# Bigstock comes down on premade cover artist. Wants client names.



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

https://kdp.amazon.com/community/thread.jspa?threadID=213169

A premade cover artist was DMCA-ed by the creator of an image licensed through Bigstock. Bigstock sees premade book covers as templates even if one cover is sold. Now Bigstock wants the artist to hand over the names of authors and books currently using the artist's covers. The artist has a week. The artist expects to then be charged extended license fees.

I emailed several agencies about premade covers once. I made sure I was clear on one cover/one customer. Only DepositPhotos said they are allowed with a standard license. Then DepositPhotos told someone else they require an extended license. When I asked DP again, they told me a standard license is okay.

This is so confusing to designers. Still, I have only heard of Bigstock telling people they need an EL. This is what they told me.



> When our images are offered up as a pre-made design, even if that pre-made design is only going to be sold to a single purchase, we do still consider this a template usage and require that the images be purchased under the extended license since you are creating a pre-made object for your clients to purchase.
> 
> If you were not posting the pre-made covers on your site and were instead creating fully customized covers for your clients, for example they come to you, tell you the type of image or cover they would like and then you come to use and then purchase the images, this would then be covered under our standard usage agreement BUT as you are offering them up for sale, already fully created on your site except for the title and author name, we do consider this a template and it does require an Extended License with us.


*I just want to emphasize that if you, an author, hired a designer to custom-make your book cover, then your cover is fine with standard license stock (unless you sell over a certain amount). I think that part is getting lost. Bigstock isn't penalizing solutions52 for making book covers in general. Just premade book covers.*


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

I wanted to reply to this because if I was a cover artist, I would be very careful about offering premade covers. The reason is that the general terms of license of the image are from party A (the stock company) to party B (the cover artist) and their client (the book publisher/author), and transferring the license is usually excluded from the terms of sale. In a premade cover, there is no client when the cover sale is made from the stock company. So when the premade actually gets sold, it is a transfer of license from the cover artist to their client, which is not allowed, even if the premade cover is only used once. I'm not surprised that Bigstock is asking for the extended license ($100 I think) as a compromise.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Now I'm really glad I got out of the pre-made cover business.


----------



## 71202 (Jul 17, 2013)

I think the extended license applies more to the number of items sold with the image on them.  All but 1-2 of the stock agencies require that the artists get and extended license for cover art/ Most don;t and are not detected.  A pre-made seller is more likely to get detected but any artists would be out of compliance because they assume a book sells at least x thousand copies (the number that triggered the extra price).


----------



## The 13th Doctor (May 31, 2012)

ChristinePope said:


> Now I'm really glad I got out of the pre-made cover business.


Same here.


----------



## Ravenandblack (Jan 27, 2014)

Wow. This is very harsh when the cover is specified for single use only and is modified by the artist prior to sale. 
Seems like a very rigid definition of a template, unlike, say, a template for business cards etc. that are used over and over. 
Interested to see what comes of it.
Book cover makers are surely big business for stock sites, but they may have just shot the goose.


----------



## susan_illene (Aug 10, 2014)

Only the backgrounds are stock for my covers (model shots are custom exclusive), but even then my designer and I each purchase a license for their use so we're both covered.  She'd worried about something like this happening so she'd wanted to take extra precautions.  Really glad she did because you never know when vague terms/conditions may change or get interpreted differently.  You'd think they'd just be happy for the extra income they must be seeing with as many indies/designers who need stock art for book covers these days.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

veinglory said:


> I think the extended license applies more to the number of items sold with the image on them. All but 1-2 of the stock agencies require that the artists get and extended license for cover art/ Most don;t and are not detected. A pre-made seller is more likely to get detected but any artists would be out of compliance because they assume a book sells at least x thousand copies (the number that triggered the extra price).


This isn't true until a book sells a certain amount, such as 250,000 or 500,000. Remember the Bigstock reply I posted has no problems with charging a SL for a custom cover. This bit from the Shutterstock standard license is pretty common:



> b.
> In print media, digital media, product packaging and software including magazines, newspapers, books (including print-on-demand books), e-books, advertising collateral, letterhead, business cards, product labels, CD and DVD cover art, applications (including mobile "apps"), and opt-in e-mail marketing, provided that no Image is reproduced more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) times in the aggregate, and that the Images cannot be readily unincorporated from such digital media or software;


 123rf used to require an EL for an ebook cover. This was unusual. It now only requires an SL.

However, agencies often see premade book covers as different. To them, they're objects for sale in their own right.


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

ChristinePope said:


> Now I'm really glad I got out of the pre-made cover business.


I know! I hesitated for a long time and was seriously just thinking (this week) of starting up my business with Depositphoto pics because I thought they approved of SL for that useage. But, forget that! It makes me sad because I have so many pretty pre-mades I can't sell. There are so many pre-made cover artists around though. I'm not sure where they get their photos or why no one cares about them. But it would just be my luck, that I'd get the ban hammer and have to pay thousands of dollars that I don't have.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Daizie said:


> I know! I hesitated for a long time and was seriously just thinking (this week) of starting up my business with Depositphoto pics because I thought they approved of SL for that useage. But, forget that! It makes me sad because I have so many pretty pre-mades I can't sell. There are so many pre-made cover artists around though. I'm not sure where they get their photos or why no one cares about them. But it would just be my luck, that I'd get the ban hammer and have to pay thousands of dollars that I don't have.


It is really a bummer. I don't know the particulars of this case, but I have a feeling the original photographer who uploaded the images must have done a Google search or something to see how they were being used, and then got all bent out of shape when he/she discovered they were being used for pre-mades. Otherwise, how would the photographer have even known?


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

I downloaded ( legit ) an image from Bigstock and used it as a cover via the Kindle cover creator - is that allowed?


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

Well damn. I guess the price of premades just skyrocketed. And it's not like the covers are likely to sell that 250,000+ copies!!

Maybe some artists will offer specials on their customs to avoid this??  I generally can't afford the custom covers.


----------



## Sylvia R. Frost (Jan 8, 2014)

This is TERRIFYING.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

An easy method out of this would be to create basic "premades" using graphics as placeholders. Something like this:










Then allow the client to choose from a number of actual stockphotos (possibly a set of URIs given to clients if they show interest) for each placeholder.

