Skip to main content
Participant
July 4, 2022
Question

License for a modified image for a scientific publication

  • July 4, 2022
  • 1 reply
  • 1222 views

Hi, I downloaded some assets under the standard license to create a figure with text, for a scientific publication in a journal. But I am unsure if an extended license is needed. The main value of the figure is understandable even without the assets; they are added for a visual representation that goes with the text. Since textbooks are allowed for a standard license, I considered a scientific journal as a textbook, but I would like a clarification to avoid any legal issues. Please note that I have read the license terms of Adobe Stock, but still need clarification.

The scientific journal's policies mention publishing with open access under the Creative Commons (CC-BY, version 4.0). This means that authors retain copyright, but the content is free to download, distribute, and adapt for commercial or non-commercial purposes, given appropriate attribution to the original article. Upon submission, authors grant a license to publish, including to display, store, copy, and reuse the content. The CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license enables anyone to use the publication freely, given appropriate attribution to the authors and citing the journal as the original publisher. The CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license does not apply to third-party materials that display a copyright notice to prohibit copying. Unless the third-party content is also subject to a CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license, or an equally permissive license, we must comply with any third-party copyright notices.

Thank you!

This topic has been closed for replies.

1 reply

Abambo
Community Expert
Community Expert
July 5, 2022

Check the licensing terms. If you can't determine the licence needed, ask a lawyer.

 

Look here for more information on licensing: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock/links-for-licensing-terms/td-p/11366788
(Disclaimer: As always with licensing, this is my interpretation of the rules. I think they are correct and advice is based on reading and interpreting the licence terms and on fair use for both the buyer and the artist/stock company, but I cannot rule out that my interpretation is wrong. I'm not an Adobe employee).

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer