# Affordable stock photos



## Andrzej Tucholski (Jan 4, 2014)

Hi there!

I've been trying to find myself a good stock photo but it only gave me the acknowledgment of how photo licenses work. Popular stocks can sell you a photo for $5 but when you want it to be "for product of more than 500 000 impressions" (whatever that means) it can go as high as thousands of dollars. 

Do you have some great stocks with sliiiightly more reasonable prices?


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

That means "if you sell more than 500000 copies" --for most of us! that's not an issue.


----------



## Andrzej Tucholski (Jan 4, 2014)

dotx said:


> That means "if you sell more than 500000 copies" --for most of us! that's not an issue.


If the license isn't fixed-limit-free then I suppose this limit can be changed anytime causing a problem. Maybe I want to be over-clear with all of this


----------



## jcfalch (Apr 12, 2013)

Yeah, these are the times that we live in: "It's only $5, unless you become successful and then we sue you."

Seems a lawyer is needed for everything these days.


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

Andrzej Tucholski said:


> If the license isn't fixed-limit-free then I suppose this limit can be changed anytime causing a problem. Maybe I want to be over-clear with all of this


All the stock photo sites have similar wording. Some are 250k, some are 500k. That's the only way they can offer the standard and the extended license. You won't find any stock sites that are absolutely free of rules.


----------



## Keri Knutson (Apr 10, 2011)

Fotolia.com has no limit on impressions and a standard license covers book covers. I'm not sure offhand what a single piece of stock would cost, but I have a subscription and pay less than a dollar per XL stock photographs.  Depositphotos is also a good, reasonably prices stock provider, but they have a limit, after which you have to buy an extended license. (I think it's 500,000, but it might be half that.)

Hope this helps!


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Andrzej Tucholski said:


> If the license isn't fixed-limit-free then I suppose this limit can be changed anytime causing a problem. Maybe I want to be over-clear with all of this


Hi there. I would not worry about the limit changing. I have been using stock sites for years and the same sites have always had the same numbers - either 250 000 or 500 000, a few unlimited. Anyhow I have not seen any site that has a number less than 250 000. How many authors here sell more than 250 000 copies per book?

Plus the extended licenses are not thousands as you say. An extended license is usually $50 - $100, or around there. For an exlusive license (you get the image exclusively for life) it starts at around $800.

Unless you are looking at really expensive image sites like Getty, Jupiter or iStockphoto. But all the "normal" sites like Dreamstime, Fotolia, Bigstock, Depositphotos, Shutterstock etc. are not that costly with any of the licenses they offer.

Melody


----------



## ruecole (Jun 13, 2012)

I think DepositPhotos recently changed their standard license to unlimited impressions. They also include book covers in the standard license. 

Hope that helps!

Rue


----------



## Andrzej Tucholski (Jan 4, 2014)

Melody Simmons said:


> Hi there. I would not worry about the limit changing. I have been using stock sites for years and the same sites have always had the same numbers - either 250 000 or 500 000, a few unlimited. Anyhow I have not seen any site that has a number less than 250 000. How many authors here sell more than 250 000 copies per book?
> 
> Plus the extended licenses are not thousands as you say. An extended license is usually $50 - $100, or around there. For an exlusive license (you get the image exclusively for life) it starts at around $800.
> 
> ...


Ah, okay. I was on Getty and after setting all my needs the system has calculated something around 5 or 7k

Thanks for other destinations, I'll check there!


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Andrzej Tucholski said:


> Ah, okay. I was on Getty and after setting all my needs the system has calculated something around 5 or 7k
> 
> Thanks for other destinations, I'll check there!


Sounds like you were looking at RM (Rights Managed) images - they ask you to specify what the image will be used for and then they quote thousands. Check sites that sell RF (Royalty Free) images. They ask a flat fee for a Standard Image License, which covers ebook and paperback covers as well as related advertising materials.


----------



## Andrzej Tucholski (Jan 4, 2014)

I have no idea how people are able to operate without this forum


----------



## pauldude000 (May 22, 2013)

EelKat said:


> There's also morguefile http://www.morguefile.com/archive their images are 100% free, available for book covers and there's no limit on impressions, quality varies though, some a really good professional photos while others are really poor and you wonder why they bothered putting them up.