To make this worth the while the artist would need to have these photos already worked into the premade as layers, so they don't need to sit down and do much to them. The client isn't going to see any of the pre-worked photos, nor are those anywhere on the website. Just sold covers.

That should cover the general problems with such licensing. The covers are individually assembled that way, yet the effort isn't that much greater for the artist, and they don't advertise premades or sell them either.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

EC said:


> I downloaded ( legit ) an image from Bigstock and used it as a cover via the Kindle cover creator - is that allowed?


This hoopla is about premade covers, not custom-made designer covers or author-created DIY covers.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

Ava Glass said:


> This hoopla is about premade covers, not custom-made designer covers or author-created DIY covers.


Great - thanks very much.

I have been in discussion with another stock photo company re their policies. As far as I'm concerned, they make them deliberately vague. Even their answers to emails tend to be vague.

What ever happened to the "Plain English," campaign?


----------



## keithdraws (May 20, 2011)

I don't really produce many pre made photo manip covers  but when I do I generally use shots from stock sites on Deviant where I know the photographers and I usually try to use them for customs as well.  The best thing about working with those people is they seldom charge anything and only desire a credit.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

Bigstock gives a specific list of when you need a Standard License and when you need an Extended License:
http://help.bigstockphoto.com/hc/en-us/articles/200302955-What-is-the-difference-between-the-Standard-and-Extended-License-

It seems that any confusion may have come from the fact that the rules are different depending on who uses the stock image for the book cover - an individual or someone who is putting the cover up for sale.

A Standard License would seem to be correct when an individual uses a picture for their own cover for a sales-run below 250 000.

But an Extended License is needed in the case of "for sale products where the product is mainly the image" - ie. when a cover artist is using the image for a book cover which is then put up for sale.


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

EC said:


> I downloaded ( legit ) an image from Bigstock and used it as a cover via the Kindle cover creator - is that allowed?


Yes. Their issue is with pre-made covers that designers sell one time.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

ChristinePope said:


> It is really a bummer. I don't know the particulars of this case, but I have a feeling the original photographer who uploaded the images must have done a Google search or something to see how they were being used, and then got all bent out of shape when he/she discovered they were being used for pre-mades. Otherwise, how would the photographer have even known?


They may have bumped into their image in use on a book cover from a pre-made by chance and wondered why they had not received payment for an extended license. Artists, like writers, are pleased to see their work being appreciated, but they would expect to be correctly recompensed. And you may be right about them searching up to see how their image had been used, just as authors look out for where their books are on sale and how well they are doing. It is a pity that there seems to have been some confusion over correct licensing.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

I was under the impression with pre-mades that the buyer would have to actually pay for a license for the image. If artists are selling pre-mades and not requiring the buyer to actually pay for a license, then that is a problem and not how stock art works.

When you buy a license from a stock site, you are paying for YOUR use of it. You can't resell the image for someone else to use. We use stock art all the time in my day job. If the customer decided they like a specific design, they then have to pay for a separate license for the images used so that they can use the image. Unless the agreement says otherwise, licenses are not transferable.


----------



## belindaf (Jan 27, 2011)

Talk about your technicalities. I don't use BigStock or buy premades, but this is an educational thread. Thanks, folks.


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I was under the impression with pre-mades that the buyer would have to actually pay for a license for the image. If artists are selling pre-mades and not requiring the buyer to actually pay for a license, then that is a problem and not how stock art works.
> 
> When you buy a license from a stock site, you are paying for YOUR use of it. You can't resell the image for someone else to use. We use stock art all the time in my day job. If the customer decided they like a specific design, they then have to pay for a separate license for the images used so that they can use the image. Unless the agreement says otherwise, licenses are not transferable.


But, they don't have any issue with custom covers or any other designed products like business cards or posters where the designer buys the license. Their whole issue with pre-mades is they consider it a template for sale, which requires an extended license.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

What about if someone pays you to design a cover for them. I don't mean premade covers, but the person would hire me to design a cover, then I would choose an image and purchase a license to use that image, then design the cover for the client. Then they would pay me. Is this alright?


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

Daizie said:


> But, they don't have any issue with custom covers or any other designed products like business cards or posters where the designer buys the license. Their whole issue with pre-mades is they consider it a template for sale, which requires an extended license.


I assume that is more because they are unaware of it than not caring. But I know that our legal department REQUIRES our clients to have to buy a license to any stock art we use in a project because even if we are designing it, they are the ones who are actually using it for merchandising and advertising.



Kitten said:


> What about if someone pays you to design a cover for them. I don't mean premade covers, but the person would hire me to design a cover, then I would choose an image and purchase a license to use that image, then design the cover for the client. Then they would pay me. Is this alright?


You should have THEM purchase the license, because they are the one who will be using it.

In my mind, and the way companies have always used stock art, the person who will be actually using the image (in this case, the publisher selling the book) is the person responsible for having the license. The artist is an independent contractor providing work to the publisher, not a legal representative of the publisher. The artist does not have the authority to enter the publisher into a legal agreement, which is what a license is. The person actually using the image is the one responsible for the license.

Nothing in the license gives you the authority to transfer that license to another person.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You should have THEM purchase the license, because they are the one who will be using it.
> 
> In my mind, and the way companies have always used stock art, the person who will be actually using the image (in this case, the publisher selling the book) is the person responsible for having the license. The artist is an independent contractor providing work to the publisher, not a legal representative of the publisher. The artist does not have the authority to enter the publisher into a legal agreement, which is what a license is. The person actually using the image is the one responsible for the license.
> 
> Nothing in the license gives you the authority to transfer that license to another person.


So the client would need to go directly to the stock image site and purchase the image themselves? What about stock image sites that require you to purchase credits to get a license. Sometimes you have to buy more credits than you need to get the image. In my case I'd use the credits later, but the client might not need to go back to the site. This seems like a burden on the client. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's more work for the client.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Daizie said:


> But, they don't have any issue with custom covers or any other designed products like business cards or posters where the designer buys the license. Their whole issue with pre-mades is they consider it a template for sale, which requires an extended license.


Yes. I also think they aren't truly thinking this through. A premade cover is no template. It's going to be sold exactly one time, not more. It's just that the decision-making process is reversed compared to bespoke covers. Both stockphoto-sellers and photographers are doing themselves a disservice there.

