TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:Royalty free or Royalty fee. One is free to use or public domain, the other you pay a fee to use the photo.

Actually, that’s incorrect.

You’re confusing “royalty free” with “public domain.” That’s a whole ’nother matter.

Royalty free stock photos and art are not free for anyone to use: they are distributed for a fee (generally) and (always) under specific licensing conditions. The term “royalty free” has to do with the purchaser’s right to use the image in certain formats and in certain volumes. The term generally differentiates a one-time, or limited, or broadcast license from rights to use the image widely and in perpetuity.

I have over a decade of CDs of royalty-free images on the shelf for which I paid in excess of ten grand. So I can personally attest that “royalty free” does not equal “free.”

philip964 wrote:Some photographers hunt down and sue people who grab their photos off the internet and use them. Many have secret trace programs that tell them a photo of theirs has shown up on the internet.

Yep, but it ain't so secret. The most popular is DigiMarc. It can be applied to any image or photo. I use it in most of mine.

I'm a third recommendation for iStock, but you need to read their licensing documentation carefully. They became more expensive a few years ago when they joined with Getty Images (used to be $1=one credit, and the "Dollar Bin" really was just that...nothing over $1), but they're still a good bargain so long as your use of the photos falls within the basic licensing requirements. If you need expanded rights, it can quickly become more expensive.