Hello, i want to use a non-editorial image to decorate a blog-post on my website. I am using the credit line mentioned on the Adobe Stock website and contained in the IPTC credit line field to show the photo credits next to the image. To compress the image to a small filesize, i want to strip all "unneccessary" data from the file, including the Metadata/IPTC credit line field.
In the Adobe Stock Additional Terms 3.1 (A) Adobe grants me the right to modify the work.
But in 7.1 "General Restrictions" i am told that i must not "remove (...) any proprietary notices associated with the Stock Assets".
My question: Am i allowed to remove the IPTC credit line field from the image-file when showing the photo credits as readable text to the visitors?
Technical background: Most modern Content Management Systems like Wordpress, Drupal or Typo3 use the "GD Graphics Library" to resize images before showing it to the visitor of a website. But GDLib automatically removes all metadata to reduce the filesize. If Adobe does not allow to strip the IPTC-lines from the files, in my opinion most of the websites using GDLib would not be allowed to use work from Adobe Stock.
(Just in case for people reading this: If you need to preserve the metadata of an image-file, you have to switch the GDLib to another library, for example ImageMagic – if possible.)
This is a difficult question. There is a German ex-contributor (https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/abmahnung-eines-urhebers-trotz-korrekt-lizensiertes...) who is doing follow-up work by sending letters to users that they violated Adobe's terms and that therefore the pictures were no more licensed and that those people need to take a licence with him. It's a nice method to make money if you have sold countless assets.
My personal (and really personal with no juristic value) view of this is, that the IPTC data gets never striped from the original file. I publish a size optimized copy of the picture. So, the data does not get stripped, it just doesn't get copied. But as I said, until this argumentation got a standing before the (German) courts, it is of no real juristic value.
Thank you for your reply and your opinion!
Isn't it Adobe's job to tell us - that's what I asked for - that I/we are in violation of their terms if we remove the data from a copy of the original image file? Who can blame us if it's fine with Adobe as long as we have a valid contract with them?
Adobe employees can't answer without engaging Adobe's responsibility. Their legal team does not allow employees to answer licensing questions, besides pointing to the licencing terms. You will need to ask a lawyer, specialized in licencing law for your country, as this also probably depends also on local laws and precedent.
It really doesn't work that way. If a dispute gets into a court, the court will look at the contract. Nothing else matters. No opinions in forums matter. No statements, or promises, from Adobe staff matter. No explanations accompanying the contract matter. No testimony on what the contract really meant is relevant. So, it would actually be pointless, even dangerous, for Adobe to explain what they think the contract means, or what they intend, only the actual words matter. As interpreted, under the law of the land where the action takes place, by a particular court. (Of course, if Adobe have a contract granting you rights that they have not obtained from the copyright holder, that makes the situation complicated, but I am not a lawyer and I don't know who wins).