I still believe that the method I suggested above can be used to sell covers made to spec. As long as the client chooses the components the actual "template" is something the designer made themselves.


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

I don't think they know heads from tails there. I just chatted with Bigstock and asked about the client needing to purchase the pictures. They don't even know what their own TOS means. For instance, I just got approval to use images in pre-made covers (with the slowest chatter in the world).

This is my chat.

me: I am a designer. When I design a book cover, does the client need to be the license holder and purchaser of the pics used? I've done my own covers up to this point.

Will: Whoever license the image will have the original file. If you license the image for your client, your client will not be able to use this image for any other project

me: Oh, okay. So, it's okay for me to be the license holder of the final product?

Can I make fully customizable mock-up pre-made covers to sell one time to one client? Or is this considered a template under your license aggreement? The wording is vague.

Will: You may use the image under our Standard License agreement as long as it does not exceed over 250,000 in print per image: bigstockphoto.com/usage.html
If you do exceed that amount, you will need an Extended License: bigstockphoto.com/licensing-to...

me: This is for covers made before a client comes into the picture. This is okay? 
Hello? Are you there?

Will: yes

me: i just want to make sure it's okay to use images with a standard license for pre-made covers. This is not commissioned work yet. It's created beforehand as a mock-up of the type of cover an author can get. It can be customized after purchase.

Will: Yes you may use the image. however if you exceed over 250,000 copies you will need an Extended License. Please note, not all of our images have the Extended License availability. This is because the contributor who uploaded the image chose not to opt into that option.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

Kitten said:


> So the client would need to go directly to the stock image site and purchase the image themselves? What about stock image sites that require you to purchase credits to get a license. Sometimes you have to buy more credits than you need to get the image. In my case I'd use the credits later, but the client might not need to go back to the site. This seems like a burden on the client. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's more work for the client.


The problem is that you need to remember the industry is not built around people who only one ONE image. Much like ISBNs, it is assumed that people who buy these things are actual businesses that will use more than one. That's why ISBNs cost so much when you buy them individually, but cost next to nothing when you buy then ten or twenty at a time. Stock Art companies really aren't interested in the customer that is only ever going to buy ONE piece of art for $10 and then never come back. Their business models are built on volume and subscriptions. So they don't care if it is a burden for your client who only wants one image. It is not their problem. Their client base are people who use art regularly.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

Daizie, you are asking the wrong questions. Without knowing your legal relationship with the client, there is no way for a customer service rep to answer you.



> If you license the image for your client,


This is legal disclaimer. What this is saying is that assuming you are an *authorized agent* for the client, then you could license an image for the client. Some art agencies have contracts that allow them to buy licenses on behalf of their clients and then bill the client. But you aren't licensing anything for a client. When you create a pre-made, there IS NO CLIENT. You are creating it with the hope of selling it.

Remember, the entire concept of pre-mades is a unique creation of the indie community. It has no equivalent outside the indie community. We can get mad that we think these companies "don't understand" their business, but they understand THEIR business just fine. Pre-Mades are not their business. Their business is selling stock to end-users, not to intermediaries who resell it to end-users.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

I just spoke on the phone to someone from Dreamstime.com, where I have previously purchased licenses for images for my own book covers. I explained that I had previously bought images for myself to the man, then I said I wanted to go into business making covers for other people. I said the way I wanted to do it, a client would contact me saying they wanted a book cover. I would then choose an image and if they liked it I would purchase a license to use it, then design a cover, then the client would pay me.

The man said this was fine as long as it was a custom designed cover, where the image was only used once. He said what you couldn't do was create a template where the image was used over and over again. The license would be a royalty free license. For Dreamstime.com you need to list a credit to the artist who designed the image in your book (e.g. on the copyright page), and the limit for printed copies with the image is 500,000.

So at least for this site I'll be okay, and this is the site I use the most. It's so confusing, but they said it was fine so hopefully they can't turn around and change their mind.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> And they've just tossed away the entire premade cover market, because they don't appear to understand that designers make one cover that they sell to one person, rather than selling it to many. They may not care, but that will be the end result of this action.


Well, I believe in capitalism.  If the pre-made market becomes that valuable, a stock site _will _come around to cater specifically to it. I'm not saying I agree with the decisions. I'm saying I understand them and why they are made. Industries change based on the needs. Right now, while the pre-made market is very important to indies, it isn't on the radar of people outside the indie community. Again, using ISBNs as an example, there was a time that you COULDN'T buy just one ISBN, because that wasn't how Bowkers worked. You bought a lot of ten or more, or you bought none. Over time, that changed. It didn't change because people whined on forums about it and accused Bowkers of not knowing what they were doing. It changed because the industry advanced to a point where selling individual ISBNs became profitable and justified setting up the infrastructures to support it.

For now, I really do suggest artists should protect themselves and require customers to buy their own licenses. As a publisher, I really can't fathom NOT owning the license myself. Legally, that would be the only way to protect myself.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> We can get mad that we think these companies "don't understand" their business, but they understand THEIR business just fine. Pre-Mades are not their business. Their business is selling stock to end-users, not to intermediaries who resell it to end-users.


For their purposes and in their business model the designer IS the end-user.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

Kitten said:


> The man said this was fine as long as it was a custom designed cover, where the image was only used once. He said what you couldn't do was create a template where the image was used over and over again. The license would be a royalty free license. For Dreamstime.com you need to list a credit to the artist who designed the image in your book (e.g. on the copyright page), and the limit for printed copies with the image is 500,000.


But this is the problem: you have zero control over your clients. You can't control what the publisher does once they pay you. For example, the license is not for "printed copies" of the book, it is for ALL printed materials that feature the image. For example, I buy a print ad in the GenCon program that used the cover art in the ad. GenCon prints over 50,000 copies of their program for attendees. Do that a couple of times a year, include the printing of bookmarks and flyers that feature the book cover, plus sales, and you can easily go over 500,000 printed materials. When you encompass ALL print materials, you could very easily surpass 500,000 copies. Who then is on the hook for the breach of the license? By not requiring the client to buy the license, you are taking on the legal liability of the license's misuse. If something goes wrong, Dreamtime doesn't go after the publisher. They go after YOU because you are the one with the license.

