Swap these for your own library. Twelve reads as a selection from something larger, which is the impression a stock page actually wants to give.

Licensing · an existing library

A licence to use the picture is not permission to use the person in it.

That is the trap in stock licensing, and it catches buyers rather than photographers. Below: which images carry releases and which don't, the four places the same picture can be licensed from and what each costs, and what to do if you have already used one you found somewhere.

Releases, and why they matter Four places, four prices

Where the same picture can be licensed

Through an agency

The most expensive route, and sometimes still the right one — see the note about indemnity below.

Direct

Cheaper for the same file on the same terms. A reply within a day, an invoice, files the same afternoon.

As a print

For hanging rather than publishing. A print carries no right to reproduce it at all, which surprises people constantly.

Editorial desk

For news and comment, at editorial rates. A different licence, a lower price, and a far narrower one.

Releases, and why they matter to you rather than to me

A model release — Signed permission from the person in the photograph. Without one the image cannot be used to sell or endorse anything
A property release — The same thing for a recognisable building, artwork or animal. Rarer, and it catches people out on interiors and on public art
What that means in practice — An unreleased image can illustrate an article and cannot appear in an advertisement. Same file, same fee, completely different permission
Who carries the risk — You do, once it is published. Which is why this sits on a photographer's page rather than being left to the small print
How to check — Every image here is marked released or not released. Ask if it isn't obvious — the answer takes a minute and it costs nothing
If one needs obtaining — Sometimes possible, for a fee, if the person is contactable. Ask before building a campaign around the shot rather than after

Four places, four prices, one photograph

Direct — Cheapest for the same file on the same terms, and the right answer for most commercial and web use
Through the agency — Dearer, and sometimes still right — on a large campaign their indemnity is worth the difference, and you'll be told when it is
An editorial desk — Cheaper again and much narrower. News, comment and education only, and it will not cover a brochure
A print — For a wall. Buying a print gets you the object and no reproduction rights whatever, which catches people out constantly
Exclusive use — Priced per period and per territory. It removes the image from every other route, which is why it costs what it does
Which to choose — Ask, and say what it's for. Being pointed at the cheaper option loses one sale and keeps a client, and that trade isn't close

Editorial only means editorial only

What it allows — News, comment, education, and books that discuss the subject. Broadly: uses that inform rather than sell
What it forbids — Advertising, packaging, merchandise, and anything implying endorsement — including a social post promoting your own product
The grey area — A company blog. If the piece sells nothing it is usually fine; if it exists to sell, it usually isn't. Ask rather than guess
Why the line exists — It is about the people and the property in the frame, not about money. Which is why no fee upgrades an unreleased image
If it gets crossed — The complaint comes from the person in the picture, not from me. That is a far worse conversation than the one you'd have had here
If in doubt — Send the layout. Two minutes of looking prevents the whole problem, and nobody has ever been charged for asking

If you've already used one

Tell me — That is the whole procedure. There is no legal letter waiting behind this page
It gets licensed retroactively — At the normal rate for that use, not at a penalty rate. Nobody has ever been billed extra for owning up
Why it works this way — Most unlicensed use is somebody's designer grabbing a search result. Chasing that produces lawyers' fees and no photographs
If you'd rather take it down — Also fine, and it costs nothing. Remove it and that is genuinely the end of the matter
Where they come from — Search results, an old agency download, a file a previous agency left behind. All three are common and none is unusual
What this doesn't cover — Reselling the files or licensing them onward. That is a different thing, and it is the one line that matters

Ask about an image

Credit is lovely, and it is not a licence

It gets asked constantly and it deserves a straight answer rather than an offended one.

Crediting instead of paying — Doesn't work, for the ordinary reason that credit pays nobody's rent. It is still appreciated once you have paid
What is genuinely free — Linking to the image where it sits, reposting the low-resolution preview with a credit, and personal use on your own wall
Also free — Schools, community groups, and anybody running something with no budget at all. Ask, say what it's for, and expect a yes
Also free — The quote, the licence advice, and checking a layout. None of that is billed and none of it obliges you to buy anything
What costs money — Anything published by a business, at any size. The size changes the price rather than whether there is one
Charities — At editorial rates whatever the use. That is a standing policy rather than the opening of a negotiation

Ask about an image

Send the image and what it's for. You'll get a price and the licence that fits — and if the agency or the editorial desk is genuinely better for you, that answer instead.

Ask about an image

"Yes — I'd like to sort it out" gets a normal invoice at the normal rate. It has never once got anybody a legal letter, and saying so plainly here is the entire point of the section above.

📷🌐✉