# So... this sucks (Pre-made Covers)



## Damonza (Apr 11, 2013)

It turns out many of the pre-made cover sites (including my pre-made section) are operating in contravention of the main stock photo site licensing terms.

It's not permitted to sell "template" or "customizable" items using images purchased from any of the stock photo sites. It's in all of their licensing terms. I just checked with a few of the big ones, and they have replied that it's not permitted. Obviously sites with original images or illustrations aren't affected.

This hurts both designers and authors who are looking for low-cost cover options. I don't know if any of the stock sites will ever prosecute anybody for this, but designers just need to be aware of the risk.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Hmmm...interesting definition of ''template''.

Which sites did you check up with?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I don't pretend to know anything about legal language, but I would assume this meant you can't sell an image over and over-- i.e., you make a template using the image and then reused it over and over for different authors and titles. By making a premade cover you're essentially doing the same thing you would for a custom cover; you just don't put the final title and author on it till it's purchased. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the issue?


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Yeah, my understanding is that you can't use a stock photo to sell more than one *finished product*.  Declaring that an item like a pre-made cover isn't finished until the purchaser pays and gets their final title/author name on it is different from using the same photo over again on multiple covers.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> Yeah, my understanding is that you can't use a stock photo to sell more than one *finished product*. Declaring that an item like a pre-made cover isn't finished until the purchaser pays and gets their final title/author name on it is different from using the same photo over again on multiple covers.


Yup, that's the assumption we designers operate under.. would totally suck if it's true.. esp. for those selling ton of premades. I don't think authors would be found out, it's impossible pretty much.


----------



## Damonza (Apr 11, 2013)

I checked with iStock, Big Stock and Shutterstock.

It seems that you can't sell something (eg, a cover that contains the stock images) that is only being bought because it contains those images. iStockphoto replied as follows: Our images (at iStockphoto) come with the Standard License which allows use for book covers but prohibits "print on demand", which refers to *customizing a product for the client with a choice of images*.

The problem seems to be in "competing" with them - reselling an image or collection of images on the cover.

BigStockphoto's terms state... YOU MAY NOT Use or display any Image on websites or in connection with any service designed to sell or induce sales of user-commissioned "print-on demand" products using or incorporating Image(s), including, by way of example only, postcards, mugs, tee shirts, posters, giclée prints, wallpaper, artwork and other items. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "print on demand" means, a printing technology and business process in which copies of a product are not printed until an order for the product has been received.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 8, 2012)

MegHarris said:


> I don't pretend to know anything about legal language, but I would assume this meant you can't sell an image over and over-- i.e., you make a template using the image and then reused it over and over for different authors and titles. By making a premade cover you're essentially doing the same thing you would for a custom cover; you just don't put the final title and author on it till it's purchased. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the issue?


This.

Usually you can understand anything a stocksite does by this one simple rule: More exposure = more money.

If a person wanted to make a single template with one image that they sold over and over (NOT a premade that's sold once) that image gets extra exposure and becomes less valuable. They need their stock images to hold as much value as possible for each cheap sale (subscription or regular license with credits). For anything that is used repeatedly like print on demand cups, t-shirts, posters they need to get more money out of you to make up for the extra exposure thus the requirement for an enhanced license (read: more $$).

I've found that you really have to push the techs to look up their own rules before you will get anything other than a "canned" response. They don't know it by heart. They are just going off of their script. If you get escalated high enough you can get some real answers. They don't know the difference between a premade and a custom cover. The important aspect is exposure and how the word "template" is being used.

Still - it's always worth reading the entire licensing agreement of any site that you buy stock from. It's also valuable to reread it when you have questions or just periodically to make sure there aren't any important changes. Not all stock sites are created equal and there are still some out there that do not allow covers under their standard license. Do your homework and ask questions more than once.


----------



## Vivi_Anna (Feb 12, 2011)

Sounds like to me you can't premake the cover using a stock photo and put it on your site to advertise it to sell it.

So in essence you are using that stock photo for advertising on your website, not as a picture for the cover. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  But that's what it sounds like to me.  You can still buy stock photos to make covers, but custom covers, not premade ones that you're going to sell later.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Damonza said:


> I checked with iStock, Big Stock and Shutterstock.
> 
> It seems that you can't sell something (eg, a cover that contains the stock images) that is only being bought because it contains those images. iStockphoto replied as follows: Our images (at iStockphoto) come with the Standard License which allows use for book covers but prohibits "print on demand", which refers to *customizing a product for the client with a choice of images*.
> 
> ...


There was a thread a while back about the definition of 'print on demand', and pre-made covers do not fit the definition.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 8, 2012)

Damonza said:


> ... Our images (at iStockphoto) come with the Standard License which allows use for book covers but prohibits "print on demand", which refers to *customizing a product for the client with a choice of images*.
> 
> The problem seems to be in "competing" with them - reselling an image or collection of images on the cover.


I would agree with this if a designer listed 6 stockphotos up on their site that you could order a cover out of. It's just not the same as already having a completed product that you sell to a 3rd party. You are not selling your product by advertising the original photos you purchased and using them over and over again. It is perfectly within the legal contracts to make a single complete product (your cover art) and be commissioned for that art and to put a specific text on it for the client.

You are only competing if you are advertising your work by the original stock photos themselves. That is just not the case. And the premade is not a true template if it isn't used over and over. It is it's own single product.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

MegHarris said:


> I don't pretend to know anything about legal language, but I would assume this meant you can't sell an image over and over-- i.e., you make a template using the image and then reused it over and over for different authors and titles. By making a premade cover you're essentially doing the same thing you would for a custom cover; you just don't put the final title and author on it till it's purchased. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the issue?


That's my take as well. You can use it for a Cafe Press type POD.


----------



## Damonza (Apr 11, 2013)

The problem is the part of the definition or the condition that a product is only being bought because of the image on it. Bigstockphoto also has this in their summary section...

Not generally permitted uses:
products where the photo or image really IS your product

It's bad for everyone if they were to clamp down on this. They probably won't though. None of us designers are making millions selling their images. We all probably slip through the cracks.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 8, 2012)

Damonza said:


> The problem is the part of the definition or the condition that a product is only being bought because of the image on it. Bigstockphoto also has this in their summary section...


Is it the image, or is it the way the image has been incorporated with your sweet typography along with any other painting/effects you've had to do to it?

The image itself is not just pulled from Shutterstock and slapped up on your website for sale. Your finished product isn't just a poster for sale of the exact image from the stocksite. It's those types of things that they are tying to prevent with this type of wording.

The product is being bought because of the graphic work you've put into a specific cover. Yes, it does use their stockphotos as a base, but it is not the final product.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Damonza said:


> The problem is the part of the definition or the condition that a product is only being bought because of the image on it. Bigstockphoto also has this in their summary section...
> 
> Not generally permitted uses:
> products where the photo or image really IS your product
> ...


If that was the pertinent part, it would basically prohibit anyone from making book covers with stock images. Ever.

