Can i use a stock picture which is named and tagged "background" for posts in social media, if the pictures are altered by adding a statement or abstract graphic in front of it (thats why i need backgrounds)?
Licence terms Nr. 3.5 D just speack about the case, when to post an unaltered picture.
But i need a background for social media posts (instagram and facebook) to place graphics and words in front of it. So is i t than altered?
To place a credit like ".../stock.adobe.com" would absolutely disturb the post and make the stock picture created as a background unuseful as a background to me.
You can definitely use/edit the Stock images as a background where you would like to place graphics and words, however,in order to use an Adobe Stock image it is important to give the credits to the photographer and also to follow all the restriction terms.
Also, you may go through the the licensing terms and restrictions: Stock Licensing & terms FAQ: Where can I find the terms and licensing information for Adobe Stock?
Feel free to update this thread in case of any additional questions.
thank your very much for your response.
So in this case, an Adobe Stock Background Image is not useful for me.
In my opinion, a background image is made, to support something, e.g. a logo or statement. Thats why it is made. A credit information, as mentioned it the Licensing terms, on the background picture would be competing with the main information (logo or statement) and therfore make it unattractive.
I understand the fact, that the photographer should be supported for his work. But in case of backgrounds he knows, that his work is meant to be a supporting thing for other work.
Maybe adobes terms should differentiate here. It just speaks about unchanged work to post in social media. A background however is made to be changed.
Again, many thanks for your answer.
I totally understand your concern but as you are aware of your terms I can't be much of help.