Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

nycdunz · Oct 18, 2006, 01:25 PM

I was wondering if its ok to save images off like gettyimages.com to use in our work for like designing websites, business cards, etc. without paying for them? I mean the preview images work for me, so if thats ok, and i won't get in trouble for it than i'll continue to use images off those stock photography for my work. But i'm not exactly sure if thats ok.

somebody please explain.

and plus i dont see justifying to pay like $500+ for 1 image...

Westbo · Oct 18, 2006, 02:24 PM

Downloading and using the "free" preview images for exploratory comp layouts or concepts is acceptable. ANY usage beyond that (including the uses you mentioned) must be paid for. Yes, you may "get away with it". It is not at all ethical on your part and simply said, it is stealing. If you are caught, they WILL prosecute, (and people do get caught).

As for price, that's the way it is. The photographer who originally shot the image would like to be paid. The stock house (including their employees) that catalogs the image on a site they've developed, maintain and promote needs to be paid as well. You (I presume) like to be paid for your work, too. Think how you would feel if somebody copied your website or business card design and didn't pay for it.

GettyImages as well as most other stock houses offering royalty-free images have tiered price plans based on file size and resolution. These prices vary with the smallest (typically for web) being the lowest price. If you feel their pricing is too high, there are options:

1. Sites such as: istockphoto.com fotolia.com bigstockphoto.com offer images for as little as $1.00. However, you cannot download any without paying.

2. More and more sites are offering subscriptions (weekly, monthly, annually, etc.). See clipart.com as an example. You pay a membership fee and can have unlimited downloads.

There is a terrific "sticky" posted by the administrator of this forum that lists several sites covering free and fee based sites.

Go to: http://forums.macnn.com/83/art-and-g...es-read-first/

Good luck! W2

Originally Posted by nycdunz

I was wondering if its ok to save images off like gettyimages.com to use in our work for like designing websites, business cards, etc. without paying for them? I mean the preview images work for me, so if thats ok, and i won't get in trouble for it than i'll continue to use images off those stock photography for my work. But i'm not exactly sure if thats ok.

somebody please explain.

and plus i dont see justifying to pay like $500+ for 1 image...

Daniel Bayer · Oct 18, 2006, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by nycdunz

I was wondering if its ok to save images off like gettyimages.com to use in our work for like designing websites, business cards, etc. without paying for them? I mean the preview images work for me, so if thats ok, and i won't get in trouble for it than i'll continue to use images off those stock photography for my work. But i'm not exactly sure if thats ok.

somebody please explain.

and plus i dont see justifying to pay like $500+ for 1 image...

No it is not OK. How would you like it someone stole your proprietary work? I have reported this link to my area rep.

nycdunz · Oct 18, 2006, 05:26 PM

uhm i was just only wondering, i'm not sure how this copyright, and royaltee free and licensing for stock photography work. Calm down. Geez.

Westbo · 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by nycdunz

uhm i was just only wondering, i'm not sure how this copyright, and royaltee free and licensing for stock photography work. Calm down. Geez.

nycdunz,

I have no idea who Daniel Bayer's "area rep" is

It has no factor in this discussion.

In any event, the copyright laws are pretty simple. Use and licensing policies at most stock photo houses are fairly straightforward. The bottomline: there are royalty-free resources that can provide you with very affordable and in some cases free images. You can preview and use to comp and show, but anything further needs to be paid for. These costs can be certainly passed on to your client (plus a mark-up for you). Be extra careful when sourcing and selecting royalty-free vs. rights-managed images. The rights-managed images are restricted and priced based on usage. In such a case, that $500 fee you complained about earlier would seem like a bargain!

W2

webmonkie · Oct 19, 2006, 07:59 AM

If you download an image from (example) gettyimages.com and you don't pay for this I think this would fall into a piracy problem. If I was you I would use the image just for sample purposes, and If the client likes this then add the cost of the image to his/her quote.

demograph68 · Oct 19, 2006, 05:56 PM

Here's what I use when I need royalty free images.

Main Page - Wikimedia Commons

Image * After - currently 14513 free textures and images available

Yotophoto | Find free photos... fast!

morguefile.com Where photo reference lives.

stock.xchng - the leading free stock photography site

mitchell_pgh · Oct 23, 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by nycdunz

and plus i dont see justifying to pay like $500+ for 1 image...

I don't like paying $129 for my OS X upgrades either, but it is what it is.

The reality is, you are committing copyright infringement if you use any comp image beyond a comp without paying for it (unless using a free royalty free image).

I'm with you regarding the price... crazy. I've paid thousands for a single image.

Daniel Bayer · Oct 30, 2006, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I'm with you regarding the price... crazy. I've paid thousands for a single image.

Why is it crazy?

What about the salary of a really talented musician or athlete?
There is a lot of mediocrity out there, but there are a few hard working talented photographers too who have worked as hard if not harder to make a decent living at what it is that they do.

Do you not respect our profession?

I think that photography has gotten a bad rap from art buyers in the last 5 years due to the following:

1. The misconception that digital makes it easier to make a good image. False. While it may be easier to strike the image, you, the photographer are now dealing with massive post production and archiving tasks, not to mention the tens of thousands in gear to make it happen.

2. With all of the doctors, lawyers, software developers making good images, why pay? Well, the pros are often better image makers in the long term sense, have a very organized way of tracking uses, fees, rights, etc. Pros get model & property releases, etc.

All my buddies have gone to Getty or Corbis. A few years ago, they were making a good amount of money. But you know what? They are not making so much now. The reasons for this are:

1. The mid range to low end stock business is finished, hence iStock.

2. They get lost in a growing sea of competitors, the agencies give less and take more.

3. Key images that are publicly visible that would otherwise be a great sale become a great idea for an ad agency or designer to copy and have a photographer friend make instead.

I run a stock business that is word of mouth only. My average sale is $750 up to $6,000 and it is all mine. I have seen annual growth of 60-80% on the average for the last three years. I keep all my key images out of the public eye so that designers, art directors or other photographers don't steal the concept or the image outright.

This allows me to offer genuinely exclusive rights and keeps my eye and style away from a desperate soul.

You won't steal my images, but if you steal someone else's, Karma will get you, because a lot of us bust our ASSES to get this stuff shot!!!!!

nycdunz · Mar 3, 2007, 02:08 AM

the weird thing is i know a lot of freelance and independent graphic designers who use images from the web (google) and stock places such as getty all the time w/o paying. I'm not saying its right. But for example if someone were to proof a business card design with a photo I manage to get from lets say gettyimages, I would total the cost of the photo into the price of the bcards, which would make it about $500 for a business card? I doubt anyone would want to pay that much for 1 business card when there are so many cheaper places in the city to get stuff designed and I'm sure NONE of these places pay for their photos that they use in their layouts. Every graphic design place I've been to at least. I just want to know how a graphic design studio or company handles this. Especially a small one, do they like buy stock photo CD's such as comstock, or do they actually charge the clients for the pictures that they use? I was always confused on the use of stock photography in commercial design work. Because with all these laws and restrictions, everybody I've known or talk to in the graphic design business never pay for these photos.

Thorzdad · Mar 3, 2007, 11:32 AM

I don't know what designers you are hanging out with, but none of the professionals I work with and know would ever think about using photos without paying for them, no matter what the application.
I think you need to hang out with a better grade of designer, and not the "5000 photo business cards for $20" hacks. Of course they steal photos! They also produce crap. You get what you pay for.

Railroader · Mar 3, 2007, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Thorzdad

I don't know what designers you are hanging out with, but none of the professionals I work with and know would ever think about using photos without paying for them, no matter what the application.
I think you need to hang out with a better grade of designer, and not the "5000 photo business cards for $20" hacks. Of course they steal photos! They also produce crap. You get what you pay for.

Agreed 100%

This whole "everyone else steals/violates copywrite, it's not bad if I do it too" mentality irks me to no end.

PurpleGiant · Mar 3, 2007, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by nycdunz

But for example if someone were to proof a business card design with a photo I manage to get from lets say gettyimages, I would total the cost of the photo into the price of the bcards, which would make it about $500 for a business card? I doubt anyone would want to pay that much for 1 business card when there are so many cheaper places in the city to get stuff designed and I'm sure NONE of these places pay for their photos that they use in their layouts.

What I find more odd is that Business Cards very rarely have photography on them. How about designing a card without stock photography, or taking a photo yourself if necessary?

Or as mentioned, for a few dollars you can get images from iStockphoto.com - all cheaper options than paying for a $500 image.

Photo678 · Mar 4, 2007, 05:00 AM

This place is free.....

stock.xchng - the leading free stock photography site

sorry, already mentioned

andi*pandi · Mar 5, 2007, 04:53 PM

buy royalty free images/art on cd or package.