POD is defined by the fact that you're selling the same image mutiple times. Like if one were to sell dozens of prints of the exact landscape. You're buying the print because of the picture because that's all there is - a picture. But there's a lot more to a book cover than just a picture. And there's only one cover, which, once it's sold, is off the market.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Damonza said:


> Not generally permitted uses:
> products where the photo or image really IS your product


Ditto what others have said. The image isn't *the* product. You're not selling the image, you're selling a cover that uses the image.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Monique said:


> Ditto what others have said. The image isn't *the* product. You're not selling the image, you're selling a cover that uses the image.


That's arguable.. esp. for covers where text is slapped on and that's it. No manipulating or brushwork done etc...

Doesn't matter what we say really about this thing, it's the companies that sell stock that make the decision here. I'll be contacting one I use and ask myself with an explanation. If they say no, they say no.. if they say it's good to do Premade covers, then I will have at least some permission.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Shayne said:


> If that was the pertinent part, it would basically prohibit anyone from making book covers with stock images. Ever.


No, two different things. A book with a cover made from a stock photo is different than someone selling the stock photo to be used as a book cover. The definition of how much alteration constitutes it being an altered stock photo would have to be settled in court. My guess is that if one of the stock photo companies came with a take down notice, the cover artist would be on the hook to prove that they weren't in violation, not the stock photo company.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

RBC said:


> That's arguable.. esp. for covers where text is slapped on and that's it. No manipulating or brushwork done etc...


What's the difference between someone doing this for a premade or for a commissioned work? Or for someone doing it for themselves?


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Shayne said:


> What's the difference between someone doing this for a premade or for a commissioned work? Or for someone doing it for themselves?


I'm saying cover, premade or custom shouldn't be just text slapped on a picture. Not whether there is a difference between types of covers.. for me there is none.. for companies selling stock, there might..


----------



## Keri Knutson (Apr 10, 2011)

When you contract to sell a premade, you're not selling a finished product. You're presenting a mock-up to a client. It does not become a finished product until the client asks for changes (fontwork, etcetera) and those changes are completed, which is the service part of cover design, or any graphic design using stock images, for that matter. 

And if it what the OP is saying were true (which I dispute), it would mean that no designers could sell custom covers either, because they would be making money off the artwork, not the service. Cover design (even premades) is a service business not a product business. (I would also add, however, that when you purchase a piece of stock art, it belongs to the eventual customer, not the designer. They technically hold the license for the art, and you, as the designer, are just the intermediary.)


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> No, two different things. A book with a cover made from a stock photo is different than someone selling the stock photo to be used as a book cover. The definition of how much alteration constitutes it being an altered stock photo would have to be settled in court. My guess is that if one of the stock photo companies came with a take down notice, the cover artist would be on the hook to prove that they weren't in violation, not the stock photo company.


I think the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove the case, not the accused.

Also, there's a big difference between a pre-made cover and selling a stock photo as a cover. Not to mention, selling an individual cover to one person does not fit the definition of print on demand, whether it was mocked up in advance or not.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Two things:



Shayne said:


> I think the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove the case, not the accused.


With copyright, I'm not sure that is true. (It's civil, not criminal, for one thing.) As I understand it, some people are arguing otherwise, but the common way it's handled is what they call an "affirmative defense" which means, more or less, that the accused has to prove they didn't violate the terms. (I'm not a lawyer, and it's complicated.)

The other thing is that there are a bunch of practices less experienced artists use with stock art that is a problem:

A lot of less experienced artists will subscribe to an "all you can eat" stock subscription, and then they will use images, or parts of images, over and over again for different clients. It's acceptable to do this for in-house works, but not for clients. (This, I suspect, will be a really big problem for sites like Self-Pub Book Covers, where many of the artists are buying mondo images via subscription, and recombining them again and again.)

I suspect, though, that even when artists are buying images only to use once, they are still fudging that line. That's because, no matter what you do to the image, you didn't buy that actual image. You bought a license. And when you create a cover for a client who is buying it from you -- you're RE-selling that license. Which means you're selling it to people who haven't agreed or even seen the copyright holder's terms. They do not have a contract with the holder of the copyright, and they need to.

Many pros require the client to purchase the license, to make sure everything is above board.

The confusing part is the various definitions of commercial work and print-on-demand. Books are not purchased for the cover image the way t-shirts are -- so some licensors make a distinction. (It's one of the reasons I like Fotalia.) But many consider it to still be a "per impression" license, and apply those rules to book covers as well as to t-shirts and posters.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

justsomewriterwhowrites said:


> I have a feeling as far as pre-made covers go that the problem here is an assumption being made by the stock photo supplier that pre-mades aren't one-off products, but instead are being sold, again and again, with nothing but typography/title/author name changes. And in fact, I believe there are some less than reputable sellers who do offer that. In those cases, for every pre-made sold, an additional license for the stock image(s) used in the design would need to be purchased.


Agree with the end of this, but I want to reiterate:

It does not matter whether you change an image a lot or not at all, you still have to license it separately for each use. (And it's better to have the client license it.)

The problem for pre-mades is that your license (as designer) doesn't give you the right to resell the license. If you advertise it for sale on your site, then you are actually advertising to resell the license. Even though they may accept that you are acting as the customer's agent when you buy the license (which they may not), you can't be acting for them if they aren't your client yet.

Camille


----------



## Michael Murray (Oct 31, 2011)

Damonza said:


> It turns out many of the pre-made cover sites (including my pre-made section) are operating in contravention of the main stock photo site licensing terms.
> 
> It's not permitted to sell "template" or "customizable" items using images purchased from any of the stock photo sites. It's in all of their licensing terms. I just checked with a few of the big ones, and they have replied that it's not permitted. Obviously sites with original images or illustrations aren't affected.


Many of the sites also require different level licenses for printing the image as part of an item for sale vs. electronic distribution. Often the print license increases the image cost $50-$100, IME.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> I suspect, though, that even when artists are buying images only to use once, they are still fudging that line. That's because, no matter what you do to the image, you didn't buy that actual image. You bought a license. And when you create a cover for a client who is buying it from you -- you're RE-selling that license. Which means you're selling it to people who haven't agreed or even seen the copyright holder's terms. They do not have a contract with the holder of the copyright, and they need to.
> 
> Camille


But this is basically what all designers are doing - using stock images to make a product for someone for a fee. You bought a license to create that thing and sell it. You're not reselling the license, you're selling a cover.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

The premade market seems legally perilous in general. I just saw this clause in the Shutterstock license. Check out the bold:



> 2.
> If you plan on using or do use Images as part of work for a client or customer, you must keep accurate and detailed records of the use of each Image. These records must include the name of the client or customer, the Shutterstock Image number as well as the date or dates on which the Images were used. You shall deliver copies of such records to Shutterstock at Shutterstock's request. *You may use Shutterstock Images for no more than three (3) clients per thirty (30) day subscription you purchase.* To determine the number of clients for whom you may use Images, multiply the number of one (1) month subscriptions purchased by three (3). *For example, if you purchase six (6) one (1) month subscriptions, you may service eighteen (1 clients during the period of your subscription. *For customized subscriptions intended to service a larger quantity of clients, please contact Shutterstock Support.


