questions about copyright and different types of licenses

[Roel24351091rn4f]

When I use an adobe stock image in a youtube video, how do I need to format the copyright?

Can I put it in the description and if so, what is the exact format I need to use.

I am also a little confused about licenses, can I use the standard license as long as the video in which I use the image does not have anywhere near 500,000 views? And say for example if the video gets 100,000 views, buy another license that does cover 500,000? 

[Abambo]

Your questions are answered by looking into the licensing terms. They state to put the credits where is is best, which is quite flexible. The recommended form is "Author / Adobe stock". Normally, when doing film, you have somewhere a credits section at the end of the film. I would put it there, but you can also put it on the image if you want. 

The asset can be used by the licensee for as long as the license is not exhausted. So if you are doing client work (and consider yourself as client too), client 1 may use the asset for as many projects of any kind he wants as long as the license allows. The views/print run clause is additive. For client 2 you would need to acquire a second license.

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).

[Roel24351091rn4f]

Thanks!

"Author / Adobe stock" is a very clear anwser and helps me out a lot. 

The asset can be used by the licensee for as long as the license is not exhausted. So if you are doing client work (and consider yourself as client too), client 1 may use the asset for as many projects of any kind he wants as long as the license allows. The views/print run clause is additive. For client 2 you would need to acquire a second license.

This still doesn't answer my second question though, unless I am misunderstsanding. My very specific question is does the standard license cover YouTube videos as long as it doesn't have more than 500,000 views? It might be asking a lot, but a clear yes or no answer would be greatly appreciated.

"The asset can be used by the licensee for as long as the license is not exhausted." 

This seems to imply yes?

But I just want to make sure I understand correctly. 

[Abambo]

Well, it does answer your question in the correct sense: 450.000 views and a print run of 49,999 is still Ok. So any condition, that triggers an overflow will need you to take action. You won't hit a limit of this kind, however, except if you are a higher profile professional.

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).

[Roel24351091rn4f]

Thank you, I greatly appreciate you've taken to the time to help me.

[Abambo]

Here is a variant: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/help/usage-licensing.html

We require a photo credit to be added only when using the image in an editorial article. When editorial images are used in print, websites, blogs, etc. you must include the credit line mentioned on the Adobe Stock website and contained in the IPTC credit line field. For example, “Agency Name/Author Name - stock.adobe.com."  

Furthermore, this is stated in the "Adobe Stock Additional Terms" dated January 29, 2021:

The exact format can be found in the licensing terms!

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).