Be careful of morguefile. Yes, they give you quote/unquote permission to use the photos. However, they are not the copywrite owners of the photos! They use assumed royalty "dead" photos, when there really is no such thing. Use with caution.


----------



## Callie Ray (Jan 6, 2014)

I've been having great luck with Flickr through Creative Commons for commercial use:
http://search.creativecommons.org/


----------



## Oscar Arias (Dec 17, 2013)

Nashira said:


> I've been having great luck with Flickr through Creative Commons for commercial use:
> http://search.creativecommons.org/


^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS

Flickr is great for inside images for historical books, books on animals, etc. However, I have never been able to find really good "cover quality" images available as a CC image on Flickr.


----------



## Livia (Feb 6, 2014)

Andrzej Tucholski said:


> I have no idea how people are able to operate without this forum


Seriously. Such great info!


----------



## Andrzej Tucholski (Jan 4, 2014)

I'm using Flickr on a daily basis for my blogging in Polish but as Oscar mentioned - photos are mostly in the "internet resolution" tops.


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

Buying the license twice can fix this, AMIRITE?


----------



## Callie Ray (Jan 6, 2014)

Andrzej Tucholski said:


> I'm using Flickr on a daily basis for my blogging in Polish but as Oscar mentioned - photos are mostly in the "internet resolution" tops.


This may be a silly question, but have you looked at all of the download sizes available? In my experience, the original files are pretty large. I'm currently working on a cover where I had to scale the photo down to 2000x3000.


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Andrzej Tucholski said:


> I'm using Flickr on a daily basis for my blogging in Polish but as Oscar mentioned - photos are mostly in the "internet resolution" tops.


Using Flickr is dicey at the very least - the Creative Commons images have no property or model releases. How do you know the model in an image gave permission for the uses you are applying to the image? I have read on some photographer forums that the photographers feel the CC license is only for non-commercial purposes, and that for commercial purposes they should be contacted. This company got sued 3.6 million after using one image from Flickr - maybe it wasn't a CC image, but is there any regulation and check on what people upload the Flickr CC? Someone could very easily upload an image that is copyrighted:

http://www.worldphoto.org/news-and-events/photographer-sues-buzzfeed-for-36-million-after-stealing-photo/

Here's another interesting case where the photographer seemed to change his mind about the CC image, and Flickr keeps no records of changes in licences:

http://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentations/

There is no accountability or regulation on sites like these...


----------



## Callie Ray (Jan 6, 2014)

You bring up some great points. I don't use photos from Flickr with people in them unless they are from a reputable organization like a library (the Boston Public Library collection is amazing and the prices for commercial use are reasonable).


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Nashira said:


> This may be a silly question, but have you looked at all of the download sizes available? In my experience, the original files are pretty large. I'm currently working on a cover where I had to scale the photo down to 2000x3000.


Also this: size does not determine quality. One can get a 300 dpi image that is 4000 pixels that is totally grainy. ISO setting, aperture setting, shutter speed and lighting conditions (plus the type of camera used) all affect photographs and professional photographers do them better...


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

I'm consistently amazed, with the greater-than-ever need for good stock photos, at the lack of clarity in licensing (to say nothing of the silliness of so many licenses--as if with ebooks or Websites you have control over the number of impressions) and the lack of variety in photos. It seems like there's a niche here waiting to be exploited by a really good stock photo site, and when that happens they'll explode in popularity. The pressure to provide content and have more sensible (and clear) licensing will only ratchet up as time goes on.


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Lummox JR said:


> I'm consistently amazed, with the greater-than-ever need for good stock photos, at the lack of clarity in licensing (to say nothing of the silliness of so many licenses--as if with ebooks or Websites you have control over the number of impressions) and the lack of variety in photos. It seems like there's a niche here waiting to be exploited by a really good stock photo site, and when that happens they'll explode in popularity. The pressure to provide content and have more sensible (and clear) licensing will only ratchet up as time goes on.


I belong to a few photographer's forums and can say that finally during this last year I saw some photographers actually becoming aware that their images are being used on book covers and taking some interest in that. I also saw quite an increase in cover-appropriate images on stock sites (so if you think the situation is bad now you should have seen it before!) So I think there's a lot of hope for the future!


----------



## Andrzej Tucholski (Jan 4, 2014)

Actually there's also the case of derivative use - if you take a licensed photo and build around it (e.g. cut one object out, add three on, put some filters and throw a typography on top) then things get super slippery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.


----------



## TheGapBetweenMerlons (Jun 2, 2011)

Ran across this thread while searching for something else, and felt it was appropriate to correct some misinformation.



pauldude000 said:


> Be careful of morguefile. Yes, they give you quote/unquote permission to use the photos. However, they are not the copywrite owners of the photos! They use assumed royalty "dead" photos, when there really is no such thing. Use with caution.


*As both a contributor and moderator there, I can say this is absolutely false.* Every photo in the Free Photos section is the copyright property of the person who uploaded it, and if we find out otherwise we remove it promptly. "Caution" is always advisable no matter where you get your photo and no matter how much you pay or don't pay, because people do things they shouldn't, but that does not invalidate morgueFile any more than it invalidates Shutterstock et al.

BTW, it's copy_right_ -- the _right_ to copy -- not "copywrite." If you're going to make negative claims about other people, it would be a good idea to be familiar with the topic. There's also no such thing as a 'royalty "dead" photo' but I'll assume you mean _public domain_ images -- which do exist, for a variety of reasons, including expiration of copyright, donation to the public domain by the original creator, and images created in the course of work by certain government employees. However, images in the Free Photos section of morgueFile.com are not supposed to be public domain photos either.

(As to the earlier question/comment about why "poor" quality images are posted on morgueFile, the original intent of the site was for _reference_ images, not _stock_ images. A painter might want to know how a certain object looks, or somebody designing a book cover might want one object isolated from its surroundings and placed into a different scene, etc. I have photos that seem pretty worthless at first glance -- e.g., http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/49131 -- that have been downloaded at full resolution hundreds of times. They must have been useful to quite a few people.)


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Crenel said:


> Ran across this thread while searching for something else, and felt it was appropriate to correct some misinformation.
> 
> *As both a contributor and moderator there, I can say this is absolutely false.* Every photo in the Free Photos section is the copyright property of the person who uploaded it, and if we find out otherwise we remove it promptly. "Caution" is always advisable no matter where you get your photo and no matter how much you pay or don't pay, because people do things they shouldn't, but that does not invalidate morgueFile any more than it invalidates Shutterstock et al.
> 
> ...


I don't use Morguefile but since you are a knowledgeable member of the company I would love to ask a few questions just to expand my knowledge:

What are the license terms for free images on Morguefile? May the images be used on both ebook and paperback book covers? Do they have any signed model or property releases?
Commercial use allowed?
May the images be altered and changed? May they be used without any changes?
Do all the images at Morguefile have the same license conditions?
What sizes are available?
Is attribution required for the images?
Is there any kind of check on what contributors upload to Morguefile - i.e. do they fill in any type of legal form to state they own the rights to the image they upload?

Thank you!
Melody


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

If you're going to be creating a lot of covers, Dollar Photo Club is a good option.  It's part of Fotolia, and $99 gets you 100 photos each year.  Or you can go with the $10 for 10 monthly option.  Any beyond the limit will cost you a dollar each.  But the biggest benefit is that the photos are the large size - the one you usually have to pay more for.


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

swolf said:


> If you're going to be creating a lot of covers, Dollar Photo Club is a good option. It's part of Fotolia, and $99 gets you 100 photos each year.  Or you can go with the $10 for 10 monthly option. Any beyond the limit will cost you a dollar each. But the biggest benefit is that the photos are the large size - the one you usually have to pay more for.


The only thing about Dollarphoto is that contributing photographers are not all happy with the site since they were automatically included without any notification from Fotolia - and subsequently some have removed their portfolios and images from Dollarphotoclub and some also removed images from Fotolia. I don't know the current updates on the situation but if it is still going on then you might not find all the images you could have on some of the other sites...

References:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/how-to-opt-out-of-dollar-photo-club/

http://boycottfotolia.org/


----------



## TheGapBetweenMerlons (Jun 2, 2011)

Melody Simmons said:


> I don't use Morguefile but since you are a knowledgeable member of the company I would love to ask a few questions just to expand my knowledge:


To clarify, the site started as a personal project in the 90s, and a company was created for it several years later (2004). I've been a contributing member since at least 2003, and a moderator for several years. Moderators are volunteers.

Anyway, to hopefully answer your questions:

*What are the license terms for free images on Morguefile?* Free to use in your projects but images _must_ be modified (and not trivially, although this is subjective) to avoid the "no stand-alone dustribution" prohibition. No payment, notice, or credit to the photographer is necessary (but credit and/or notification of use is generally appreciated). Full license terms are linked from the bottom of every page of the site.

*May the images be used on both ebook and paperback book covers?* Yes

*Do they have any signed model or property releases?* This varies, but I would guess that the majority of photos do not have releases, which can limit their direct commercial usefulness -- but unlike stock photos, they're not intended for direct (unmodified) use anyway. On each image's display page there is an indication of whether or not releases are available. If they are, they are held by the photographer, not morgueFile, so contacting the photographer would be wise, to get a copy to examine the terms and have it for your records.

*Commercial use allowed?* Yes

*May the images be altered and changed?* Yes, it is required

*May they be used without any changes?* No, other than private personal use (e.g., using as your computer desktop background, or printing a copy to display in your home)

*Do all the images at Morguefile have the same license conditions?* Yes, for images in the Free Photos section. This does not apply to artist's Portfolios, where other licenses or no license at all may be applied.

*What sizes are available?* This varies widely but no image (in Free Photos) should be smaller than 800x600.

*Is attribution required for the images?* No, but it us generally appreciated.

*Is there any kind of check on what contributors upload to Morguefile - i.e. do they fill in any type of legal form to state they own the rights to the image they upload?* With each upload they agree that they have the proper rights to upload the image(s), but this is a simple statement on the screen rather than a more formal legal process. Sometimes people upload things they do not have the right to upload (but this happens on stock/microstock sites too). When we find those we remove them, often before they are visible to the public. All photos are moderated before display, but this is a volunteer, informal, and inexact process to weed out the most obvious problems.

If you have any other questions about it, let me know.


----------



## Davina Hart (Jun 16, 2014)

I've used 123rf.com for years.


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Crenel said:


> To clarify, the site started as a personal project in the 90s, and a company was created for it several years later (2004). I've been a contributing member since
> If you have any other questions about it, let me know.


Thank you! These answers are a valuable resource...I will refer anyone with questions about Morguefile images to this page. Sounds like it is best to always contact the photographer there. Are their contact email addresses available to the public? How can one find a contact address?


----------



## Joseph Turkot (Nov 9, 2012)

> I have no idea how people are able to operate without this forum


Agreed!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Melody Simmons said:


> The only thing about Dollarphoto is that contributing photographers are not all happy with the site since they were automatically included without any notification from Fotolia - and subsequently some have removed their portfolios and images from Dollarphotoclub and some also removed images from Fotolia. I don't know the current updates on the situation but if it is still going on then you might not find all the images you could have on some of the other sites...
> 
> References:
> 
> ...


Yeah, I've heard all that. I figure everyone's out who wants out. And I haven't had a problem finding things I need. Their search could be better, but you can say that about most stock sites.


----------



## TheGapBetweenMerlons (Jun 2, 2011)

Melody Simmons said:


> Sounds like it is best to always contact the photographer there. Are their contact email addresses available to the public? How can one find a contact address?


Considering the informal nature of the site, I agree that it's best to contact the photographer for significant commercial uses (e.g., a book cover). I regularly use photos from there for smaller or more easily changed projects without contacting photographers in advance.

The method of contacting photographers has changed several times in the site's history. Currently, if you go to a contributor's profile page -- e.g., http://www.morguefile.com/creative/jppi -- you'll see a blue envelope icon below the username to the right of the "Follow" button. You do need an account to use that feature, which helps limit the spam we get, but accounts are free and should be easy & quick to set up.


----------