Selfpubbookcovers.com encourages its submitting artists to buy Shutterstock subscriptions:



> If you purchase a single 1 month subscription from one of the major stock houses like Shutterstock, you can download 25 images a day for 30 days. In a month you can download 750 images.


ETA: Maybe I'll pass this on to the new Symbiostock crowd. If the photographers choose to have different licensing terms on their own sites (they might not), they could steal this market from the big agencies, and I'm all for that.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Shayne said:


> But this is basically what all designers are doing - using stock images to make a product for someone for a fee. You bought a license to create that thing and sell it. You're not reselling the license, you're selling a cover.


Only if the person selling the license agrees that's what it's for. You're buying the license they're selling.

I advise anyone who is licensing work to write to the licensee and make sure you are buying the rights you think you are. Make them be explicit and answer in writing. You'll find different vendors give different answers, and you really need to know what answer YOUR stock provider is giving.

I do expect some changes because of this:

The big vendors tend to be nasty about licensing, because they are protecting prices from their lucrative corporate market. Their licensing is aimed at keeping that income high. (This is like those really crazy software protection schemes that you'll find on software aimed at Hollywood, for instance.) However, as soon as a new market with different needs comes to their attention and is properly defined, they start evolving to serve that audience.

Premade book covers are a new thing. Indie publishing has introduced a bunch of new ways to do business. You have to expect that the old rules are not automatically going to be a good fit.

Camille


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Is it the image, or is it the way the image has been incorporated with your sweet typography along with any other painting/effects you've had to do to it?
> 
> The image itself is not just pulled from Shutterstock and slapped up on your website for sale. Your finished product isn't just a poster for sale of the exact image from the stocksite. It's those types of things that they are tying to prevent with this type of wording.
> 
> The product is being bought because of the graphic work you've put into a specific cover. Yes, it does use their stockphotos as a base, but it is not the final product.


Yeah. Presumably anybody designing covers is doing more than just slapping up the image as-is with come crappy TNR typed over the top of it. Cover design involves much more than that.

Basically, stock photo sites don't want you to just re-sell their photos. You have to DO something with them: turn them into a new image. That means cropping, adjusting contrast, and incorporating typography and other crucial design elements.

It would be a terrible book cover indeed that was just a straight photo.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

P.s.  I used to work as a photographer and I sold a lot of my photos through iStockphoto and other similar stock sites.  The photographers agree to basically sign away their images under those sites' terms.  So if a designer making and selling a premade book cover is in fact operating within the TOS of the stock site, the photographer has no reason and no grounds to go after the designer or the author of the book.  You willingly give up certain aspects of your copyright in order to sell on those sites.  In my opinion, as a former stock photographer, there is no reason for an author to seek permission from the photographer as long as the photo was taken from a stock-licensing web site.  The photographer already agreed to certain types of use of that image when she created her account there and uploaded her photos.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> P.s. I used to work as a photographer and I sold a lot of my photos through iStockphoto and other similar stock sites. The photographers agree to basically sign away their images under those sites' terms. So if a designer making and selling a premade book cover is in fact operating within the TOS of the stock site, the photographer has no reason and no grounds to go after the designer or the author of the book. You willingly give up certain aspects of your copyright in order to sell on those sites. In my opinion, as a former stock photographer, there is no reason for an author to seek permission from the photographer as long as the photo was taken from a stock-licensing web site. The photographer already agreed to certain types of use of that image when she created her account there and uploaded her photos.


Which is why I'm all for photographers selling from their own sites. They can offer whatever terms they like.

Symbiostock is an open-source, wordpress-based project that started after istock did something that p*ssed off a lot of its photographers. It's still in its early stages, though. For instance, it needs a search engine that can access multiple sites.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I should clarify, when I said "you" should clarify with your stock provider whether you are buying the right rights for what you are doing, I am talking to the designers, not the writers.  It's the designer's responsibility.  (As an artist, photographer and designer myself, I'm looking at this from the designer's perspective.)

Again, different companies have very different policies.

Camille


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Camille brings up some great points. 

Disclaimer: I've never purchased a custom cover or a premade cover. 

When I purchase a custom cover, do I purchase the stock photos used to make the cover so that the license to the images used is in my name? When I purchase a pre-made cover does the designer transfer the license to me? I think the stock photo sites' licenses preclude the transfer of license ownership. If licenses aren't transferred to or owned by the author/publisher, it could get pretty sticky for both the designer and the author/publisher, no? 

How about these scenarios: 

I'm a designer and I buy the standard license for a stock photo, design a custom cover for a client and that book goes on to become a best seller. Reports come out that the book has sold over 1 million e-book and/or POD copies. That stock photo is now in violation of istockphoto's standard license (which limits it to 499,999). Since the designer is the one that licensed the photo, they are now on the hook for that violation. 

I'm an author/publisher and I get a custom cover made. The designer buys the license. I get a finished, custom cover and put my book up for sale. A couple days later I get a notification from istockphoto saying that I am in violation because they have no record of me licensing the photo. I didn't license the photo so I have no proof that I can use it. And, I can't get in touch with the designer.

With Pre-made covers, it's more likely to be a problem because the designer will have HAD to have been the one to license the photo(s) maybe months before the author/publisher buys the premade. If the stock photo site goes after the author/publisher when the book goes on sale, the author/publisher has no proof that they licensed the photo.

Since licenses can't be transferred, I guess the way around this is to have the author/publisher that wants to buy the pre-made cover personally license the photo from the stock photo site. Then the designer can sell them the cover. Which raises the cost of using pre-made covers.

I think that making pre-made covers and advertising them on a cover design site, is not in violation of the licenses. But selling the cover, and then the author selling books with the cover does violate the license.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> Camille brings up some great points.
> 
> Disclaimer: I've never purchased a custom cover or a premade cover.
> 
> When I purchase a custom cover, do I purchase the stock photos used to make the cover so that the license to the images used is in my name? When I purchase a pre-made cover does the designer transfer the license to me? I think the stock photo sites' licenses preclude the transfer of license ownership. If licenses aren't transferred to or owned by the author/publisher, it could get pretty sticky for both the designer and the author/publisher, no?


Each agency specifies in its license agreement how this works.

I quoted Shutterstock upthread. It allows designer/client relationships, but seems to place the license with the designer, and says it's the designer's responsibility to keep records of the clients who use the images. Dreamstime seems the same, as far as I can tell.

Shutterstock's new high-end Offset license says the client acquires any "rights" an "agent" buys on his/her behalf. I'm not sure this refers to the license or just general "rights."


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> Since licenses can't be transferred, I guess the way around this is to have the author/publisher that wants to buy the pre-made cover personally license the photo from the stock photo site. Then the designer can sell them the cover. Which raises the cost of using pre-made covers.


