When reading the summary information on the Adobe Stock page regarding various license types, vs. the full terms an conditions, I am seeing an inconsistency. On the summary page, it states that you may not use a standard license on an item for resale where the primary value is associated with the asset. That implies that if it is not (such as a book cover, or illustration within a book where the primary value is the content of the book), then it would be allowed if the total image is not reporduced more that 500,000 times. However, in the full terms page section 3.1 B (2) it states that you may not incorporate a work into merchandise intended for sale under the standard license.
These 2 statements appear to be at odds. If I were to use a Stock image on a book cover intended for sale and a handful of others in the book itself, would I require an extended license? I have seen comments on some other posts indicating it was allowed under the standard license, but that does not appear to be the case from the full terms.
"However, in the full terms page section 3.1 B (2) it states that you may not incorporate a work into merchandise intended for sale under the standard license."
That doesn't seem to match the 3.1 B (2) I found which says
(2) you may not incorporate a Work into merchandise intended for sale or distribution, including on-demand
products, unless (a) the Work has been modified to the extent that the new work, as incorporated into such
merchandise, is not substantially similar to the Work and can qualify as an original work of authorship; or (b) the
primary value of such merchandise does not lie with the Work itself
I see nothing about " intended for sale under the standard license"
Yes, that's what I was quoting. However, you only quote half of the first sentence, since it continues with "UNLESS". Still I see no reference to a standard license in that clause. It does sometimes happen that the license varies with where in the world you are, so yours might say something different. Please quote the whole of 3.1 (B) (2) unless it is actually the same as mine.
The unless portion is only in regards to modification of an image such that it would constitute a new work. My inquiry is for unmodified images, so that isn't pertinent in this case. The section titles specifiy that it is referencing the Standard License:
3. License Terms and Specific Restrictions Applicable to Works
3.1. Standard License and Specific Restrictions for Works. The license described in this section 3.1 is referred to as a “Standard License”
(B) Standard License Specific Restrictions for Works.
Thanks for clarifying how you're reading it. I read it differently, but it's for a lawyer to suggest which of us is reading according to how a court would see it.
If you aren't modifying the image, then (a) does not apply. This leaves (b). Hence, I would read it as meaning: (2) "you may not incorporate a Work into merchandise intended for sale or distribution, including on-demand
products, unless ...; or (b) the primary value of such merchandise does not lie with the Work itself.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it is often stated in this forum that using pictures on a book cover does not make the value the merchandise itself - because people buy a book because of what's in it, not as a way of getting the picture on the cover. There is subjectivity here; for example a travel book which was basically stock images with a caption on each is certainly something I'd want legal advice. But, personally and at my own risk, I'd happily use a stock image of a beach in a chapter of a book talking about the merits of beach holidays.
It's "unless a) ; or b)". Any other reading would not make sense. I've read the terms in English, French and German and it's always the same.
If still in doubt 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).