I'm a little troubled by this line of text in istockphoto's license conditions:

[blockquote]
License restrictions
Here is what you cannot do with either a Standard or Extended license:

Prohibited uses for both Standard and Extended license:
Online "print-on-demand" products
[/blockquote]

No, I'm pretty sure folks do this all the time, without repercussions, but it makes me uncomfortable.  Is it their intent to prevent their photos being used in POD books? That seems unlikely, but then they are picky about the print run of items using the photos, so maybe they're worried about a photo being used in a product with a potentially infinite print run?

Does anyone know more about this? Should I ask the store?

Hi Simon,

My understanding from reading all the license (boy was that fun) and also talking to a photographer who both licenses stuff through iStockphoto and uses others images for her own work is that the "online print-on-demand products" refers to, like, prints and mugs and shirts and stuff. There's a specific section talking about book covers, which (as far as I can tell) allows you to have up to 4,999 "impressions" of the image on a cover before you have to have the extended license.

I did not ask anyone official at iStockphoto about it, to be clear. That's really probably the best thing to do if you're concerned.

Hope that helps!

Hi Nathan,

Thanks for your advice.  Yeah, that seems like a sensible interpretation.  I'll probably double-check if I do go with that option, but it seems like a lot of other designers have used these photos for their covers without trouble.

The only thing that seems unclear is what happens if you've got a product that you've licenced for up to 4,999 impressions, and then through PoD you end up selling more than that? Do you face a breach of licence?  (To be honest though, I don't think it's a likely scenario to accidentally sell that many copies).

Cheers,

Simon

IANAL.

In those cases, it seems like a problem that is both difficult to detect and enforce.

The ethical thing to do would be go to back to iStock and repurchase the image, or contact the photographer/artist directly about licensing.

Looks like you're supposed to tell them, and then they charge you. Though it does imply that you could buy the Extended license to cover it when it happens. Again, unlikely in our situation, but they do have a provision for it.

from iStockphoto legalese

In the event you contravene subparagraph 4(a)(xiii) above without purchasing an Extended License, you further agree to notify iStockphoto in the event that you (or a combination of you and others involved with you) reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content in excess of 500,000 times. Such disclosure notice must be sent to iStockphoto each and every month after which the Content, or an element of the Content, has been reproduced in aggregate over the term of this Agreement in excess of 500,000 times. Each such notice must contain the number of reproductions made in any particular month, provided however the first such notice will only be require disclosure of those reproductions which are in excess of 500,000. iStockphoto shall invoice you for the fees associated with such excess use and you agree to pay such invoice within 30 days of receipt.