I think this is the smartest thing to do. Depending on how many stock images were used and their price, this doesn't have to be too costly.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 8, 2012)

This really is a simple matter that is easily clarified if you just read the license agreements with each stock site. 

There are stock sites that limit how many times you may use a photo per purchase (and not all of them do). If you want to use it twice - you buy it twice. Simple as that. There are sites that limit how many clients you may service per subscription purchase (again, not all of them). 

My point is all of these things are covered and extremely clear in the license agreements. You just have to read them. Each stock site has different requirements. There is no reason for fear mongering because these things have already been thought of and are covered by each site's wishes. If there are restrictions to using photos for clients and not directly for your own project, they cover it. No guesswork required.

Someone pointed out Shutterstocks specific limits (3 clients per monthly subscription). This is not new, and anyone who does this for a living should already know the limits. Keep in mind that this is not limited to 3 book covers, but work for 3 clients. So, for example, if one client orders a huge series for me to cover it would be in my best interest to use Shutterstock for that since I will be getting the most out of my single client's order. Or if you have a client order a remake of their website, you might need a lot of photos for that, but it's still considered a single client's order. One of your three for that month, from that site.

There's no specific need to make an author purchase their photos in order to have them properly licensed. In fact, you can do it this way, but you need to read your site's license agreements since several sites prohibit giving/emailing that photo anywhere. Most of them limit how many places/computers you can even have it saved. That's why they make client limits for the sites that are concerned about such matters.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Someone pointed out Shutterstocks specific limits (3 clients per monthly subscription). This is not new, and anyone who does this for a living should already know the limits.


Except in this new premade market, people often aren't doing this for a living, and/or don't know the limits.

I'm thinking of selfpubbookcovers.com. Why would they tell their contributors to buy a month subscription to Shutterstock?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 8, 2012)

Ava Glass said:


> Except in this new premade market, people often aren't doing this for a living, and/or don't know the limits.
> 
> I'm thinking of selfpubbookcovers.com. Why would they tell their contributors to buy a month subscription to Shutterstock?


I don't know ... It just seems to me that if you're going to sell something, you ought to find out how to do it legally - especially when all you have to do is read an agreement to find out how. There's more to selling a premade than just finding an image and slapping on text. Part of the cost is knowing where to get that image and reading up on how it can be used.

It's very likely a lot of premade hosting sites don't know the ins-and-outs of copyright. They probably should, but it's not really their job. They are not the designers. They are just hosts. It's the designer's job to use legal images for the project they're creating. Or at least that's my $.02 on the matter.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

humblenations said:


> Not a problem with pre-made covers because you're only selling it once.


Selfpubbookcovers.com only accepts composited covers, not just typography on an image. A lot of designers composite their premades. Images can easily be reused and made into new covers. Designers need to be aware of how many times they can use a particular sky or bird if they use a sub package.

I think it would be a good idea for selfpubbookcovers.com to at least put up an asterik asking artists to consult the license agreements for details and limitations. I would guess that many of their contributors are hobbyists who might make mistakes.

ETA: I don't want to rag on selfpubbookcovers, because they do require stock photo ID numbers in an effort to ensure cover images are kosher. I visited a similar site that doesn't seem to advise its artists and saw an image of a film actress on a cover. I'm not joking.



humblenations said:


> 2. What you can't do is make a template or design that you sell hundreds of times from that photo or piece of artwork.


People made this point earlier. I myself was going to make it until I reread the thread. Apparently there's something else about premade book covers. I eagerly await the OP's return. Don't forget he talked to Shutterstock as well, not to mention two other agencies.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

NathanWrann said:


> Camille brings up some great points.
> 
> Disclaimer: I've never purchased a custom cover or a premade cover.
> 
> ...


1) Not all stock sites have limit of 499,999. I'd suggest using those, I do.

2) You have email communications and payment proof that you bought a book cover. That should be enough to prove that you have that cover legally.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Maybe the stock sites were assuming the premade covers could be sold to more than one author.  I've always assumed (incorrectly, it seems) that premade artists sold their premades more than once, and just changed the title and author to match each author's needs.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

swolf said:


> Maybe the stock sites were assuming the premade covers could be sold to more than one author. I've always assumed (incorrectly, it seems) that premade artists sold their premades more than once, and just changed the title and author to match each author's needs.


Yeah, it's a natural assumption, I just talked with a rep from one stock site and at first they said designer would have to buy Extended licences for premades, but then after more explanation it was fine. It depends on wording and even who judges it. But once you clear up it's a one-off sale, it will work.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Ava Glass said:


> Which is why I'm all for photographers selling from their own sites. They can offer whatever terms they like.
> 
> Symbiostock is an open-source, wordpress-based project that started after istock did something that p*ssed off a lot of its photographers. It's still in its early stages, though. For instance, it needs a search engine that can access multiple sites.


That sounds really cool! I'm going to check it out.

Listen, guys. All the stock sites I buy photos from SPECIFY in their long and winding TOS that book covers are amongst the approved uses for their products. Are you designing a book cover? Okay, then. Go for it. As others have pointed out, the issue comes from designers using the same photo for more than one finished book cover design. THAT is when you need to re-license the image again. A stock company is not going to come after you for making one book cover with their image. So everybody relax.

If you're really that freaked out about this, go comb through the fine print. If it doesn't mention that book covers are OK, then don't buy from that site.


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

I am no legal expert, but this is how I see it. Technically, you are not selling a premade cover. A cover with "Author" and "Title" is more for display than for sale as is. Before it is sold to a client, it goes through customized changes. Then it actually gets used to represent a product that is not the image itself.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> That sounds really cool! I'm going to check it out.


The forums are really active.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/symbiostock/

Back to the topic...it sounds like people are getting different replies. I think when approaching agencies folks should specify, that:

1)It's not a template multiple users can use.
2)The product sold isn't attached to a book yet, nor is it the usual arrangement where a client hires a designer. The cover is an actual product sold.

If you read the thread from the beginning, people brought up the first point about the template, but then the problem turned out to be about the fact that the designer isn't hired to make a cover, but is rather selling the cover as a product itself. This is new to the agencies.

The book cover POD exemption comes from the assumption that the words in the book sell the product, not the image. Selling covers by themselves is something else. Typography doesn't make a difference, just like it wouldn't on a shirt or mug.

ETA: With shirts and mugs, it also doesn't matter if someone only sells a quantity of one per image.


----------



## Keri Knutson (Apr 10, 2011)

> 2)The product sold isn't attached to a book yet, nor is it the usual arrangement where a client hires a designer. The cover is an actual product sold.


No -- in either case it's exactly the same. The cover is not a product, it is a mock-up until it is sold. A designer is not selling a product, they are selling a service. Design is a service-based business, not a product-based business. How, literally, is a premade cover different than a custom cover? The designer used exactly the same skills in creating the design. A client decided whether they like it or not. They then okayed the final cover and paid for it. In the premade situation, the client was just free to see a greater number of mock-ups before making a final decision. The licensing frame is not changed, because (if you're gone to a proper designer who knows what they're doing and understands the legality of licensing), the stock is licensed for the same end use, in this case a book cover that will be exclusive to one book for however many printings the license covers.

