# The Joys Of Stock Photos



## Always"watching" (Sep 21, 2013)

I have been wanting to write a topic on the use of stock photographs in Forum posts for a while now but didn't feel it would be right until I was able to actually post my own pics. Now that I can, I can write a justifiable topic on why I believe that so-called "stock" photographs are an important and necessary part of writing many topics and are used by active members from time to time in their posts.

Before I start this topic, I want to get rid of that term "stock" because in my book, the term "stock photos" conjures up those graphic images which have no name or title and which are usually bland and lifeless. I use Google Chrome to conjure up pictures of items I wish to illustrate, and these are proper photographs taken by professional photographers who know what they are doing and can make the clock or watch much clearer than I could ever do with my own pathetic photographic skills. I am lucky because as an artist, my carer Kristina is good at taking close-up shots of things quickly, and so I do at least have the benefit of her skills, before I then take over and upload the photo to the Forum.

It has been claimed that one reason why we shouldn't use professional marketing images on our posts is that they are mere advertising products designed to make the watch look better than it actually is. In fact, I have studied this a bit, and I find that comments are more frequently to the opposite - that the watch is much better in real life than the photographic advert shows. And I myself have found that in general, that holds true for new watches I have purchased. And for me there is another vital point to be made here. When I write a topic, I want the accompanying illustrations to be as clear as possible. I am not writing to sell the watches I illustrate but to inform the reader as to what they actually look like.

In my case, my limit for buying a new or pre-owned watch is about Â£50, and that would be a major purchase for me. This means that when I write a topic on a collectible or expensive watch brand, there is very little chance of my having a related watch to hand for a photograph to be posted by myself. There is also the question of illustrations of original documents such as old adverts etc., which obviously I would not possess myself but which are sometimes very useful to add to a post.

Speaking personally, I do not see why I should be excluded from researching and writing about any watch company or brand just because I do not have the means to photograph them myself. I have been a researcher and writer on all sorts of topics during almost the whole of my life, and although it is nice to be able to upload pictures from one's own collection, it is not always possible. When I wrote a series of articles for a magazine about early 19th century drinking glasses, I had a cohesive collection which I could photograph and use as illustrations. On the other hand, when I gave lectures on such topics as early Worcester porcelain and 18th century drinking glasses, I had to rely on professionally produced slides, and yet my lectures were very well received. I like to think that this was partly down to the way I actually spoke and delivered the lectures, just as with writing a Forum topic, I like to think that my text is as important as the photographs in producing a favourable and interested response from Forum members.

I have to say here that my approach to researching and writing a Forum topic might seem a bit old-fashioned to many members, particularly those who are younger and more familiar with a somewhat abbreviated form of verbal expression. For me, the English language is a wonderful tool for producing accurate and interesting articles, and if I need to use so-called "stock" photos then I will continue to do so, without feeling guilty.

On the other hand, there will be times when I want to post a picture of my own, and indeed I have begun to do so, thanks to the persistence of some Forum members who have never given up trying to help me do this. I really cannot thank them enough, with Roger the Dodger leading the way here. Because I have in the past been a manual typewriter man - even down to buying different second-hand machines, cleaning them up, using them and re-selling them on, I do find using a computer a bit tricky, especially the smarter the software becomes. So I ask you to bear with me and remember that in this world there are "horses for courses" including my rather idiosyncratic and nerdy way of doing things. :nerd: :nerd: :yes: :yes:


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

One point, a "stock" photo is a copyrighted picture owned by a photo agency. Users of stock photos are supposed to license the use of said photos. These stock agencies provide a plethora of generic categorised photos as a cheaper and faster alternative to hiring a photographer.

A suggestion for anyone who "borrows" photos from the net, rename them.









Later,

William


----------



## Always"watching" (Sep 21, 2013)

Thanks William - good advice. I suppose when using images from Google Chrome searching and then using them on the Forum might be a problem, depending on the source of the image, but at least we are not doing this for any commercial gain, and only use them for illustrative purposes. I also did want to say that many images available via Google are not actually professional photos but are taken by people wishing to sell the objects illustrated, and these can be most useful. For example, if one wants to purchase an item, new or second-hand, a search of the Googled images of said item can reveal sources for where that item can be bought. Indeed, there is a staggering variety of available images online via Google for watch and clock collectors and those interested in almost any subject under the sun.