And yes, that is how the licenses are read. Because again, we go through this with my day job and these things are taken into consideration. The chances of this scenario happening may be small, but it is not unrealistic.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

I give my designer a selection of images on a lightbox link. He mocks up using a low-res watermarked image. When I've decided, I buy the image on the correct license and email it to him to incorporate into the final cover.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But this is the problem: you have zero control over your clients. You can't control what the publisher does once they pay you. For example, the license is not for "printed copies" of the book, it is for ALL printed materials that feature the image. For example, I buy a print ad in the GenCon program that used the cover art in the ad. GenCon prints over 50,000 copies of their program for attendees. Do that a couple of times a year, include the printing of bookmarks and flyers that feature the book cover, plus sales, and you can easily go over 500,000 printed materials. When you encompass ALL print materials, you could very easily surpass 500,000 copies. Who then is on the hook for the breach of the license? By not requiring the client to buy the license, you are taking on the legal liability of the license's misuse. If something goes wrong, Dreamtime doesn't go after the publisher. They go after YOU because you are the one with the license.
> 
> And yes, that is how the licenses are read. Because again, we go through this with my day job and these things are taken into consideration. The chances of this scenario happening may be small, but it is not unrealistic.


You're right - it's not just printed copies but all printed material. I'm just going to have to take the risk though. There are so many book cover designers and I imagine an lot of them use stock images. I'd have to outline the conditions to anyone that hires me to design a book cover, and hope they stick to them.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2014)

DebBennett said:


> I give my designer a selection of images on a lightbox link. He mocks up using a low-res watermarked image. When I've decided, I buy the image on the correct license and email it to him to incorporate into the final cover.


And I would think people making pre-mades could do something similar. In many cases, the artist could buy the license for "web" only or something else just to create the pre-made, and then require the publisher to buy the full license before handing over the finished work. In that way, the artist doesn't pay for more license than she needs and the publisher has the license they need.


----------



## jesrphoto (Aug 7, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And I would think people making pre-mades could do something similar. In many cases, the artist could buy the license for "web" only or something else just to create the pre-made, and then require the publisher to buy the full license before handing over the finished work. In that way, the artist doesn't pay for more license than she needs and the publisher has the license they need.


That's just not feasible for something that's supposed to be a lower cost options for authors, and something that's easier for the artist. Selling attractive mock ups and then recreating with stock photography means I have to do my job twice.
Every freelance designer I've ever known - and I know a lot of them, has always bought the stock photography before creating something for their client. Because I'm using 50+ images a week, I can afford to buy a subscription to the service. I've read the licensing agreements, I've had my lawyer explain items I didn't understand, and I have records of any time I've contact customer service for clarification. Your company doing things a certain way certainly doesn't mean that any other way is illegal.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Nic said:


> An easy method out of this would be to create basic "premades" using graphics as placeholders. Something like this:


Ironic that this CC image is better than 500% of the stock photos I've seen for superheroes.

This is why I only deal with indie stock artists and free government stuff: the stock companies have their thumbs up their butts, thinking this kind of crackdown will result in anything but lost sales.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Big companies aren't aware of the smaller trends and that's natural, they are behind. Maybe they will approve it in future, maybe not. It's not a huge trend either, it's a niche thing still. We all know it because we are involved deeply in industry. Innovation is slow. 

This might end premades completely.. shame, it is a good thing for many.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

That's why we need way fewer big companies.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

I had an argument with my daughter recently. I'm so aware of copyright, I won't even grab images of the web to illustrate blog posts unless I'm sure of their provenance, and I don't get how people can copy whatever they like to Pinterest without violating copyright. Daughter thinks it's all fine and that images online are fair game. She doesn't do it, because she's not a designer nor blogger, but it illustrates the different way that teenagers view the web compared to us old folk.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Quiet said:


> A designer makes a cover, even if the cover just says "Author Name" and "Title" as placeholders. That designer still used someone else's art / photography to create something. They're supposed to pay for a license for that. I mean, it's _obvious_ that the designer has used the art to create something.


This again entirely misunderstands the process of how premades are made.

Just a hint: changing author names or applying a filter to an image is the designer's own and original craftwork and knowledge. They can do with that and sell it as they absolutely please. No one providing stock images has any say in any of that.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Nic said:


> This again entirely misunderstands the process of how premades are made.
> 
> Just a hint: changing author names or applying a filter to an image is the designer's own and original craftwork and knowledge. They can do with that and sell it as they absolutely please. No one providing stock images has any say in any of that.


Every stock agency has restrictions on how their images may be used. People agree to these terms upon buying a license.


Bigstock Standard Content Image Usage Agreement

Bigstock Extended Usage Image Agreement


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

You know, I never bothered to email Solid Stock Art. They allow for templates. However, there is this section:



> This license does not grant you the right to re-sell, share, or alter with intent to re-sell (such as using the stock art for framed prints, calendars, etc, where the artwork is the product intended for resale; however, where the stock art is used to market a product, or becomes part of the product, the license grants such use, such as on a book cover, website templates, blogs, newsletters, product packaging, etc), any stock art.


So I shot them an email. I detailed how a premade book cover works, and then asked:



> I know Solid Stock Art's agreement allows for templates. However, does your company see a premade book cover as a situation "where the artwork is the product intended for resale" or do you see it as "where the stock art is used to market a product, or becomes part of the product, the license grants such use, such as on a book cover"?
> 
> Remember that the cover isn't attached to a book at this point. The product being sold is just the cover.


I'll update with the answer. Solid Stock Art was started by a guy who got in trouble with a stock agency and wanted to offer images with more generous licensing.

ETA: Their images are pricier, but the license will allow you to use one image on several book covers (if they allow premades).


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Ava Glass said:


> You know, I never bothered to email Solid Stock Art. They allow for templates. However, there is this section:
> 
> So I shot them an email. I detailed how a premade book cover works, and then asked:
> 
> ...


Cool! If they do everyone will be using them for premades haha


----------



## DariaChandler (Nov 13, 2014)

Wow! I'm glad I saw this, I was just looking at premade covers earlier. Now I'm glad I made my own.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Quiet said:


> I happen to know someone who was sued for putting an image on her website that she had found on a free images website (where the image hadn't actually been licensed for that). She lost. It cost her thousands of dollars for a silly little web image.


