10
Replies
License terms are shown here:
License information and Terms of Use | Adobe Stock
ChatGPT (which isn't always accurate by the way...) is correct in that you wouldn't be able to use an Editorial Use image. You would need an enhanced license if you expect your views to exceed 500,000.
License terms are shown here:
License information and Terms of Use | Adobe Stock
ChatGPT (which isn't always accurate by the way...) is correct in that you wouldn't be able to use an Editorial Use image. You would need an enhanced license if you expect your views to exceed 500,000.
By @Jill_C
Does that mean it's okay to use images that have a Standard license on YouTube if the views don't exceed 500,000?
In the discussion I mentioned earlier, an Adobe employee said "Standard licenses allow up to 500,000 copies or views of the asset. So if you want to use the asset on YouTube, you will be requiring an Enhanced license."
If you post to a regular YouTube channel, you can use it on social media without any restrictions on the number of times it can be displayed, in accordance with the terms of use of the standard image license.
However, if you use a paid social media platform such as a membership-based service, there is a limit of 500,000 views.
I checked with customer support and found out about this.
By @yamato7
I contacted Adobe support about this online. They said that using free images with a Standard licence in YouTube videos has certain limitations regarding distribution and monetization. They recommended considering a paid extended Adobe Stock plan.
According to what community experts here have said, there is no difference between a free and paid image if it has a Standard licence. I'm confused especially as the licence page doesn't mention YouTube. So what specific part of the licence terms is this based on?
It took some time to confirm this, but we have now been able to find out.
Adobe has determined that YouTube does not qualify as a social networking site.
The standard license has a viewing limit of 500,000 times.
Different support staff gave different answers, but this appears to be Adobe's official response.
By @yamato7
Where does Adobe state that YouTube is not a social media platform? This doesn't match with official posts on the Adobe website.
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/help/usage-licensing.html
Audio is available only under a Standard licence, except if you are an Enterprise customer.
https://www.adobe.com/learn/express/web/get-verified?learnIn=1
YouTube is explicitly mentioned under social media.
@atlanticm1 wrote:
I contacted Adobe support about this online. They said that using free images with a Standard licence in YouTube videos has certain limitations regarding distribution and monetization. They recommended considering a paid extended Adobe Stock plan.
According to what community experts here have said, there is no difference between a free and paid image if it has a Standard licence. I'm confused especially as the licence page doesn't mention YouTube. So what specific part of the licence terms is this based on?
Free assets come under a standard* licence. Free assets can be used commercially in the same way as any asset that comes under a standard licence. If you use the asset behind a paywall system, you are limited to 500k views. If you are using the asset in a freely available channel, you are not limited.
*Free video is available under an enhanced licence, free templates too.
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).
I'm confused about this because I asked ChatGPT this question and it said that Adobe Stock free images can be used in a Youtube video as long as the image isn't marked as for Editorial Use only.
By @atlanticm1
This answer is nonsense. Editorial use only assets are not included in the free collection. Free stock images come with a standard licence and what you can do is described in the licensing terms as pointed out by @Jill_C. There are restrictions on editorial-use-only assets, but they are not with YouTube use. And any asset may be used in an editorial like use, and that ties editorial use restrictions to the asset.
As of my understanding as a layman, YouTube is considered to be social media.
Contrary to the old discussion that you linked here, Adobe won't intervene on licensing questions, except to point out the licensing terms. This effectively to avoid confusion and giving wrong advice, that could be considered as a commitment from the company.
Also: licensing terms may change, and you need to apply the active terms the moment you license the asset. That also would mean that you should keep a copy of those terms with the asset. As an example: one “recent” change is that you are not allowed to use stock assets to train generative AI.
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).
AdChoices