I do feel we need not be too "religious" about the use of stock photos, if they are treated with respect and in an illustrative context. We nearly all use them from time to time, and without them, the Forum would be a duller place.


----------



## artistmike (May 13, 2006)

As someone who relies on the laws of copyright for my livelihood, I may disagree with your interpretations and for those who think that the Internet is some sort of 'wild-west' where law doesn't apply, they are wrong as is often thankfully being proved these days.... Intellectual property rights are covered by law and this government site goes some way to explain for those who choose to ignore it or think it doesn't apply to them...

https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-an-overview


----------



## Roger the Dodger (Oct 5, 2009)

artistmike said:


> As someone who relies on the laws of copyright for my livelihood, I may disagree with your interpretations and for those who think that the Internet is some sort of 'wild-west' where law doesn't apply, they are wrong as is often thankfully being proved these days.... Intellectual property rights are covered by law and this government site goes some way to explain for those who choose to ignore it or think it doesn't apply to them...
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-an-overview


Funny you should say that, Mike. The other day, I Googled 'Mickey Mouse' watch images, as I was looking to see what other examples were available. Imagine my surprise when amonst the images displayed were three of mine...all with the tag 'RLT'. At no time have I ever given permission for these pics to be displayed outside the forum, yet here they are for everyone to see....and I'm not getting a penny!  If you don't believe me, Google any watch that you've posted on the forum, and I bet it will be in the images pics for that model......


----------



## Caller. (Dec 8, 2013)

Roger the Dodger said:


> At no time have I ever given permission for these pics to be displayed outside the forum, yet here they are for everyone to see....and I'm not getting a penny!  If you don't believe me, Google any watch that you've posted on the forum, and I bet it will be in the images pics for that model......


I just did that for my Aerowatch and sure enough, under google images, there it is, with my forum post for all to see! :shocking:

But out of interest, as I used the forum freely, whose property is my photo?


----------



## Mutley (Apr 17, 2007)

Caller said:


> Roger the Dodger said:
> 
> 
> > At no time have I ever given permission for these pics to be displayed outside the forum, yet here they are for everyone to see....and I'm not getting a penny!  If you don't believe me, Google any watch that you've posted on the forum, and I bet it will be in the images pics for that model......
> ...


Isn't that the whole point of google, to search the tinternet for what you put into the search engine. I think the issue is when you find your photos being nicked from your posts and then reposted on their own forums / websites. I've certainly found photos I've posted on the watch forum reappear on other forums with no acknowledgement to the fact that they don't belong to the poster or they have been nicked from the net.


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

Andrew is correct that Google is doing what it is supposed to do. In most of the Western world you don't need to mark material as copyrighted to maintain the copyright, you just need to be able prove ownership. I suggest that users of the forum keep an original non-resized version of their photos in case they ever need to establish the fact they created the photos.

Later,

William


----------



## Always"watching" (Sep 21, 2013)

I am in a quandary now, having written this topic, because on the one hand, I sympathise with Roger and Caller for having their photographs "pinched" by another, without recompense - although at least it was not a matter of personal and private images being used for nefarious purposes - and on the other hand, I am actually quite annoyed by artistmike's implication that I am taking the law in vain and raiding the world of the internet for pictures like in some Wild West movie. I made it absolutely clear in my topic that photographs taken from the Google images mechanism should be treated with respect and never used for commercial gain. If my sin is that I haven't acknowledged the source of the images I have used, then I plead guilty, but then, I don't see others on the Forum acknowledging all stock photos they use, and no-one warned me that I should do so.

I have to say that I am very aware of the situation in the UK with regard to copyright, especially as my friend and carer is a professional artist who could have images of her work stolen or borrowed by third parties without any comeback, since prosecuting someone for infringement of copyright is tricky and expensive. As for copyright law and my feelings about this subject where it applies to the Forum, I feel that it is an important topic in its own right and I am about to write about it in the Free Talk subforum.


----------



## Barryboy (Mar 21, 2006)

It seems a long time ago now (in fact it *was *a long time...) when I did my degree but in those days most copyright was waived for academic articles. I think that any legal issues would revolve more around the use that the image was put to (and the financial ramifications thereof) more than the actual ownership.

Rob


----------