Back several years ago, when a blogger was sued for using an image, myself and others I knew went back to our (now defunct) blogs and deleted every single image except for our own photos. I'd always used CC to post, but we couldn't be sure of everything on joint blogs, so it all went.

I don't know the answer to the licensing issue for custom covers. I don't buy the stock art, and I'm assuming my cover artist uses it although my covers probably have art from a bunch of different places. But I know my former publisher did not pay for the stock art and then let the artist design the cover because I have the same artist now that I did when I was trade published, and I've asked.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Ava Glass said:


> Every stock agency has restrictions on how their images may be used. People agree to these terms upon buying a license.
> 
> 
> Bigstock Standard Content Image Usage Agreement
> ...


I'm a graphic designer and artist by profession. This not just for a few months: I have over twenty-five years' experience. You can believe me that when I state that any work done to a Photoshop-file, be it lettering or applying filters, is the property of the designer working on that file. The stock photo is just a part of that file and need not even be present for those manipulations. I can take that stock photo out of that file and absolutely everything still within it is my product, which I can sell as I please.

No, I reiterate, no stock photo agency can extend their licence to my work. They can only ever licence the photo itself.


----------



## AnyaWrites (May 16, 2014)

Wow, this is really disappointing for authors and designers. I can understand when the a cover designer is using the same photo multiple times, but if they are using it only once for one cover it doesn't make sense to me. Plus a pre-made cover is not a "template". A template by my definition is something that will be used over and over again, like a letter sent out to voters with just the name changed. Pre-made covers are used once, for one author. I've had a monthly membership to bigstock, but I'm cancelling now. I don't want to support a company that would pull that on a designer.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

AnyaWrites said:


> Wow, this is really disappointing for authors and designers. I can understand when the a cover designer is using the same photo multiple times, but if they are using it only once for one cover it doesn't make sense to me. Plus a pre-made cover is not a "template". A template by my definition is something that will be used over and over again, like a letter sent out to voters with just the name changed. Pre-made covers are used once, for one author. I've had a monthly membership to bigstock, but I'm cancelling now. I don't want to support a company that would pull that on a designer.


You nail it. This is exactly what they fail to recognise.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2014)

Nic said:


> You nail it. This is exactly what they fail to recognise.


The issue is not "a template" per se. The issue is that you are reassigning rights to the image to your customer. If you buy a license for something, it is for your use. If you sell that image to someone else to use, you are transferring your license. Which you do not have the right to do under the terms of your TOS.

Example: I'm a publisher. I buy the rights to publish Story A in my journal. I paid the author and I published the story. Publisher B comes to me and says, "Hey, *****, I'm putting together an anthology of stories featuring elves. I really like Story A, but could you change the main character to an elf and sell it to me to use in my anthology?"

Obviously, the answer is NO. I can't change the main character to an elf and sell the story to the other publisher. Because when I bought the rights to publish the story, I didn't get any derivative rights that allowed me to resell the story to someone else.

It is the same theory with stock art. You can buy art for your own use, but you can't transfer that use to another person. It doesn't matter if you are only transferring the license ONCE or a HUNDRED times, you are still transferring the license to another person. And there is nothing in your TOS that allows you to transfer that license. What artists are doing with pre-mades is saying, "I bought this license, but I will transfer it to you and not use it again." But there is NOTHING in your agreement with the stock company that actually allows you to do that.

Now we can argue that there SHOULD be such a clause, but that is a different argument. The right to transfer your license to another person does not exist in your agreement with the stock company. And that is what you are doing with a pre-made.


----------



## AnyaWrites (May 16, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Now we can argue that there SHOULD be such a clause, but that is a different argument. The right to transfer your license to another person does not exist in your agreement with the stock company. And that is what you are doing with a pre-made.


What you are saying would then apply for non-pre-made book covers as well, since those designers are not buying the pictures for their own use. Unless you are saying designers should have the authors purchase the pictures separately and then send to designers?


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The issue is not "a template" per se. The issue is that you are reassigning rights to the image to your customer. If you buy a license for something, it is for your use. If you sell that image to someone else to use, you are transferring your license. Which you do not have the right to do under the terms of your TOS.


This is the exact same when you make a custom item. According to your logic you couldn't do that either.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Nic, as Julie wrote earlier, you as the designer usually can act as the agent for your client in most stock photo terms of service. In a premade cover, there is no client. 

In the premade market, you might consider the simple option where the client purchases an additional license. Then they become the licensee, and then you as the designer are protected by any misuse of the image by the client. Or you negotiate an additional license transfer with the photo agency.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

555aaa said:


> You as the designer usually can act as the agent for your client in most stock photo terms of service. In a premade cover, there is no client.


In my contracts I'm the agent for my client in either scenario.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2014)

AnyaWrites said:


> What you are saying would then apply for non-pre-made book covers as well, since those designers are not buying the pictures for their own use. Unless you are saying designers should have the authors purchase the pictures separately and then send to designers?


That is what they should be doing. And that is what is done in commercial enterprises. If you are not an authorized agent of the client with the authority to enter the client into a contract, then whomever is going to take final ownership of the end-product is the one who has to have the license, because THAT is the person who is responsible for following the terms of the license.

A license carries legal risks. Whomever is going to be bearing the burden of those risks is the person who should have the license. Truthfully, I can't fathom WHY an artist would take on such a liability to begin with considering the low prices pre-mades are sold for. The legal risk is not worth it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2014)

555aaa said:


> In the premade market, you might consider the simple option where the client purchases an additional license. Then they become the licensee, and then you as the designer are protected by any misuse of the image by the client. Or you negotiate an additional license transfer with the photo agency.


This is what I said earlier. In such a scenario, the artist could in some cases then only have to buy a lesser license instead of a full license, because they are only using the image to mock-up. That way the artist washes his hands of any liability in the matter.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

DebBennett said:


> I had an argument with my daughter recently. I'm so aware of copyright, I won't even grab images of the web to illustrate blog posts unless I'm sure of their provenance, and I don't get how people can copy whatever they like to Pinterest without violating copyright. Daughter thinks it's all fine and that images online are fair game. She doesn't do it, because she's not a designer nor blogger, but it illustrates the different way that teenagers view the web compared to us old folk.