As an example, if I design a premade cover and a client likes it, but wants an element changed, is it still a premade, or is it a custom cover? I designed a premade featuring a decrepit room, and the customer wanted a blood-stained easel in the middle of the room. Is it still a premade, or is it custom? I submit it doesn't matter, because the client is not paying me for a product, he is paying me for my design skills.

(And, yes, since I take business seriously, I've run the contract with the stock companies I use past a lawyer and confirmed with a representative of each stock company, so I know what I'm saying is factual. I chose my stock companies carefully and now use only the ones I'm completely comfortable with.)

As Nicole said, this has that whiff of "fear-mongering," in other words, "Oh, noes, premade covers are really illegal!" I have a terrible time with legalese, so that's why I have things checked out by someone who is actually paid to understand it. That way I'm sure I understand it. If you're a professional in a business, you should be well-versed in the legality of the basic elements of that business.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

> No -- in either case it's exactly the same. The cover is not a product, it is a mock-up until it is sold.


That is how you see it. According to the OP, the agencies he spoke with see it differently. Others who have spoken to agencies have received different replies than the OP, which is why I'd like the OP to appear again.

My opinion is that the whole thing is new and gray. It's important that people approach agencies, and that they are very specific about what premade covers are and how they are sold.

It is ultimately up to the agency to decide whether premades are okay. They might see the transaction as a new variation of the designer/client relationship, or they might see it as a product, a template customized for one.


----------



## Keri Knutson (Apr 10, 2011)

> That is how you see it. According to the OP, the agencies he spoke with see it differently. Others who have spoken to agencies have received different replies than the OP, which is why I'd like the OP to appear again.


Respectfully, it doesn't matter how *I* see it. The contract lawyer I consulted and the stock companies I have subscriptions with have verified that what I am saying is correct. I will admit I can't vouch for every single stock company (They all have slightly different terms), only for the ones that I use. I chose them after going through the contracts of a number of stock companies. I am 100% certain that what I am saying is correct for those stock companies. If an author is worried about the legality of a cover design, ask the designer. If a designer knows what they're doing, they should be able to put your mind at ease by pointing you to the relevant licensing clauses or showing you correspondence that backs up the legitimacy of what they're providing.

As James said:


> If any one wants to find out if what I'm saying is right or wrong then I would simply give them a call - they'll clarify it for you.
> 
> Speculation and your interpretation is not helpful. The truth is.


It may be that the OP asked the wrong questions, or it may be that those stock companies misunderstood the questions, or it may be that those stock companies have some onerous licensing that is different from the stock companies I use. (Although I have used BigStock, and premades are allowed within their licensing the same as the other stock companies I've contracted with.) When in doubt about about legal wording, consult a lawyer. The stock company I use for 95% of the stock I license if Fotolia. I can't recommend them enough.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Okay, so the OP kinda disappeared, and I was curious, so I emailed the same three agencies. I outlined the process of a premade book cover sale. I emphasized that each cover design is sold once, and not customized by multiple users.

Shutterstock got back to me first. Very quickly, in fact. I entered an email conversation with someone with the title of "Account Executive." Despite my emphasis, he was still under the impression that these covers were like web templates. "Merchandise" and "templates" were the terms he used. 

I reiterated that each cover design is only customized once for a total of one end user. He wanted to know if the customer customizes the text. I told him selfpubbookcovers.com works that way, but most designers change the text themselves.

At the end, we both agreed that this is all very new. His opinion after everything is still that an Extended License would be needed. He thinks Shutterstock would still see this as "merchandise" and a "template."

I'll let you know what the other two sites say.

I just want to reiterate that when approaching agencies, it's important to explain the entire process and not just say "I make book covers for people."


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Ava Glass said:


> Okay, so the OP kinda disappeared, and I was curious, so I emailed the same three agencies. I outlined the process of a premade book cover sale. I emphasized that each cover design is sold once, and not customized by multiple users.
> 
> Shutterstock got back to me first. Very quickly, in fact. I entered an email conversation with someone with the title of "Account Executive." Despite my emphasis, he was still under the impression that these covers were like web templates. "Merchandise" and "templates" were the terms he used.
> 
> ...


Maybe it would just be easier to deal with stock sites that don't have a problem with book covers. DepositPhotos.com has good licensing terms, and clearly allows book covers to be made from their stock on a standard license. http://depositphotos.com/license.html


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Shayne said:


> Maybe it would just be easier to deal with stock sites that don't have a problem with book covers. DepositPhotos.com has good licensing terms, and clearly allows book covers to be made from their stock on a standard license. http://depositphotos.com/license.html


The issue isn't book covers in general, but the process of selling premade book covers. That's why it's important to be specific when asking permission from agencies. "I make book covers for people" is different than "I sell premade book covers."

At least to certain agencies.

ETA: I want to really emphasize that a license allowing use of an image on a book cover is not the same as allowing the sale of a premade book cover. Please check with agencies and list step-by-step how you sell the covers. This is the list I gave the three I contacted:



> 1) A designer purchases stock images, through a subscription or otherwise.
> 
> 2) The designer uses stock images to create book covers to sell. The designer isn't working with a client or customer at this point.
> 
> ...


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Ava Glass said:


> The issue isn't book covers in general, but the process of selling premade book covers. That's why it's important to be specific when asking permission from agencies. "I make book covers for people" is different than "I sell premade book covers."


In DepositPhotos's license terms it says that book covers are okay. It even gives a specific example - "You (or your client) want to purchase a File to create an image for a book intended for Resale in stores. If a buyer decides to purchase the book primarily for its content, and not because of its cover or the illustrations inside, the File will play a minor role (Standard License). However, if the book consists primarily of illustrations, then the images are the main reason why the book is purchased; therefore the File plays a major role (Extended License)."

Also, "I make pre-made book covers" is only different than "I make book covers" if the stock site's TOS specifies that it is. There is nothing in the DepositPhotos TOS that says or even implies pre-made book covers are unacceptable or in any way different from any other cover.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Shayne said:


> In DepositPhotos's license terms it says that book covers are okay. It even gives a specific example - "You (or your client) want to purchase a File to create an image for a book intended for Resale in stores. If a buyer decides to purchase the book primarily for its content, and not because of its cover or the illustrations inside, the File will play a minor role (Standard License). However, if the book consists primarily of illustrations, then the images are the main reason why the book is purchased; therefore the File plays a major role (Extended License)."
> 
> Also, "I make pre-made book covers" is only different than "I make book covers" if the stock site's TOS specifies that it is. There is nothing in the DepositPhotos TOS that says or even implies pre-made book covers are unacceptable or in any way different from any other cover.


Shutterstock specifically allows book cover usage as well.



> part of editorial or advertising copy in magazines, newspapers, books, book covers, textbooks, editorials and directories provided that the print or manufacturing run(s) of such magazines, newspapers, books , book covers, textbooks, editorials and directories does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) copies in the aggregate;
> m)
> In eBooks, including multi seat license electronic textbooks, provided that the number of potential seat licenses or end users is fewer than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) in the aggregate; and


However, the person I spoke to at Shutterstock sees a difference between that and selling premade book covers. Again, that's why it's important to list the process of how you sell your covers when asking.

ETA: I just sent inquiries to Dreamstime, Fotolia, and DepositPhotos.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Ava Glass said:


> Shutterstock specifically allows book cover usage as well.
> 
> However, the person I spoke to at Shutterstock sees a difference between that and selling premade book covers. Again, that's why it's important to list the process of how you sell your covers when asking.
> 
> ETA: I just sent inquiries to Dreamstime, Fotolia, and DepositPhotos.


The difference is that there's nothing in the DepositPhoto license agreement to suggest pre-mades aren't okay. There apparently was in the Shutterstock license - if there wasn't, why would Damon have asked?


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

humblenations said:


> I can't believe this discussion is still going.


I thought you settled it last night, James. But since it's not, I'm worried that if we don't reach some kind understanding on this, authors will wind up afraid to buy premade covers because they think premade covers violate the stock license terms and could get them in trouble.

I think the problem comes from the definition of 'customizable' and 'template'. On some sites the language is vague, unfortunately, which allows for confusion. On DepositPhoto, at least, the license gives examples of what it means by a template - something like a website or business card that can be purchased by thousands of people and filled in with their information. Anyone who thinks a premade cover is in any way similar to that doesn't understand what a premade cover is.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

I promise I'll keep reporting the responses I receive.

ETA: This is the form letter:



> Premade book covers are a popular thing in the world of self-publishing.
> 
> However there is some debate as to whether their use of stock images complies with various agencies' license agreements.
> 
> ...


----------



## Keri Knutson (Apr 10, 2011)

> 2) The designer uses stock images to create book covers to sell. The designer isn't working with a client or customer at this point.
> 
> 3) The designer displays unfinished covers on a website. They have sample text such as "author name here" and "title here." They are often numbered for identification.


I think it would be rather important to mention that a single stock photo is used for a single book cover, not a dozen or more that authors can choose from, as it's "templates" that stock companies want to guard against. The author makes one mock-up cover from using licensed stock once. And I still haven't heard any convincing argument from a legal standpoint that a premade cover is materially different than a custom cover. And again, I've talked to stock companies I use regarding this issue and been told it's copasetic. So I throw up my hands before this devolves into the one-space-or-two-after-a-period kind of argument it looks like it's destined to become.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

So Fotolia and DepositPhotos say it's fine.

ETA: Disclaimer: At least according to the emails I received. Don't take this as Word of God. I don't want anyone to get in trouble, point at this, and say "but this said it was okay."

ETA2: Fotolia is now saying extended license after I asked for clarification.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

humblenations said:


> Well stop the conversation and stop bumping it up, the posts. It's not helpful.
> 
> And it's not going to be settled by resolution between members of this site. As if conversation here will solve the problem. Whatever the discussion ends up as doesn't change at thing. It's all just hot air and pure speculation.
> 
> ...


And yet, you've bumped this twice, to complain it keeps getting bumped. Too funny. If you're that annoyed, walk away from this thread. It's not that hard to do. If people want to keep discussing it, so be it.


----------



## Sebastiene (Dec 15, 2011)

I am neither attacking, nor disagreeing, with anyone here. I just want to state an opinion.

Legal or not, this is the #1 reason I don't use stock photos. The one conversation I tend to avoid having in my head about any subject goes something like: "Is it legal? Is it not legal? What does this fine print really mean? Should I email someone at the company?" Forget that.

Then there are the other things that you may not have even thought about that you find in the fine print. For example, the reproduction limits on most of these photo sites that was mentioned earlier. While 99.9% of authors won't sell enough books to go over the limit, I don't want to have to even think about it. "Regular licenses? Extended licenses?" Or, how about, "Do I need to buy another license if I'm going to use this cover on both an ebook AND a print book?" You know what? Forget that, too.

When it comes to covers, seriously, buy something unique. There are really good artists over at places like deviant art who would love to make a cover for you that you will never have to worry about.

I am a BIG worrier about legal stuff. For once, I'm reading a KB thread about fine print that isn't going to make me lose sleep. However, I might lose a little sleep because I'm a little worried about people getting annoyed with me about what I've just said.

At the end of the day, BUY ART whenever you can--or at least something you don't have to worry about, IMHO.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Bigstock says Extended License. I'm waiting for permission to quote, but they are not confused about what premade covers are as opposed to web templates.

Basically, because the covers are made in advance as opposed to in the the context of a job for a client, it's an EL.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Can Stock's reply was basically "for the thousandth time no!" The email said they get this question a lot and wanted to know if I had asked the same question before.

I told them that unless they're connected to another agency, and use the same support ticket system, then I haven't asked before, but there is a debate going on, which is why they are probably getting asked a lot.

ETA: istock says Extended License. For those who don't know, they are more expensive than a standard.

ETA2: 123RF wants me to sign up and be assigned an Account Executive in order to get an answer. I remember some other issue with that agency, so I don't think I'm going to do all that.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,152221.0.html


----------



## Keri Knutson (Apr 10, 2011)

> ETA2: 123RF wants me to sign up and be assigned an Account Executive in order to get an answer. I remember some other issue with that agency, so I don't think I'm going to do all that.


123RF wants extended licenses for ANY image used on a bookcover: premade, custom, ebook, print. They're the only lower-priced stock company I know who does this, so it's best to just steer clear of them, especially since you can find the majority of their stock on other sites.

In short, if you want to make premades, stick with Fotolio and Depositphoto. (I love Fotolia -- they have great subscription plans, great service, and can meet most of your stock needs.) The only time I use any other services than Fotolia is when a client is looking for something very specific and I have to search multiple stock sites for something unique -- but that's always for customs and never for premades. And if you're an author looking for premades, don't be afraid to ask the designer where they get any stock they use.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Keri Knutson said:


> And if you're an author looking for premades, don't be afraid to ask the designer where they get any stock they use.


I wholeheartedly second this.

I wonder how easy it is to ask when buying through those multi-artist sites. I also wonder how liable those sites are if an artist messes up, especially when a site is taking a cut of each sale.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I sent a note to Self-Pub Book Covers.  If this is a problem for them, I hope they can get it sorted out well.  While I have some reservations about their concept, I have been doing original art for them, and I think it's a good service.

Camille


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

So I was feeling a bit paranoid about the "yes" answers. I don't want anyone to get in trouble because they saw what I reported here and didn't check themselves. Anyway, I reread them.

I'm confident about DepositPhotos' answer, as it was specific to my question and said it was okay to sell the premade covers one time to one client only.

