Using Adobe Stock images with standard license on YouTube

[Ksawery]

Hello,

I recently obtained 10 Adobe Stock images with a standard license. I'd like to use the images to create an intro (around 16 seconds long) to videos on my YouTube channel. Is this allowed under the standard license?

Thanks,

Ksawery

[twaritar3263062 · Accepted solution]

Hi Ksawery,

Thanks for reaching out to the Adobe Stock community.

Adobe Stock asset can be used in print, presentations, broadcasts, websites, and on social media sites. However, you may not share or distribute the asset in any way that would let others use the asset without licensing it themselves. Also, the usage of the right type of licenses is also essential.

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.

Additionally, I would suggest you to add a credit line to the photographer. The credit line(photographer's name) which you should mention on the image should be "© [Photographer's Name] /Adobe Stock."

For more information, please see Stock Licensing & terms FAQ: Where can I find the terms and licensing information for Adobe Stock?

Hope this information helps!

Feel free to update this thread in case of any additional questions.

Regards,

Twarita

[demon90k]

I have to say, this is really confusing as a stance.  YouTube is clearly a social platform, with the capability of reaching the same level of audiences as any of the other social platforms, whether it be 5 or 5 million.  The idea that this standard license is somehow different for videos on YouTube specifically when you clearly state in your terms that it is restricted by 500,000 views.  Why on earth would someone need to purchase an extended license to use in a video for a growing brand for example, that is only getting a few views no different to the audience you would get on Facebook?  It would be unfair to say this given the T&C's don't state this clearly anywhere with regard to video platforms.

You say above, "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." This really doesn't make any sense...... because its view restricted, somehow that makes YouTube invalid over other social platforms?  But doesn't mention it anywhere in the terms or conditions or even explain why in that statement?

I don't think any of this could hold up legally unless specifically set in the terms around utilisation on YouTube (As either social or broadcast platform could be used to describe YouTube).  Its not only unhelpful, but extremely vague to say that video in one context is ok (Facebook), then in another its not (YouTube).  But, it's not set out in the terms and conditions and can only be found on forums in a reply on a thread.....

Reading it as is, is quite clearly an ok thing to do as long as its views don't reach over 500,000 according to the full T&C's.  Can someone at Adobe either review this or escalate to a team that can clarify more prescriptively in the T&C's.  I can't help but feel this is somehow vague purposely for the purpose of entrapment.

[Abambo]

demon90k  wrote

I have to say, this is really confusing as a stance.  YouTube is clearly a social platform, with the capability of reaching the same level of audiences as any of the other social platforms, whether it be 5 or 5 million.  The idea that this standard license is somehow different for videos on YouTube specifically when you clearly state in your terms that it is restricted by 500,000 views.  Why on earth would someone need to purchase an extended license to use in a video for a growing brand for example, that is only getting a few views no different to the audience you would get on Facebook?  It would be unfair to say this given the T&C's don't state this clearly anywhere with regard to video platforms.

Apart from a legal discussion if YouTube is social media or TV* this is probably for most of us an academic discussion, because you need an enhanced license for 500k views. When I check the channels I subscribed, there are very rarely channels with more then 50k views. And if I'm correct, when YouTube starts showing adds with your content, you get part of it. If your channel switches above the 500k views you can acquire the extended licenses...

But me too, I would read the license terms in that direction that YouTube is probably nothing other than my website or a social media platform like Facebook.

*In Germany, as a commercial provider, you need to acquire a Rundfunklizens to put your media on YouTube. When it comes to get paid for your views, and you are "Gema" or similar registered, they tell you that YouTube "is not a real TV station" so you are not eligible for indemnification... When you have a program on the TV stations and you put that also on YouTube you get indemnified.

Disclaimer: I'm not working for Adobe and this is my own unqualified opinion. I'm not a lawyer or working in a legal profession.

[demon90k]

"And if I'm correct, when YouTube starts showing ads with your content, you get part of it" 

Definitely, agree with that aspect.  But monetisation comes from Facebook videos too on their pages when you reach a certain view threshold, no different from YouTube.

Either way, Adobe hasn't clearly stated appropriate usage on YouTube, and the waters are very muddy with the bundling of broadcasting, social, etc all into one 500k view model.  But automatically telling users they need to spend £50+ per asset if you go on YouTube regardless of views but have a standard license on other social platforms doesn't seem appropriate when looking at their terms and conditions on the website.  Very discouraging. 

[WDjoe]

That is a little confusing. So I can't use any image with a standard license for any videos??

Do I need to purchase an extended license if any image is placed in any video I make?

Or does this apply only to videos placed on social media like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc?

Can  I use a standard license if the video is placed on my personal website?

[AndrewBuckle]

At least it answered my question, love the Adobe Stock but of no use with Youtube then in the standard license (such as using a free item) and having a head shot or someone pointing at something. Probably going to have to be me with a camera and green screen it and pointing instead. Least won't have to worry about ehanced or standard or any copyright issues 

[amany28498126umdr]

Do I need add credit line on video if I used photos of Adobe stock (enhanced license) and added on them some modifications using after effects and Photoshop?

[Abambo]

I would do. And I think it's needed.

Adobe stock videos come all under an enhanced licence.

[amany28498126umdr]

Do you add line on video 

( Adress of Adobe stock)? 

[Abambo]

Do you add line on video 

( Adress of Adobe stock)? 

By @amany28498126umdr

No idea, if I understand you correctly, but the credit you need to add is described in the licensing terms. Read those. Out of memory, it is something like “author – stock.adobe.com”. You add that “at an appropriate place”.

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]

I will lock this discussion now.