This attitude isn't helped at all by the fact that teachers encourage kids to grab images from the net to do school projects, and do it themselves for various school things as well.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I think what Julie is saying is that if I buy a license for stock art, legally I cannot sell/give the license to her.  
Whether I have made any changes or not.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

A premade isn't a template. It is a piece of art using legally licensed components which is then customized for a client. This is somewhat outside what stock companies are used to and the legalize  hasn't caught up. It's all a bit of a grey area, but I personally would avoid using Bigstock for premades - I only use their images for custom work.

As a designer long before book cover premades, the client purchases the stock, not me. I can't control how a client uses the final image and how many they sell. I generally have my custom book cover clients purchase their own stock.

However, this is where premades also get tricky. I, the designer, cannot guarantee or control what the client does with the cover I create after the fact. There's a certain logic expressed above that perhaps the safest is to have both of us purchase licenses - but then the cost of premades will become the same as custom design.......

I can't see premades disappearing though. I think stock providers will end up having to come up with some sort of different pricing and rules to govern it.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The issue is not "a template" per se. The issue is that you are reassigning rights to the image to your customer. If you buy a license for something, it is for your use. If you sell that image to someone else to use, you are transferring your license. Which you do not have the right to do under the terms of your TOS.


What if book cover is licensed art to be used for a certain person, not necessarily sold entity and rights reassigned. Designer buys licenses stock and makes his art, then licenses that to author for specific use (enforcing limits from stock photo license at the same time for 250 000 sales etc, not allowing derivative work from it etc).


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2014)

RBC said:


> What if book cover is licensed art to be used for a certain person, not necessarily sold entity and rights reassigned. Designer buys licenses stock and makes his art, then licenses that to author for specific use (enforcing limits from stock photo license at the same time for 250 000 sales etc, not allowing derivative work from it etc).


You don't have the right to transfer the license. If you don't have the right to transfer the license, you also don't have the right to sub-license the license. The image is NOT yours to license. The image is not your to sub-license. Think of it like renting a car. Can you sub-rent the car to another person without the car rental company's permission? It is the same thing.

From the Bigstock site:



> "Non-transferable" as used herein means that except as specifically provided in these TOS, you may not sell, rent, load, give, sublicense, or otherwise transfer to anyone, Content or the right to use Content. You may however, transfer Content to a third party for the sole purpose of causing such third party to produce and/or manufacture your goods incorporating Content subject to the terms and conditions herein.


That is pretty clear that you can't transfer the license to the image, but the client can give you permission to create work for him or her. The the client has to own the license, not the other way around.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

It is however easy enough to write a contract which has you acting as the legal agent of the buyer.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

In the long run however, artists will simply start avoiding stock photo agencies unable to adapt to modern demands. The market will sort them out.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2014)

Nic said:


> In the long run however, artists will simply start avoiding stock photo agencies unable to adapt to modern demands. The market will sort them out.


I know this is a heresy to say, but methinks some folks overestimate the impact of pre-mades on the overall stock art market. The pre-made market is terribly small in the grand scheme of stock art industry. And the stock art industry _is_ an industry unto itself. Your "modern demands" are in reality a niche market, and expecting major companies to completely change the way they do business to cater to a niche market, at the expense of loss revenue from major customers*, is kind of like expecting Amazon to change the way they run KDP to cater to post-feminist historical fiction. Sure, Amazon is happy to make money of the sale of those titles, but they aren't going to completely change how KDP operates because those authors want things done in a way that benefits them. (Heck, Amazon won't even change for romance and erotica authors, and they make up 50% of the ebook market!).

Like I said upthread. I believe in Capitalism. Someone will come along to fill the niche, and everyone will be happy. Heck, maybe some folks here should start a Kickstarter to get the seed money needed to do that. But framing this discussion in terms of stock agencies "not being modern" is disingenuous and leads to bad business decisions down the road.

*Example: Ad Agency buys stock art and creates an ad campaign for client A in California. Three months later, they create a marketing brochure for client B in New England using the same image. A year later, they create a display for a retail chain in Kentucky using the same image. They paid for that image once, and profited from it with three different clients. Under the current interpretation of the TOS, the agency would have to require each client to buy a license, because the license is not transferable. And that is, in fact, currently what happens in these situations. The end-user client buys an individual license to use the image for their specific project.

If people in this thread had their way, the agency would only have to buy the image once and could resell the image in various incarnations to any number of clients, without paying one more dime. Forget the fact for a moment that artists claim they don't reuse the images in pre-mades. That is a matter of the honor system, not your license agreement. Your license agreement in fact allows unlimited uses so long as the total impressions don't reach X. On our micro-level, we want to be able to re-license the image and it makes sense to us. But think this through on the macro level what that means for ad agencies. The way the current licenses are written, if artists are allowed to resell the license to publishers, by extension that same interpretation has to apply to the Ad agency. The ad agency wouldn't mind. But do you really, truly, expect a stock company to walk away from all of that revenue at the macro-level to appease a niche market?


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I know this is a heresy to say, but methinks some folks overestimate the impact of pre-mades on the overall stock art market. The pre-made market is terribly small in the grand scheme of stock art industry. And the stock art industry _is_ an industry unto itself. Your "modern demands" are in reality a niche market, and expecting major companies to completely change the way they do business to cater to a niche market, at the expense of loss revenue from major customers*, is kind of like expecting Amazon to change the way they run KDP to cater to post-feminist historical fiction.


Absolutely. Premades are a blip. Stock market is in tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be nice if contracts got updated but it's not likely. Wayyy more likely Premades would die off than make a dent for big companies..


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

The transfer stuff is irrelevant. You can create work for clients.



> By this Agreement, Bigstock grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable (*except as herein provided*), royalty-free right, throughout the world, in perpetuity, to use and reproduce Content in the following ways, subject to the limitations set forth herein and in Part II hereof.





> The work you produce with Content must be used for yourself, your direct employer, *client, or customer*, who must be the end user of your work.


The issue is whether or not it is a "template" or not. We can be metaphysically certain that's the issue because that's what Bigstock says the issue is in their communication with the OP. They can define it as they like, but every example they list of what a "template" is consists of something which is created once and sold multiple times. Every other usage that consists of one purchase/one use only requires the standard license.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You don't have the right to transfer the license. If you don't have the right to transfer the license, you also don't have the right to sub-license the license. The image is NOT yours to license. The image is not your to sub-license. Think of it like renting a car. Can you sub-rent the car to another person without the car rental company's permission? It is the same thing.


