Pay for rights?

[Deano99]

Hi all

I want to include some pictures on my website (a premier league betting site). For betting previews I will use club crests, and I will also use pictures of stadiums, players, match action...etc, pretty much the usual pics you see on football sites.

My question is, must each picture be paid for, through shutterstock or something similar? I think the answer is probably yes, but I suppose what I am really asking is - is there a way you can get around having to pay for usage?

For example is it ok to use a picture without prior permission, as long as it is credited to the rightful owner?

And whether the picture is paid for or not, is it ok to add your logo somewhere on it? (this question is probably more for social media and shareable posts)

Thanks for any advice you can give

[Miles_FTA]

For example is it ok to use a picture without prior permission, as long as it is credited to the rightful owner?

I would Think it should be fine to do this as long as you state where the images are from and who they belong to as you say .

[Deano99]

Cheers Miles, that's good to know. I was in shock when I saw how much shutterstock can charge, and hoped there'd be a way around it

[Doolally]

You can't just use an image that's owned by someone else - even if you give them credit for it.

I'm sure some are ok with it but you can get into legal troubles as well. I have the legal scars to prove it! You can use images if they're listed as Creative Commons which means you can use them legally as long as you attribute the photographer.

This explains some of the intricacies xxhttp://www.stockphotorights.com/faq/

Currently I use xxhttps://www.dollarphotoclub.com/ for my images - fairly cheap, so far reliable and no issues.

You may also find these pages of interest:

xxhttp://www.authormedia.com/where-to-find-free-legal-photos-online/
xxhttp://www.studyweb.com/100-legal-sources-for-free-stock-images/

Hope this helps a little.

[Deano99]

Fantastic, thanks a million Doolally

[PromoteCasino]

Currently I use xxhttps://www.dollarphotoclub.com/ for my images - fairly cheap, so far reliable and no issues.

Just had a look at this one and it looks like they are no longer taking new members, but they do point you in the direction of Adobe stock as an alternative. It does not help really as the images are too generic, not specific enough for say a preview of a football game as they do not show professional players or stadiums etc...

it would be great if there was a cheap source they had these types of images, cannot use Getty images or something similar because of the commercial side of the business.

[Betbonus]

How about 123rf.com?

Just had a look at this one and it looks like they are no longer taking new members, but they do point you in the direction of Adobe stock as an alternative. It does not help really as the images are too generic, not specific enough for say a preview of a football game as they do not show professional players or stadiums etc...

it would be great if there was a cheap source they had these types of images, cannot use Getty images or something similar because of the commercial side of the business.

[PromoteCasino]

How about 123rf.com?

Similar to the other image sites, the good images are for editorial use only not commercial

[sweetbet]

Thank you for sharing Doolally

[Betbonus]

Where does the line go for commercial/editorial? E.g. if I have a sports news blog with a couple of sportsbetting banners?

[Deano99]

Where does the line go for commercial/editorial? E.g. if I have a sports news blog with a couple of sportsbetting banners?

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=983

Found this article on editorial use, I think that makes it ok to use such photos on blogs/articles?

[universal4]

Sorry,

But in reality of the site is used to make money it's a commercial site.

If the artwork is used as an editorial on sports (or any other subject) and the main focus is to draw attention to commercial ads I would think any image seller could claim that the images were used for commercial purposes.

Whether they would or not is a different story.

Rick
Universal4

[TheGooner]

Pictures of generic things like football stadiums and club crests tend to be used freely - and as long as you are not bringing the clubs name into disrepute - then most sporting organisations are OK with it. Typically I will go to the club website to find an image.

There are exceptions - a few years back FIFA wrote to me saying that I did not have approval to use a picture of the football world cup (I was using it as a visual enhancement / link to World Cup picks) and I had to change to a generic trophy ... I chose this toy one.



When it comes to sports action and specific player pictures then I strongly advise NOT to take pictures directly from websites - many big news sites pay large royalties to be able to use sports action shots.

You may be able to take a "snip" of part of the picture, change the file-type and save it as your own file and be OK as it looks like a new image, especially if you run it through some sort of colour enhancement or filter ... is it legal? Grey area.

Take a look at this page as an example. http://www.goonersguide.com/arsenal-...ting-picks.php

I have the following :
1/ club crest
2/ stadium image
3/ head banner with photo
4/ section banner with photo

None of the photos are my "clicks" but I've use some generics and taken elements of other shots and created something new.
As far as I am concerned - all are OK and being used fairly.

(But it's still a bit grey - and probably only OK because no-one will recognise their own original work)

[baldidiot]

You may be able to take a "snip" of part of the picture, change the file-type and save it as your own file and be OK as it looks like a new image, especially if you run it through some sort of colour enhancement or filter ... is it legal? Grey area.

Actually it's super easy to find the origin of an image, or places that are copying even small part of an image. For example, it took me about 20 seconds to find what I believe is the origin of the stadium image on the page you showed (I wont post it, but was it a wallpaper site?).

Here's a few hundred other pages with variations of the same image: https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe...DOIMntUqbQrvgP

[Betbonus]

Legally, it is not ok to post copyrighted images downloaded from a website no matter what. Except if you get permission from the owner. In practice, football clubs will probably not chase small time affiliate sites for copyright issues though (they are kind of getting some free publicity after all).

Pictures of generic things like football stadiums and club crests tend to be used freely - and as long as you are not bringing the clubs name into disrepute - then most sporting organisations are OK with it. Typically I will go to the club website to find an image.

There are exceptions - a few years back FIFA wrote to me saying that I did not have approval to use a picture of the football world cup (I was using it as a visual enhancement / link to World Cup picks) and I had to change to a generic trophy ... I chose this toy one.



When it comes to sports action and specific player pictures then I strongly advise NOT to take pictures directly from websites - many big news sites pay large royalties to be able to use sports action shots.

You may be able to take a "snip" of part of the picture, change the file-type and save it as your own file and be OK as it looks like a new image, especially if you run it through some sort of colour enhancement or filter ... is it legal? Grey area.

Take a look at this page as an example. http://www.goonersguide.com/arsenal-...ting-picks.php

I have the following :
1/ club crest
2/ stadium image
3/ head banner with photo
4/ section banner with photo

None of the photos are my "clicks" but I've use some generics and taken elements of other shots and created something new.
As far as I am concerned - all are OK and being used fairly.

(But it's still a bit grey - and probably only OK because no-one will recognise their own original work)

[TheGooner]

Actually it's super easy to find the origin of an image, or places that are copying even small part of an image. For example, it took me about 20 seconds to find what I believe is the origin of the stadium image on the page you showed (I wont post it, but was it a wallpaper site?).

No. The stadium image came off an article on the Arsenal club website not long after it was built.
Of course they might have taken from there?

[baldidiot]

No. The stadium image came off an article on the Arsenal club website not long after it was built.
Of course they might have taken from there?

Ha, ok that backfired. I just went for the highest res image assuming that would be the original.

But still, my main point was that even if an image is cropped, resized, has a filter added etc... it's very easy for computers to identify similar images. Making minor changes isn't enough to make it 'different' to a computer, even if it looks different to the human eye.

[Karri]

"It's not enough" doesn't matter as it simply isn't legal. Anyone who disagrees can freely post their site link, and give me permission to copy and re-create all their content as long as I change background color, font type or something similar.