However, I'm not so sure about the Fotolia answer.

*ETA: Paranoid part is deleting the quoted section. Fotolia doesn't have a "do not copy this message" warning like istock, but I'm gonna be safe.*

Now I'm not sure the support person read my question. People can see the letter I sent upthread. I didn't ask whether I could put an image on a book cover. I asked about the sale of premade book covers.

For many of the "no" answers, I pressed to make sure the person I talked to understood my question (Can Stock and BigStock understood right away). However, I didn't press after this "yes" answer from Fotolia. Now I have sent a follow up, but don't expect an answer until Monday at the earliest.

ETA: Still haven't heard from Dreamstime at all.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

BTW, Self-Pub Book Covers got back to me.

Apparently they asked about this too before they started, and also consulted with lawyers, and got very different answers than folks are getting here.  However, since I reiterated that people here clarified several times with several vendors, they said they'd look into it again.  (I gave them the link to this discussion to see what I was talking about.)

The question is whether, being a business with lawyers, they may have talked to someone further up the chain, who has more authority to say yes than the people we've talked to.

Camille


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> BTW, Self-Pub Book Covers got back to me.
> 
> Apparently they asked about this too before they started, and also consulted with lawyers, and got very different answers than folks are getting here. However, since I reiterated that people here clarified several times with several vendors, they said they'd look into it again. (I gave them the link to this discussion to see what I was talking about.)
> 
> ...


I don't think liability falls on them anyway, they are just a marketplace and designers are responsible for copyright clearance, not Self-Pub Book Covers.

Wonder how many covers do they sell daily..


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> BTW, Self-Pub Book Covers got back to me.
> 
> Apparently they asked about this too before they started, and also consulted with lawyers, and got very different answers than folks are getting here. However, since I reiterated that people here clarified several times with several vendors, they said they'd look into it again. (I gave them the link to this discussion to see what I was talking about.)
> 
> ...


Istock's replies come with a disclaimer that their messages are not a substitute for legal counsel.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

RBC said:


> I don't think liability falls on them anyway, they are just a marketplace and designers are responsible for copyright clearance, not Self-Pub Book Covers.
> 
> Wonder how many covers do they sell daily..


The actual liability doesn't necessarily fall on them... except that the vast majority of their artists are using subscriptions and standard licenses to create the works they sell. If most of their artists are in violation... that seriously affects their business model.

And even as the market place, they could have some responsibility for the advice they give to their artists about what a "standard license" covers.

I don't know how many covers they sell. (I haven't sold any, but I have a quirky style and only ten or so covers up.) I think they are still building their business, really. If this is a problem, it's more likely to be a problem going forward (I'd think) than with liability for the past.

The thing is, there are SO MANY individual artists and companies doing premade covers. And the ultra cheap ones in particular are using the most stock art. IF this worry we have is true, it could be a real problem for indies.

Of course there are work arounds -- instead of the cheapest covers being text slapped over a stock image, it could become a template design, with a window for a stock image, which will be chosen by the customer later. Good fast designs could then start depending on typography instead of stock art. (Which I think would actually improve the quality of low-end covers in general.)

Camille


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

So Fotolia got back to me. Now they're saying extended license, but I'm not sure they understand "one cover, one customization, one end user" concept now.

This just shows that everyone should ask themselves. You need ask the correct question and make sure the person you're speaking with understands it.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> Of course there are work arounds -- instead of the cheapest covers being text slapped over a stock image, it could become a template design, with a window for a stock image, which will be chosen by the customer later. Good fast designs could then start depending on typography instead of stock art. (Which I think would actually improve the quality of low-end covers in general.)
> 
> Camille


Problem is author can't tell technically good design from bad one. And designers can't go telling others their cover sucks because that's not nice and not constructive criticism.

Templates won't solve this too, Createspace has templates and the end result will look ugly either way it it's DIY cover (on most cases, not all but most). Custom cover is custom, it's best. Premades are best option but author must be asking questions about licencing and make sure it's cleared.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

RBC said:


> Problem is author can't tell technically good design from bad one. And designers can't go telling others their cover sucks because that's not nice and not constructive criticism.
> 
> Templates won't solve this too, Createspace has templates and the end result will look ugly either way it it's DIY cover (on most cases, not all but most). Custom cover is custom, it's best. Pre-mades are best option but author must be asking questions about licencing and make sure it's cleared.


No, I was talking as a designer. Here's the thing -- there will always be bad designers and stupid clients.

Here's the thing: a great cover is expensive. Period. But there is a need for very cheap covers. So the question is what form those covers will take -- it will always be something that a designer, good or bad, can do very very quickly. Which means, whether they advertise the fact or not, they are using templates. They're just not showing them to the client. Heck they may not even be fully conscious of using it.

Furthermore, we're talking about PRE-MADE covers here. As far as I can tell, this issue does not affect those who are doing custom designs, only those doing pre-made covers -- and no matter how unique a pre-made cover is, it is not custom.

And when I used the word "template" it was with this in mind. Right now, the "template" for a pre-made cover is the stock image(s), and the only custom element is the typography. That means the typography is, frankly, neglected.

The number one problem with cheap indie covers right now is bad typography. And bad designers get away with it because they can dazzle the client with stock art up front. If the upfront design on these cheapest covers were forced to emphasize the typography more, that would be a good thing.

No, it wouldn't cure everything. Nor am I hoping that we are right about this licensing fiasco. (If we are a lot of people will be hurt.) I'm just saying that we will have options, and we could see some good things out of the disaster.


----------



## Keri Knutson (Apr 10, 2011)

> And when I used the word "template" it was with this in mind. Right now, the "template" for a pre-made cover is the stock image(s), and the only custom element is the typography. That means the typography is, frankly, neglected.


I think you're making an assumption that is untrue. Some premade covers use a stock image with only typography. Some custom covers use a stock image with only typography. Speaking for myself (and this is also true for several designers I know on the boards), premades are generally not just a stock image with typography. Some of mine are hand-painted and use no stock at all. Some are heavily manipulated. Some have multiple stock images blended together. Personally, I spend a lot of time on the typography for a premade -- I want to present an image of what the client can expect. And I would say a third of the premades I sell are not sold "as is," but are a jumping off point for customization of the concept on the premade cover. They are truly mock-ups that can go in any direction a client wants.

Use a designer you trust, whether it's for custom or premade covers. Ask questions until you feel comfortable with the process. There's no "disaster" in stock usage on covers. This is all a tempest in a teapot, and the rules are no different today than they were last week or last month. Businesspeople who know what they're doing had all this figured out in advance. It's more a question of a client being a well-informed consumer and not doing business with someone who doesn't know what they're doing.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Keri Knutson said:


> I think you're making an assumption that is untrue. Some premade covers use a stock image with only typography. Some custom covers use a stock image with only typography. Speaking for myself (and this is also true for several designers I know on the boards), premades are generally not just a stock image with typography. Some of mine are hand-painted and use no stock at all. Some are heavily manipulated. Some have multiple stock images blended together. Personally, I spend a lot of time on the typography for a premade -- I want to present an image of what the client can expect. And I would say a third of the premades I sell are not sold "as is," but are a jumping off point for customization of the concept on the premade cover. They are truly mock-ups that can go in any direction a client wants.
> 
> Use a designer you trust, whether it's for custom or premade covers. Ask questions until you feel comfortable with the process. There's no "disaster" in stock usage on covers. This is all a tempest in a teapot, and the rules are no different today than they were last week or last month. Businesspeople who know what they're doing had all this figured out in advance. It's more a question of a client being a well-informed consumer and not doing business with someone who doesn't know what they're doing.


Keri, my point is the complete opposite of what you assume. I'm not saying that pre-made covers are crap. (I do pre-made covers myself!)

What I'm saying is that bad designers (not you, not all designers -- BAD incompetent designers) are currently able to compete with good designers only because they can fake it by purchasing brilliant stock for ultra-cheap. They do shoddy work and it's not obvious because the customer is looking at the stock, not the design. And that's the only reason they can compete with hard working designers like, for instance, you.

Furthermore, that by being sloppy and not doing any work on the image at all, they can undercut your prices.

Do you understand? I'm not insulting you. I'm just pointing out that, if this were to turn out to be the worst everyone fears, there could be an upside to it for people like you and me, and our clients.

Camille


----------



## Keri Knutson (Apr 10, 2011)

Oh, no, no, Camille -- I think we crossed meanings. I didn't take it as an insult -- I was referring more to the conflation of "template" with "premade," which is not necessarily what you were saying, but what is I think some others may be intimating. 

There are some, let's say, "bad" designers (I hate to cast aspersions...it's unkind and does nothing to help me) who DO heavily manipulate stock for premades. There are some very excellent designers who do little or no manipulation of stock, but do wonderful cropping and typography. In the end a good design is a good design. 

My original point, way up at the beginning of this thread, was that from a legal standpoint there is no difference between a premade and a custom cover. (I've had legal advice from a business and contract lawyer that this is so. Design is a service business, not a product business.) Now, some stock companies may want to consider a difference in their legal wording, which is their right to do so. They can have any legal parameters they wish, and those entering into contract with them should understand those parameters clearly and abide by them. 

Given this, there's going to be no blanket answer, and it's best, again, to work with a professional you trust. If they have all their ducks in a row, then a client should have nothing to worry about, and it is up to the client to choose wisely who to do business with and to ask the right questions. 

So I think we both MEAN the same thing, but our bells and whistles in explaining it were different, and then I complicated it by including a tangential argument that wasn't exactly to your point.   It's a shame that emoticons don't do nuance more effectively, or the world would be a happier place...


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Keri Knutson said:


> My original point, way up at the beginning of this thread, was that from a legal standpoint there is no difference between a premade and a custom cover. (I've had legal advice from a business and contract lawyer that this is so. Design is a service business, not a product business.) Now, some stock companies may want to consider a difference in their legal wording, which is their right to do so. They can have any legal parameters they wish, and those entering into contract with them should understand those parameters clearly and abide by them.


This is where I'm confused. You say a lawyer told you there's no difference, but I have lots of emails from agencies telling me _they_ see a difference. Who wins? Again, I'm just saying it's confusing.

I remember Bigstock had the clearest response. They described the difference between a premade and a custom pretty well, and how customs fall under one section of the license, and premades fall under another. I'd quote these responses, but istock's correspondence comes with a general notice not to, and I'm just going to apply that to the other agencies, although I don't see any notices from them.


----------



## cvwriter (May 16, 2011)

I got the same message from Bigstock, that they see it as a template. Wish I had known that before buying 200 pictures. It is not spelled out in their TOS. I see what I do as a service and the premades as mockups since they're tweakable and not as-is but whatever.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

I hope lots of people ask agencies about this so they at least put something in the FAQ.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Keri Knutson said:


> Oh, no, no, Camille -- I think we crossed meanings. I didn't take it as an insult -- I was referring more to the conflation of "template" with "premade," which is not necessarily what you were saying, but what is I think some others may be intimating.


Ah, I see where you got that.

No, no, I wasn't commenting on the legality. I don't pretend to know the answer. I only know that it's always best to check persistently.

When I used the word "template" it wasn't in reference to the legal issues -- I wasn't even thinking of that. I see how you miss interpreted based on that.

No, what I was saying about templates was that: if the worst speculations here were true and premade cover artists couldn't get cheap quality stock photos, one direction low-end design can go is to doing fabulous templates. No stock art, just pure design and typography, into which images can be put as the custom element (or not, depending on the design). A good designer could do great work very cheaply this way.

Camille


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

An update:

Selfpubbookcovers.com removed its section on Shutterstock subscriptions.

http://www.selfpubbookcovers.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=126

Bigstock allowed me to quote their response:



> 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.


----------



## Damonza (Apr 11, 2013)

Ava Glass said:


> Bigstock allowed me to quote their response:
> 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.


That is pretty much the same response I received from all the sites I checked with. In most cases that extended license is substantially more expensive than the standard license - around $50 to $100 per image.


----------



## yobtaf (Oct 11, 2013)

Sorry for bumping this up from so long ago  

I'd just like to put my 2 cents into this discussion. I'm not actually really a designer of book covers or anything, but there was I time I thought about doing it and thus I have checked out some stock licenses in the past. I agree that premades cover a grey area of stock licensing. 

Personally I think that the best way is the custom book cover. The author can find and buy the image (with your help) and hand it over to you to add text/adjustments. That would be the straight out legal way. Most of the time when sites say 'you are allowed to use as book covers' I have interpreted it as meaning the person who purchased it is allowed to use it as a book cover themselves, but they are not allowed to sell it as a book cover like a premade (as most sites prohibit sublicensing of images which is what premades are). 

I'm not too sure about buying the images yourself and creating the cover at the author's request, but I think that may be permitted...not very sure. 

Some sites such as istock and fotolia have the exception when a work has been modified enough to be considered as artwork that can be copyrighted in itself. I think that you are allowed to purchase a standard license and do print on demand/premades if the image you have purchased has been modified enough to create a whole new artwork where the original image is not as recognisable. 123rf doesn't, I think. I asked them and they said I need to purchase an extended license to give a premade to a friend for free for a non commercial book. Not sure about shutterstock...

I personally am not a fan of premades and especially those who just slap text on an unaltered stock image and sell it. I find it unethical and it's probably against the licenses of most stock agencies. Furthermore the poor author is going to realise that many others have the same image as them.

Best of all would be to avoid making premades, but if you do need to do that as your job perhaps modify the stock images you have significantly so they constitute a new work in themselves.


----------



## Jo Clendening (Apr 9, 2011)

I want to revive this thread, because I think part of the information is still relevant.

I just have a quick question: related to selling pre-mades, does anyone have information regarding ingimage.com? I've emailed them, but they have yet to respond.


----------

