Rgbstock forum

forum > General chat > Question for the moderators...

Question for the moderators...

1. micromoth22 May 2012, 22:32 GMT +02:00

Recently I visited a National Trust property with extensive grounds. The NT freely permits photography of its grounds, including artistic features such as statues, fountains, etc. This particular location also includes a giant trellis in the shape of a teapot and a 3-D flower bed in the shape of a bird. Is RGB Stock happy to have images of such things, or do they breach the copyright of their creators? Neither of these two items has the name of its creator mentioned (or any other details) and there are no prohibitions on photographing them.

2. weirdvis31 May 2012, 19:53 GMT +02:00

I can't see any objection in that, Kevin (sorry for the late reply but I've been away for a few days). Perhaps Marja can add clarity because she is the resident expert on what images breach copyright. I've been out of the pro admin game for quite some time so have not kept up to speed on such things.

3. micromoth1 June 2012, 8:27 GMT +02:00

Okay Lynne, thanks. I'll upload them and see what Marja thinks of them.
PS Hope you had a good time away.

4. coolhewitt235 August 2014, 5:05 GMT +02:00

About 5 years ago I legally purchased stock photography books. These books contain 1000's of images. The images are on CD which you have to move to your portable hard drive. Each CD collection is about 150 gb. The books also contain artwork in EPS and AI. Since I have legal rights to the art work, Can I create new artwork and upload it to RGB? Getty's isn't the only company that sells photography. There are companies in Korea, Japan and China. In Japan and Korea there are several stock photography companies. Getty's has the western market but hasn't found a place in Asia.

5. crisderaud5 August 2014, 14:23 GMT +02:00

You can upload your own artwork to RGB. You can use the artwork contained in the collection for inspiration. You may own the discs with the artwork on them, but you don't own the copyright to the material. You wouldn't legally have the right to take their artwork and add color and details to it then call it your own.

Getty is the big player on the Internet market and keeps getting bigger through their acquisitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images

6. xymonau5 August 2014, 15:42 GMT +02:00

Only images that are definitely in the public domain are usable in that way. Purchased images generally have a licence that you must adhere to.

7. crisderaud6 August 2014, 4:20 GMT +02:00

This flow chart is meant to simplify usage rules in a general way.

Flow Chart Tries to Educate the Public on the Rules of Using a Photo They Found Online


8. coolhewitt237 August 2014, 14:44 GMT +02:00

The Wikipedia was interesting to read and I couldn't read the chart because it wasn't big enough to read the text. Every country has its own laws related to copyright.

9. crisderaud7 August 2014, 23:49 GMT +02:00

You needed to use the link in the final sentence of the article to get the readable chart.
"To view, share and/or download the full infographic, you can head on over to Visually"

Full size: http://visual.ly/can-i-use-picture
(click on it to enlarge, then down load a copy to easily read)

10. coolhewitt238 August 2014, 5:33 GMT +02:00

The chart basically makes copy rights laws open to interpretation. Every one has a different interpretation of the laws including judges.

11. crisderaud8 August 2014, 17:08 GMT +02:00

There is no formal consensus unfortunately.

Please sign in or sign up if you want to participate in the forum discussions.

Lightbox . FAQ . contact . license agreement . terms of use . about . www.hqstock.com free stock photos totally free stock photos stock photos high quality free stock photos totally free stock photos totally free stock photos totally free stock images free stock images Christmas competition 2015 editors' pick alternative to sxc.hu Rgbstock blog and news
| English | Deutsch | Español | Polski | Português | Nederlands |
Shutterstock is official partner of Rgbstock