Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

:iconkuschelirmel: More from kuschelirmel

Featured in Collections


General, Features by ginkgografix

Journals by alexandrasalas

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
March 14, 2013
Submitted with Writer


9,941 (8 today)
13 (who?)

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

She wrote an e-mail to to clear this up and the fact of the matter is 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 stockGreetings!
A few of you have been really worried lately about using stock from 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 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 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 images by devianart users. It appears a lot of the users have misinterpreted the terms of the license agreement granted by and I will be happy to clarify and hopefully answer all of the questions.
1. The rights granted by license are very limited and specific. You may not use 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 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 stock. When the manips folder changes to April, 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!

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:
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,, 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.
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:
Bleeding-Magic Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2013  Student Photographer
What if you already have images consisting in your gallery with stocks used from Do you have to delete them?
kuschelirmel Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'm not deleting my old works where I used 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:
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.
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.
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 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:
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 ;)
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.
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 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?
Add a Comment: