Thought this was interesting.
Was doing "
klik of the month club" this month. Needed some pictures of rocks. Typed "stone texture" into Google. Found a page full of links to stone textures from leniently licensed stock image sources. A bunch came from a website that looked, at first brush, fantastic:
http://sxc.hu/ . It's run by the people who run istockphoto; it's like a wiki-like pool of open-licensed stock photos. They have a standard license, and individual image contributors who choose to donate to the website can add additional license terms.
But then I look at said
standard license and I find myself scratching my head.
The following is a legal agreement between You and the owners of SXC.hu ("Website"), HAAP Media Ltd. ("SXC", "We") which governs the use of non-watermarked images ("Images") downloaded from our Website. By downloading an Image You agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement automatically, without any other conditions or declarations. If You do not agree with these terms, You are not allowed to download the Image.
All Images on the Website are copyrighted and they are the properties of SXC or its Image providers. All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You. Your rights to use the Image are subject to this agreement and the restrictions specified at each Image.
We hereby grant to You a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Image on the terms and conditions explained in this Agreement and on the Image preview page FREE OF CHARGE.
You may use the Image
In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones.
In printed promotional materials, magazines, newspapers, books, brochures, flyers, CD/DVD covers, etc.
Along with your corporate identity on business cards, letterhead, etc.
To decorate your home, your office or any public place.
You may not use the Image
For pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, for spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures.
To endorse products and services if it depicts a person.
In a way that can give a bad name to SXC or the person(s) depicted on the Image.
As part of a trademark, service mark or logo.
SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!
Always ask permission from the photographer if you want to use the Image
In website templates that You intend to sell or distribute.
For creating printed reproductions that You intend to sell.
On "print on demand" items such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, mugs (e.g. on sites like Cafepress), or on any similar mass produced item that would contain the Image in a dominant way.
Well... that's a slightly odd set of can/cannots there. So can I use it for a game? Well: It says "multimedia presentations". I don't know what else to call a game. So toss some rock images into my click n play project and I use their contact information:
Hello. I would like to point out a general problem with your licensing
terms. I found your site looking for stock images to use in a video
game I am creating. I found your website very useful. However when I
went to look at your licensing terms:
http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=help&s=7_2I discovered that the image licensing terms are, what seems to me,
unnecessarily specific in a manner which is awkward and potentially
limits the usefulness of the website. Specifically, your license terms
say the images may be used in:
"websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell
phones" and "in printed...materials"
Because you so specifically list uses of images, it is ambiguous
whether a type of use analogous to these, but not specifically listed
(in my case, a video game) is allowed. I suspect the video game
qualifies as a "multimedia presentation". But why create the
ambiguity?
It is my suggestion that your image license agreement would be more
helpful if a more general term, like "artistic works", were used under
your list of allowed uses, rather than trying to enumerate every
possible use of an image. You also might find the "creative commons"
licenses useful as examples of licenses which protect the copyright
owner while allowing a wide range of derivative uses..
(Note that rereading their terms, I find my email contains an inaccuracy: Their terms say you may put them in printed materials,
unless those printed materials are to be sold.)
Anyway a few days later I receive the following email:
Hello Andi,
Thank you very much for your email.
The permitted uses are specific and will remain as such. Use in video games is not permitted.
Please let us know if you require further assistance.
Regards,
Darek
iStockphoto Team
NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may contain information that is private, confidential or otherwise restricted from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Although we try our best to offer useful advice on interpretation and other issues, you should bear in mind that nothing we say should be construed as legal advice on any particular issue or be considered a substitute for seeking proper counsel for your legal affairs. If you have received this in error, please notify iStockphoto.com immediately by contacting [].
Well, that's a polite response. But... huh?
So I don't care about using these images. I can get a photograph of a rock somewhere else, I don't want to mess with an IP source that's going to be difficult, and the klik n play game doesn't even work. But... how does this even make sense? Why on earth make a set of rules that make it legal to put something into a video, but not a game? How precisely are we to determine the difference between a video game and a "multimedia presentation"? If a game is sufficiently abstract/arty and noninteractive, does it
become a multimedia presentation? You can use it in a "website", but not a video game-- what if the video game is embedded in a website?
I kind of want to be difficult about this, try to claim games=multimedia presentations or at least make a contrived video game that qualifies as a powerpoint presentation or "film" rather than a game, and see if we can get a court ruling that Passage is a work of art and not a video game or something (disclaimer: I LOVE PASSAGE)