It's about licensing the Custom Artwork not separate things like stock photos/brushes etc. Author is end user who gets certain rights from designer to use the cover and doesn't own a cover. Just has exclusive license.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Solid Stock Art:



> The type of use you've described would fall under our template use. Yes our license supports this resale of the book cover designs.
> 
> Please let this designer know we welcome his business and your author's in turn.


http://www.solidstockart.com/royalty-freedom

http://www.solidstockart.com/royalty-free-license

They encourage reuse of images, too.


----------



## MajesticMonkey (Sep 3, 2013)

nevermind....

hope the guys are going to be ok.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Designers can also use the 2D backgrounds and texture overlays at Renderosity, DAZ3D, and RuntimeDNA. I'd recommend putting more than just text on the images just to be safe.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Ava Glass said:


> Designers can also use the 2D backgrounds and texture overlays at Renderosity, DAZ3D, and RuntimeDNA. I'd recommend putting more than just text on the images just to be safe.


By the way, good job and looks like you put ton of effort into this. Thank you for that!


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I know this is a heresy to say, but methinks some folks overestimate the impact of pre-mades on the overall stock art market. The pre-made market is terribly small in the grand scheme of stock art industry. And the stock art industry _is_ an industry unto itself. Your "modern demands" are in reality a niche market, and expecting major companies to completely change the way they do business to cater to a niche market, at the expense of loss revenue from major customers*, is kind of like expecting Amazon to change the way they run KDP to cater to post-feminist historical fiction. Sure, Amazon is happy to make money of the sale of those titles, but they aren't going to completely change how KDP operates because those authors want things done in a way that benefits them. (Heck, Amazon won't even change for romance and erotica authors, and they make up 50% of the ebook market!).


I've been thinking about this for a few days now. Literally all the use I make of stock images, and in the course of my work I go through a lot of them, is very similiar to premades. I just don't advertise in any similar manner. My contracts make it clear that I buy for my clients, which is a perfectly fine legal activity in line with any of these licences. It's however no different from premades in the important parts. What I do a million or more other graphic designers also do. As do, see above, people who make book covers. If I sat down and really hunted for same situations I'd probably come up with more of that. Now, if I look at this slice it is substantial enough that it would hurt to lose, especially for companies concentrating on anything above microstock.

Another question: do you remember AOL?


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Nic said:


> I've been thinking about this for a few days now. Literally all the use I make of stock images, and in the course of my work I go through a lot of them, is very similiar to premades. I just don't advertise in any similar manner. My contracts make it clear that I buy for my clients, which is a perfectly fine legal activity in line with any of these licences. It's however no different from premades in the important parts. What I do a million or more other graphic designers also do. As do, see above, people who make book covers. If I sat down and really hunted for same situations I'd probably come up with more of that. Now, if I look at this slice it is substantial enough that it would hurt to lose, especially for companies concentrating on anything above microstock.
> 
> Another question: do you remember AOL?


If all book cover designers stopped using them, companies still wouldn't feel it..

Problem for companies with Premades is not how design is made, it's that designs are made before hiring. So it's not client work (there is no client at the time of making design) according to them. Thus they call it templates. And we're just stuck in grey zone now..


----------



## kklawiter (Jan 23, 2012)

I can never stress enough to read the stock sites TOS before considering using them. If you have a question on their TOS ask them, get the answer in writing and save it. If you are still not sure, get another rep and ask again. If the answers don't match up, stay away! There are many stock companies out there. 

For premades, I personally only use depositphotos and the smaller stock companies that have sprung up with the self publishing boom that were meant for book covers. EVERY time this topic has come up here or elsewhere I have contacted depositphotos.com. EVERY time the answer was the same, if a premade is only sold once, it is not a template, and falls under the standard license. I have multiple saved chats/emails with this clearly stated. (As in no hesitation, they've been asked this many times before) I know several other designers who have gotten the same response. The day I get a different answer, is the day I will reconsider.

Every other big stock site I have contacted in the past about premades, the answer has been back and forth, or they didn't seem to know what I was talking about.

On the licensing note, Depositphoto's response to that is "You as the designer are licensing the file to use for a potential client. In the scenario of the premade cover, you are selling the book cover to the potential buyer, not the file itself. They do not have to purchase the file."

But I also have the legalize that I am purchasing licenses on behalf of the client in my terms as well.


----------



## Rebecca Frank Art (Jun 9, 2014)

kklawiter said:


> I can never stress enough to read the stock sites TOS before considering using them. If you have a question on their TOS ask them, get the answer in writing and save it. If you are still not sure, get another rep and ask again. If the answers don't match up, stay away! There are many stock companies out there.
> 
> For premades, I personally only use depositphotos and the smaller stock companies that have sprung up with the self publishing boom that were meant for book covers. EVERY time this topic has come up here or elsewhere I have contacted depositphotos.com. EVERY time the answer was the same, if a premade is only sold once, it is not a template, and falls under the standard license. I have multiple saved chats/emails with this clearly stated. (As in no hesitation, they've been asked this many times before) I know several other designers who have gotten the same response. The day I get a different answer, is the day I will reconsider.
> 
> ...


Just want to second this! DepositPhotos is who I use, and after hearing about this I contacted them. I received the same answer.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2014)

Nic said:


> Another question: do you remember AOL?


The same AOL with $2,000,000,000 in revenue last year? Yeah, I remember them. Why?

This quip is actually a great illustration of how sometimes we don't really see the big picture. I get your joke: AOL dial up service. Nobody uses it. Hahaha. But dial up is a very tiny portion of AOL's portfolio. Just like pre-made artists are a very tiny portion of a stock art company's revenue. This is why people's energy is far better spent either pooling their resources to launch their own stock service or find workable solutions instead of internet calls to stick it to a corporation that won't notice when you are gone.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Periodimages.com's license states: "Cover / Graphic Artists may use this license to create ebook covers for sale."

http://www.periodimages.com/licenses-explained

That's another option.

About Depositphotos...I used to recommend them to premade cover designers because I too have an email stating that premade book covers were okay with a SL.

