Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconkuschelirmel: More from kuschelirmel


Featured in Collections

JOURNALS AND NEWS by Elandria

Journals by alexandrasalas


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
March 14, 2013
Submitted with
Sta.sh Writer
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
10,473 (2 today)
Favourites
13 (who?)
Comments
59
×


I just came across a journal by Aeirmid saying that sxc.hu's terms of use have been misinterpreted by us (= photomanipulators) all this time!

She wrote an e-mail to sxc.hu to clear this up and the fact of the matter is

sxc.hu is NOT availablefor derivative works, i.e. photomanipulations and collages


unless you ask the individual photographer for permission and get it (getting no answer is NOT an affirmative I'm afraid).

Here are Jade's journals on the matter:
About sxc.hu stockGreetings!
A few of you have been really worried lately about using stock from sxc.hu here because of the change in their ownership. Basically, you were concerned that their license says that you cannot redistribute their stock in whole or in part, by itself or combined with other elements, without the written approval of the original photographer.
As we all know by now, creating a photomanipulation is considered "making a derivative image." And we know we can't make premade backgrounds without permission from the photographers, as doing so is redistributing their work.
I advised a couple of you to check with the Help Desk and sxc.hu to find out the whole truth before making rash decisions about your group that could potentially make everyone panic.
Using my own personal account, I wrote to sxc.hu to find out what the story was. Here's what I said:
I was just wondering whether creating phot
Dead Horse is Dead.Hi all,
Thanks for your patience with the stock nonsense these days. I received this e-mail as part of a mass BCC today:
Dear [name of original writer],
Thank you very much for your email.
I have multiple requests for the same information from many devianart users, this response is bcc'ed to all parties seeking clarification.
I am aware of all the discussions regarding the use of sxc.hu images by devianart users. It appears a lot of the users have misinterpreted the terms of the license agreement granted by sxc.hu and I will be happy to clarify and hopefully answer all of the questions.
1. The rights granted by sxc.hu license are very limited and specific. You may not use sxc.hu images in photo-manipulations or digital collages. Furthermore, you cannot create any derivate works with the use of


Now, what you do with this information is up to you. I for my part will no longer use sxc.hu stock because I don't want to have to wait for permission each time I consider using something. Thankfully, our resouces and stock gallery here on dA is very extensive.

BUT also there I would be careful sometimes - if it feels off, I don't use the stock. That is especially an issue for premades, brushes and cut-out stock as some people seem to think that by altering something they make it their own and somehow have the right to pass something that was stolen on to others.

Please help by spreading the word!


What this means for #photomanipulated:

For Photomanipulated's gallery submissions, we will have a transition phase, I'd say until the end of this month (March), where we will still accept manips using sxc.hu stock. When the manips folder changes to April, sxc.hu manips will no longer be accepted (unless you have special permission by the photographer - this can be a link to their userpage where they give blank permission or you writing to them and getting personal permission. In both cases, give a link to the profile, in case of the latter, please write that you have permission from the photographer, just as it is customary to do when asking any other photographer for permission to use their image in a manip). I hope you understand we cannot make an exception there, just because it affects virtually everybody. I'm sorry.

Take care!
:heart:
Jasmin


PS: I haven't forgotten about the "ask me anything" journal - I'm currently answering the questions, but some are trickier than I thought, so it'll take a few more days.

Add a Comment:
 
:iconericforfriends:
EricForFriends Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2013  Professional Photographer
I used to buy from an affordable stock site for references. Then, one day digging into their fine print, I discovered that if I did use the resulting picture as a reference and sold it as postcard or whatever, I had to pay an astronomical price. Just as if the average artist makes tons of money from what he does, while advertising agencies or big corporations have to struggle to make ends meet if they want use that same picture - simply copied and unaltered - for a 5000 copies brochure. Duh.

I think that goes against what many people regard as reasonable. I'd never use the referenced picture unaltered anyway, it would be a minor reference or a starting point. That would make enforcement of this condition practically impossible.
Apparently, sxc.hu, or their lawyers, follow the same idiotic principle.

Not that the conditions of many stockiest on dA are much better, if you think them through. "Ask me for permission if you want to use this outside dA." It sounds reasonable at first, but, hello dear stockist, where will I find you if you've closed your account after some diva-tantrum? Don't get me wrong, you've all the right in the world to impose that condition. But do I want to put hours in some work and then discover that it's effectively become emprisoned in dA? I think not.
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Any stocker who puts down "ask me for..." should be there to answer the requests or make up their minds as to what they want or don't want their stock used for and write that down. Personally, if someone wants me to ask their grandma's forgiveness for stuff I haven't even thought of doing before using any stock I will gladly move on to the next stocker.

