4 ms·
Certainly on iStockPhoto there is a license restriction clause which states it can't be use in any logo or trademark. http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses
by sphericalgames 12y ago
Certainly on iStockPhoto there is a license restriction clause which states it can't be use in any logo or trademark.
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses
I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of restriction is common in most stock photo sites.
- ghaff 12y agoRight. And there are a lot of rationales for this restriction. Say you decide to use a logo incorporating stock artwork for your open source project or small business. Don't be surprised to get a cease and desist letter down the road from some other business which used the same artwork in their logo and perhaps even trademarked the logo. It doesn't really make sense to use stock art for anything that is supposed to be a unique identity.
- ensignavenger 12y agoI did some quick looking at the stock sites featured in the article: Dreamstime: http://www.dreamstime.com/terms#unauthorized http://www.dreamstime.com/terms#unauthorized Apparently you can use it in a logo, but you cannot trademark it- which resolves the problem of someone trademarking it and suing you- their trademark would be infringing the license. 123rf: http://www.123rf.com/license.php?type=enhanced http://www.123rf.com/license.php?type=enhanced Yes, this license does forbid use on logos, so that designer apparently did indeed violate the license. The designer should have read the fine print. Freelancer: I couldn't find terms for stock work, however, the headline in the screenshot is "travel agency logo" so based on that, it appears it is meant to be a stock logo. So, it appears that 2 out of 3 of the sites do allow us of their artwork in logos. It may not be a good idea, but in these 2 cases, I would not call it stealing. Nor would I expect anything more for 5 bucks.