a derivative work/copy. Or you would have to be also granted ...


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