As for the unaltered is okay vs. I make no money even if I put it online as print thing: the term "stock" was has always been used to refer to photographs you can use for a fee or for free when you're trying to illustrate a news article or a brochure or whatever since the dawning of photography (and maybe even before that). The idea that someone is taking their photos and "butchering" them into unrecognizable chunks that may or may not look good together if an affront to many photographers. So I can understand why sxc would be cautious in officially allowing manips to be made with their stock when the ToS were written with the traditional stock definition in mind. If no one had asked, I doubt anyone would have minded (no one ever minded as far as I can tell, and many of us left comments on the original images with a link to the manips), but alas, it was asked and officially answered :shrug:
Reply
:iconbleeding-magic:
Bleeding-Magic Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Student Photographer
What if you already have images consisting in your gallery with stocks used from sxc.hu? Do you have to delete them?
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'm not deleting my old works where I used sxc.hu stocks, but what you do is up to you. Technically, you probably should, but I'm not going through years of deviations where no one has ever complained, not even when I left a link on sxc for the photographer to take a look. But I can only speak for myself :shrug:
Reply
:iconerikshoemaker:
ErikShoemaker Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Also ehrlich gesagt versteh ich das nicht. Zugegeben habe ich die gesamte Diskussion erst jetzt so richtig mitbekommen. :shrug:

Das Image License Agreement hat sich nicht geändert und da steht immer noch:

You may use the Image
In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones.
In printed promotional materials, magazines, newspapers, books, brochures, flyers, CD/DVD covers, etc.
Along with your corporate identity on business cards, letterhead, etc.
To decorate your home, your office or any public place.

Was wäre der Sinn dahinter Manipulationen in dem Zusammenhang zu verbieten? Wofür sonst sind es Stocks?

Wie gehabt steht unter jedem Bild "standard restrictions apply", was mich auf das oben genannte führt.
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
ich hab's irgendwo schonmal gesagt, find's aber grad nimmer. Stock war bis vor vielleicht 10 Jahren immer das Benutzen von Bildern anderer Fotografen (für Geld oder nicht ist egal) in klassischen Printmedien, also als Illustrationen von Artikeln in Zeitungen, Magazinen etc oder als Bilder für Buchcover etc. Dabei legt der Fotograph oft großen (!) Wert darauf dass das Bild nicht verfremdet wird, weil er als Fotograph von seiner Arbeit lebt und davon, dass irgendwer das Zeug wiedererkennt. Das gilt auch für die Agencies, über die Bilder verkauft werden, zB Getty Images. Der Wandel kam erst mit der Digitalisierung, und ich glaub bei sxc hat halt keiner je ihr ToS in Frage gestellt, erst jetzt, mit der Anfrage per e-Mail sind die Betreiber drauf gekommen, dass man das ja durch die Formulierung nicht ausschließen kann - aber explizit erlaubt ist es halt auch nicht. Und rein vom Prinzip her versteh ich dann schon die Denke zu sagen "oh aber unsere Fotographen glauben, dass das so nicht benutzt wird, wer weiß ob die das wollen, sagen wir lieber sie sollen sie fragen" :shrug:

Wenn niemand gefragt hätte, hätt kein Hahn danach gekräht. Aber jetzt isses halt so.
Reply
:iconerikshoemaker:
ErikShoemaker Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
ok, danke für die Aufklärung. Ja, für mich ist es sehr ärgerlich, da meine halbe Galerie (oder sogar mehr) aus sxc.hu-Stocks besteht, und ich grade wieder ne Manip mit denen fertig gestellt habe, die ich hier noch nicht hochgeladen habe. :D

Naja ich werde das jetzt in Zukunft nicht mehr machen, aber die alten müssen halt bleiben. Bis jetzt hat es nie Ärger gegeben und ich glaub das wird auch nicht mehr kommen. :shrug:
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
:hug: ist superärgerlich, da geb ich Dir Recht - und ich glaub auch nicht dass sich über die alten Sachen je einer beschwert ;)
Reply
:iconericforfriends:
EricForFriends Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2013  Professional Photographer
There's a difference between
- simply re-using the picture as it is and
- using bits and pieces of it or using it in a very much altered state, and even just using it as a reference. (Which last thing I think is idiotic, and probably just something in USA law.)