But then this thread appeared here:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,178658.0.html

When I asked again, the Depositphotos rep told me a second time that premades are fine with an SL. Still, I decided it wasn't worth it to deal with an angry photographer who was told something else by another Depositphotos rep.

Update on solutions52: He/she hired a lawyer who has contacted Bigstock.


----------



## OW (Jul 9, 2014)

kklawiter said:


> I can never stress enough to read the stock sites TOS before considering using them. If you have a question on their TOS ask them, get the answer in writing and save it. If you are still not sure, get another rep and ask again. If the answers don't match up, stay away! There are many stock companies out there.


This. I've seen policies around social network usage I would never have imagined, had I not have looked.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But dial up is a very tiny portion of AOL's portfolio.


If by 'very tiny' you mean a quarter to a third of its revenue, yes. According to a five-minute Google search, some claim up to 80% of AOL's profits come from the dialup business, but those making the estimates may just have pulled those numbers from their bottom, since I don't see any actual citations of original sources.


----------



## LyraParish (Aug 27, 2013)

Wow! This is so good to know, not that I'm a cover designer, but I buy pre-mades quite often!!


----------



## heyhannajames (Jun 1, 2014)

*You can transfer certain stock photos to clients. This is one standard license at a photo site I use:*

(e) The Member may utilize its rights hereunder on behalf of one (1) of its clients. For example, if the Member is a graphic designer, then it may create an advertisement with the Work, where such advertisement will be used by the graphic designer's client; and if the Member is a procurement agency, then it may obtain a license on behalf of its client. Accordingly, such client shall possess all the rights, restrictions and obligations under this Agreement in relation to the Work, but without the right to further allow any additional client of its own to so use the Work. If the Member desires to use the Work on behalf of more than one (1) client, then the Member will need to download and pay for additional license(s) to the same Work. The permissions granted under this subsection 1(e) require that the client has agreed to the terms of this Agreement, and that both the client and Member shall remain jointly and severally liable for any act or omission committed by either of the client and the Member in connection with this Agreement.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Solutions52 posted this reply from Fotolia, in case anyone is curious about them. They do the Dollar Photo Club.



> This is from Fotolia
> 
> In the case of ebook covers there are a couple of different scenarios. If you are an author and intend to publish and ebook and want to use our image on the cover that is fine with a standard license because the primary value of the object you are selling isn't the image but is instead the literature.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

If anyone is curious about Dreamstime or Shutterstock, this is what GearPress Steve posted about them:



GearPress Steve said:


> No, the question was posed correctly. Both Shutterstock and Dreamstime said that premade covers were NOT allowed under the standard license. I don't have Shutterstock's response, but my daughter forwarded me Dreamstime's:
> 
> _Thank you for contacting Dreamstime Customer Support team. A designer can indeed make pre-made book covers with our images, but not under the standard license. With a subscription plan you can only download images under our standard RF license. So if you are a designer hired by an author to design a book cover for a specific project you won't need W-EL license, the standard RF one will suffice. You may not put predesigned covers on a website for sale even if they will be removed after they are bought by a client (even if you sell them just for one client).
> _


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

Ava Glass said:


> https://kdp.amazon.com/community/thread.jspa?threadID=213169
> 
> A premade cover artist was DMCA-ed by the creator of an image licensed through Bigstock. Bigstock sees premade book covers as templates even if one cover is sold. Now Bigstock wants the artist to hand over the names of authors and books currently using the artist's covers. The artist has a week. The artist expects to then be charged extended license fees.
> 
> ...


I've heard it works like this

It doesn't matter WHERE YOU GET YOUR IMAGES from...

There is usually a STANDARD and a EXTENDED license.

Some places the standard does not include books, some places it does but even if it does its for X amount of published books or sales like 200,000 or 20,000

once you get over that. THEY COME KNOCKING and you have to purchase extended license to keep using it.

Extended is always a lot more based on where you get it from. It can range from $100 to $2000


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

I like the Fotolia reply posted above - plain English. Then backed up by a good explanation from Dreamstime. 

I do use single photo downloads as covers on my books so I'm in the clear - I also use my own photos where possible. It's amazing what a little bit of manipulation can do. 

Anyway - it looks like the new default is that you do need an extended licence for pre-mades. 

It looks like a cracking market has just opened up for the minor stock sites to allow their images to be used on pre-mades.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

EC said:


> Anyway - it looks like the new default is that you do need an extended licence for pre-mades.
> 
> It looks like a cracking market has just opened up for the minor stock sites to allow their images to be used on pre-mades.


I'm going to use this post to compile a list of image sites that premade cover designers can use. I'll keep editing it. I might make a new thread if the list gets long enough.

Periodimages.com (People. Mostly romance, but also SF and fantasy)
Jennleblanc.photoshelter.com (People. Romance and paranormal)
Solidstockart.com (General stock)
Thereedfiles.photoshelter.com (People. Romance, paranormal, YA)
ArtArena.com (General stock, must buy extended license, but they start at $1.9


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The same AOL with $2,000,000,000 in revenue last year? Yeah, I remember them. Why?
> 
> This quip is actually a great illustration of how sometimes we don't really see the big picture. I get your joke: AOL dial up service. Nobody uses it. Hahaha. But dial up is a very tiny portion of AOL's portfolio. Just like pre-made artists are a very tiny portion of a stock art company's revenue. This is why people's energy is far better spent either pooling their resources to launch their own stock service or find workable solutions instead of internet calls to stick it to a corporation that won't notice when you are gone.


AOL wasn't just "a dial-up service" during its heyday. It was in a completely different business compared to today.



RBC said:


> If all book cover designers stopped using them, companies still wouldn't feel it..


I wasn't talking just book cover designers. Stock is needed for a lot of different kinds of designs. Which means that I was talking business models. If I as a designer can't act in the stead of the client anymore, I will look for companies who adapt to my needs.

Which is essentially how AOL lost its erstwhile dominance in the field they left entirely afterwards.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

I updated my list of premade-friendly sites with ArtArena.com. I chatted with a rep, and they say one must buy an extended license. However, their default price for ELs is $1.98. Contributors can set more expensive prices if they wish, so it's not a universal price. It's still worth checking out.

They also allow for erotica.


----------