That being said, I'd be surprised if anyone ever got into trouble about making a nice manipulation with some stuff that wasn't theirs, and then hanging it on their sitting room wall or using it as their computer wallpaper. But putting it on your website or selling it, that's another matter.
Reply
:iconerikshoemaker:
ErikShoemaker Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I get it now, thank you. Not really happy about it though, considering I just completed a new manip full of "stocks" from sxc.hu. Lol. :(
But in that case the rules have always been like that, not just since March, right? I mean they didn't change any part of the license agreement and no one has ever complained about it to me before. So may it be the case the stock providers don't know any of this either?
Reply
:icondragonariaes:
dragonariaes Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Professional General Artist
I used to load tons of stock work up on SXH, until they were bought by Getty. It's the same as any other art site, where each photographers rules are generally listed on their profile page. The licenses they offer (derivative use/non-commercial) etc. are set up on each picture so it says whether or not you need to contact the artist.

Most of the really active users on SXH migrated to [link] after the Getty take over. Some of them have portfolios on both sites. They are set up the same way. Generally, the photographers have their own rule on their profile pages.
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
and as long as the profile page says "do what you want" it's perfectly okay. But if they don't, they need to be asked for permission.

Thanks for the link!
Reply
:iconxenaris:
Xenaris Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013
Even on dA one should read the rules of the stockowner before using something. I know it is frustrating for some manipulators, but the "I like it, I take it, I use it" attitude many people have on the web is frustrating for photographers, too. And by asking one can be absolutely sure to give credit to the correct original artist, who gives away their work for free after all.
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I agree on having to read the individual stockers' rules :nod: Though I think asking when the rules make it clear you are allowed to use the stock in manips on dA (or for whatever purpose you want them) is a bit over the top. Speaking as a stocker myself, I'd feel hasseled by such notes and comments because I wrote the rules to avoid having to answer that question over and over. Of course if something is unclear, it's better to ask, but not just to be "polite".
Reply
:iconxenaris:
Xenaris Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013
If the rules already state it, asking is a bit over the top, that's right. But one has to keep in mind that different stockers have different rules, and one can not say that there are general rules for stock on dA. I think that might be a misconception-trap some people fall into: They used a stock from one person and assume that another stocker's rules are similar, because it is the same site. In this case dA.
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I agree there. It's like when they start crediting "deviantArt" or "flickr" for the stock when they should be crediting the photographer personally, just because on some "pure stock site" or other that is what is normal.
Reply
:iconxenaris:
Xenaris Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013
Also not all stock is perfectly legal. Just a few hours ago I've seen scanned scrapbookpages that are offered as textures or backgrounds making it to the frontpage. I doubt the company which produces these sheets is okay with that. :( So even if the stockowner tells that it is a 100% free one could get in trouble when using it, from the original copyrightholder.

On the other hand, regarding the crediting, even the big Newsshow "tagesschau" is constantly unable to credit properly when using online-videos and refers to the source simply as "internet". Is it so hard to write which site or youtubechannel they have it from?
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
:giggle: I've noticed that, too on tv - and they wonder why people can't seem to give a rats ass about copyright...

and yes, sometimes if it looks sketchy, best keep the fingers off - there are too many idiots mixing in with the real stockers who love to redistribute things they have no right to in the first place.
Reply
:iconxenaris:
Xenaris Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013
Maybe I should start writing "source: book" in my papers for university, would save me a lot of time not having to check repeatedly if I have the correct page and all. :roll:
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
:lmao: that would be great :D
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconidalarsenart:
IdaLarsenArt Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I never used that site because thats how I understood those rules too.. :nod:
I primarily use Fotolia when I need to get stock off DA, and those times only with full extended licenses, even though they cost more :)

Thank GOD for DA-stock ressources :D
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
indeed thank god for dA :nod:
Reply
:iconidalarsenart:
IdaLarsenArt Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
:nod: :love: :D
Reply
:iconnameda:
Nameda Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Professional General Artist
yep but you can still use when you get permission of the original photographer/artist :)
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
yes, as always :aww:
Reply
:iconnameda:
Nameda Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Professional General Artist
:)hope you'll find my stock off da list useful
Reply
:iconnameda:
Nameda Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Professional General Artist
oh.. and if one needs additional stock!! Here is a list of stock which is absolutely legal to use (commercially !!):
[link]
this list is up to date apart from the fonts list havent had time to check those yet
Reply
:icondarkheart9595:
DarkHeart9595 Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
well... it's good to know this now.
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
even though it sucks, but better than running around not knowing :)
Reply
:iconzedlord-art:
ZedLord-Art Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
i have a question: if we have the permission from the photographer ; can we use the stock normally on DA ?
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
yes, of course, but I would write that in your artist's comment so people don't get all worked up for nothing ;)
Reply
:iconnameda:
Nameda Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Professional General Artist
yes!
Reply
:iconm-g-studio:
M-G-Studio Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I have a group that collects unrestricted stock, so if anyone needs to use stock without having to wait around for permission, they're welcome to.
#Unrestricted-World
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
sweet! thank you for the link!
Reply
:iconm-g-studio:
M-G-Studio Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
No problem :)
Reply
:icontehangelscry:
TehAngelsCry Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
I guess like ~blueatlantean says, it's still valid stock if the photographer approves of its use in that manner.
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
yep, of course, the original photographer always has the right to grant exceptions :nod:
Reply
:iconcasperium:
Casperium Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Thanks for the Info... that will also affect the way we accept artworks into some of the group... ie Wallpaper Lounge etc, which means if we accepted the artworks in the past we will no longer be able to if SXC.hu. is used as a source.
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
unfortunately :heart:
Reply
:iconcasperium:
Casperium Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
well I am passing the info along to all of the group which I am admin in. This is bad news because it is the one place I was able to send copyright thieves to get legal stock for their manips. I guess we need to set up our OWN company...lol...
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
there's always dA stock ;)
but I know what you mean, this sucks :(
Reply
:iconbloodmoonequinox:
BloodMoonEquinox Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Student General Artist
Unfortunately it means that I will have to stop using photos from there. :hmm: I'm very disappointed because I thought it was a good place to get photos for manips that were available for commercial use. Now that SXC is aware that so many photomanipulators use their resources, they'll change their rules (because honestly, why else would anybody need stock images other than photomanipulations?) :confused:

Although ~blueatlantean has a good point, I will check the rules of the photographers on SXC and see if they allow photomanipulations, or perhaps see if they have images available for photomanipulation on another site. :)
Reply
:iconnameda:
Nameda Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Professional General Artist
if you get the photographers permission its legal and if one needs additional stock!!
Here is a list of stock which is absolutely legal to use (commercially !!):
[link]
this list is up to date apart from the fonts list havent had time to check those yet
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I don't think they will change anything - it's not like they have to, as the admin there said "just because it was not expressly forbidden doesn't mean it's allowed", so if they were to add a line about no derivative works, they'd merely be voicing what was apparently there all along :shrug:

And as to who else would need stock: basically, all news agencies rely on stock in the classical sense. An image someone shoots and puts up for editorial use only, like Getty images for example. The original idea was to provide someone with images of events, situations, landscapes etc the person needing those has no means of getting on their own to use in magazines, news articles etc. An extended license would even grant you the right to use that as a book cover just with your text slapped on. The alteration of their photos would be a no-go because those people offering stock are photographers and would take it as an affront for their work to be used in a manip. It's just a different view on things, something that to us may seem antiquated, but used to be the definition of "stock photography" since the invention of the camera. Only during the past 10 years or so has arisen a new need for stock in the non-conventional sense as provided on dA.
Reply
:iconfelidae84:
FeliDae84 Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013
Seit ich vor ein paar Tagen das erste Mal darüber gelesen hab, überlege ich jetzt schon, was ich nun machen soll... gut über die Hälfte meiner Bilder muss ich wohl löschen.. so schade :( ..zumal ich auch ganz schlechte Erfahrungen mit dem Anschreiben bei sxc gemacht hab.. gab nämlich nie eine Antwort.. ..so ein Murks *seufz
Reply
:iconnameda:
Nameda Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Professional General Artist
Ich habe mittlerweilen einige Photographen bei sxc gefragt und habe bereits Erlaubnis und
sorry zu faul alles auf deutsch zu tippen ;)
if you get the photographers permission its legal and if one needs additional stock!!
Here is a list of stock which is absolutely legal to use (commercially !!):
[link]
this list is up to date apart from the fonts list havent had time to check those yet
Reply
:iconkuschelirmel:
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
ich hab beschlossen meine alten Sachen online zu lassen bis sich jemand beschwert - ich glaub hauptsächlich ist das eine Formalität der (neuen?) Betreiber, ich kann mir aber nicht vorstellen, dass da was bei rum kommt. Denn der einzige der sich beschweren darf, ist der Fotograf und die juckt es ja sehr offensichtlich nicht (hab auch schon sehr oft einen link beim Bild zurückgelassen und es war noch nie einer sauer). Ergo: in Zukunft lass ich die Pfoten davon, der alte Kram bleibt wo er ist :shrug:
Reply
Add a Comment: