Article

Section 01

Why contributor records deserve their own archive

Selling through a stock library moves much of a photographer’s paperwork onto someone else’s servers. The agency holds the upload history, the acceptance decisions, the asset identifiers and the sales reports. That is convenient until the day a contributor needs to show a third party that a particular image is theirs, when it went on sale and under which licence models it was offered.

Agency dashboards are not built as evidence archives. Accounts are closed, portfolios are removed or migrated after a merger, reporting interfaces change, and older sales data is sometimes summarised or dropped. A contributor who relies only on what the agency happens to display may find that the most useful records are out of reach when a question arises years after the upload.

A separate archive, held by the contributor, solves most of this. It does not need to be elaborate. It needs to be complete, dated and readable by someone who cannot log into the contributor’s account. This article sets out what that archive should contain, how licensing through an agency affects the contributor’s position, and how Atlantic uses these records when a stock image appears on a site that may or may not hold a licence.

Neighbouring guides cover capturing a suspected use, monitoring, source files and metadata, and the checks before a notice. The focus here is on the records that are specific to stock distribution.

Section 02

The contributor account record

The starting point is proof of the relationship with the agency itself. For each library, keep a short account sheet and update it whenever something changes.

• The agency’s name and the legal entity that signed the contributor agreement, which is not always the brand name.
• Your contributor ID or account number, the username, and the legal name and address registered on the account.
• The date the account was opened and, where relevant, the date it was closed.
• A copy of every version of the contributor agreement you accepted, with the date of acceptance. Agencies update their terms regularly, and the version in force when an image was uploaded or licensed can matter.
• Earnings and payout statements, downloaded at regular intervals rather than only consulted online.
• Any correspondence with the agency about rights, exclusivity, removals or enforcement.

The account sheet links you, as a named person, to the account that carries the portfolio. Without it, an asset page showing a contributor name proves less than it seems: names are shared, pseudonyms are common, and the other side may ask whether the person making a claim is the account holder at all. When Atlantic verifies authority to act, this is among the first documents it looks at, because the licence chain for a stock image begins with the contributor agreement.

If you work under a pseudonym or a studio name, keep a document that connects that name to you. If the account belongs to a company, keep the corporate documents that show who may act for it.

Section 03

Upload dates, acceptance dates and image IDs

For each image, three dates are worth recording separately: the date you uploaded the file, the date the agency accepted it, and the date it was first offered for licensing. They are often close together but not always identical, and they answer different questions. The upload date shows that you held the file at that time. The acceptance date shows that the agency reviewed it. The on-sale date marks the earliest point from which a customer could have licensed it through that channel.

The agency’s asset identifier is just as important. Every library assigns its own ID, so the same image distributed through three agencies carries three different IDs. Keep a simple mapping table that links your own master file to each agency ID.

• Your internal file name and the capture date.
• The agency name and the asset ID.
• The upload, acceptance and on-sale dates.
• The licence models offered (see section 4).
• The date of withdrawal from sale, if any, and the reason.

Withdrawal dates are often overlooked. If you removed an image from a library in a given year, a licence bought before that date may still be valid under the agency’s terms, while a use that began later cannot have been licensed through that channel. Rejected uploads deserve a note too: an image the agency refused was never on sale there, which becomes relevant if a user later says they licensed it from that library.

Export these data from the agency’s interface periodically, as a file you keep, and save a dated screenshot of each asset page while it is live.

Section 04

Licence types offered and what they imply

The licence model under which an image was offered frames every later question about a use. Labels vary between agencies, and only each agency’s own terms define them, but the main families are well established.

Royalty-free means that the customer pays once and may then use the image repeatedly within the limits of the licence, without a fee per use. It does not mean free of charge, and it does not mean unlimited. Standard royalty-free licences commonly cap print runs, exclude use in logos or trademarks, prohibit reselling the image as such and restrict sensitive uses. Extended licences lift some of these limits for an additional fee.

Rights-managed licences are priced and granted for a defined use: medium, territory, duration, size, and sometimes exclusivity within a sector. A rights-managed licence for a regional print brochure in one year does not cover a national website five years later.

Editorial-use-only images may illustrate news, commentary or matters of public interest, but may not advertise or promote a product, service or business. They often lack model or property releases, which is precisely why they are restricted.

For the contributor, the useful record is simple: for each image and each agency, note which licence models were offered and over which period. If an image was editorial only, a commercial use on a company’s sales page raises a question of licence scope even if the user did buy an editorial licence. If an image was offered only as rights-managed, a user who mentions a royalty-free download from that agency will need to explain where it came from. The licence model does not by itself tell you whether a given use is covered, but it tells you what the user’s licence record ought to show.

Section 05

The agency’s licence and the contributor’s own rights

Two separate legal relationships sit behind every stock sale, and confusing them causes many misunderstandings.

The first is between the contributor and the agency. In most contributor agreements the photographer keeps the copyright and grants the agency a licence, exclusive or not, to market the image and to grant sublicences to customers. Under US law, ownership vests in the author unless the work is a work made for hire (17 U.S.C. § 201), and a transfer of ownership requires a signed writing (§ 204). A standard contributor agreement is usually a licence rather than a transfer, but the wording of the agreement decides that, and some agreements, particularly for commissioned or assignment work, are drafted differently. Read yours rather than assume.

References17 U.S.C. §§ 201, 204

The second relationship is between the agency and its customer. The customer’s rights come from the agency’s licence terms, accepted at the time of purchase or download. The customer has no contract with the photographer and often does not know who the photographer is. What the customer may do is defined by that licence: which image, which licence model, which permitted uses, and for whom.

A practical consequence follows. A licence either exists or it does not, and if it exists, it either covers a given use or it does not. A customer who bought a standard licence and then uses the image beyond its limits is outside the licence for that use. Conversely, a user holding a valid agency licence for the use in question is entitled to it, whatever the contributor thinks of the royalty received. The contributor’s rights against third parties rest on the copyright they kept; their position towards the agency’s customers depends on the terms the agency granted.

Section 06

Exclusivity terms

Exclusivity takes several forms, and each one changes what a contributor’s records need to show.

• Contributor exclusivity: the photographer sells stock through one agency only, for all their work.
• Image exclusivity: a particular image, and sometimes similar frames from the same session, may be sold only through one agency.
• Non-exclusive distribution: the same image is offered through several libraries, and possibly through the photographer’s own website or by direct licence.

The consequence for verification is direct. If an image is exclusive to one agency, a legitimate licence should normally trace back to that agency or to its authorised distribution partners. If it is non-exclusive, a licence could come from any channel through which it was offered, and the contributor needs a complete, dated list of those channels to assess a user’s explanation.

Agencies also license through partner networks and resellers, sometimes under other brand names and in other countries. A user may genuinely have licensed your image from a site you have never heard of, because your agency distributes through it. Contributor agreements usually state whether partner distribution is allowed, and sales reports sometimes list partner sales separately.

Exclusivity clauses can also contain provisions on enforcement: a duty to report infringements to the agency, enforcement reserved to the agency for exclusive content, or a requirement to obtain consent before contacting a customer. Note these clauses on your account sheet. Section 8 returns to them, because they determine what a contributor may do alone.

Section 07

Checking whether a user bought a licence

Contributors usually cannot see who bought a licence. Sales reports typically show the asset ID, the date, the licence type and the royalty, but not the customer’s name, and subscription downloads are often aggregated. A user can therefore hold a perfectly valid licence that the photographer has no means of identifying.

What the contributor can do is narrow the question. Compare the date the use first appeared with the sales history of that asset: a sale of the right licence type around that time is a sign to take seriously. Check whether the image was on sale through that agency at all on the relevant date. Some agencies will confirm, at the request of a contributor or their representative, whether a given customer or domain holds a licence; others decline for confidentiality reasons. In neither case can the contributor be expected to prove that no licence exists.

This is why the licence has to come from the user. The user is the party relying on the permission, and only the user has access to their own purchase history. In most legal systems, a party that claims to be licensed is expected to show the licence, and under US law a licence is generally treated as a defence that the party asserting it must establish. A useful licence record usually includes:

• The agency’s licence certificate or invoice, with the asset ID or a clearly identifiable thumbnail.
• The date of purchase or download and the licence type.
• The name of the licensee, which may be a client rather than the web designer who made the purchase.
• For subscriptions, the account’s download history showing the asset.

A credit line naming the agency is not a licence record. Nor is a statement that the image was “bought from a stock site” without any supporting document.

Section 08

Agency enforcement programmes and the contributor’s own action

Several agencies run their own compliance or enforcement programmes, internally or through a partner. These programmes have one clear advantage: the agency can check its own sales records directly. They also have limits. They may cover only certain content, apply their own thresholds, or decline matters the contributor considers worth pursuing.

Before acting independently, a contributor needs to know what their agreement says, and the clauses vary considerably. Some agreements leave enforcement entirely to the contributor. Others reserve it to the agency for exclusive content, require the contributor to notify the agency first, prohibit contacting the agency’s customers without consent, or entitle the agency to a share of any recovery. Breaching such a clause can create a problem with the agency that outweighs the infringement itself.

A few practical rules follow.

• Read the current agreement and the version in force when the image was uploaded, and note any enforcement clause.
• Do not pursue the same use through two channels at once. If an agency programme has the matter, leave it there, or withdraw it formally before acting elsewhere.
• Where the agreement requires consent or notification, obtain it in writing and keep it with the account sheet.
• Treat a confirmed customer of the agency with particular care: the question is then whether the use exceeds the licence, not whether a licence exists.

When a contributor submits stock images to Atlantic, these points form part of the verification of authority to act. Atlantic needs to know which agencies distribute the image, on what terms, and whether an agency programme is already involved, so that the mandate it receives is consistent with the agency agreement. Where that agreement reserves enforcement to the agency or requires its consent, the contributor’s authority to mandate Atlantic depends on it, and the verification takes that into account.

Section 09

Originals, releases and contributor statements

The file an agency displays is a derivative of what you shot: resized, often edited, sometimes cropped. The material that best supports authorship is usually the material that stays with you.

• The original capture files, in the camera’s native format where possible, together with the other frames from the same session.
• The edited master that was uploaded, at full resolution.
• The model and property releases supplied to the agency, and the agency’s confirmation that they were accepted.
• Earnings statements showing the sales history of the asset.
• Dated screenshots or exports of the asset page while it is live.

Other guides deal with source files and metadata in detail. For stock contributors, the specific point is to preserve the link between these originals and each agency asset ID, so that the session files can be matched to the image a user displays.

A contributor statement is a short, dated and signed declaration in which the photographer sets out the facts in their own words: that they created the image, when and where, which agencies have distributed it and under which licence models, whether it is exclusive, and whether any licence was granted directly outside the agencies. It is not proof in itself and it does not replace the documents, but it gives a reviewer or counsel a coherent account to check against them. Writing it also brings gaps in the contributor’s own records to light before the other side finds them. Keep it factual. A statement that turns out to be wrong on a detail does more harm than one that says plainly what is not known.

Section 10

How Atlantic handles image-bank indicators

When Atlantic captures an occurrence of a stock image, its review before any letter looks specifically for signs that the use may be licensed. For stock content, the usual indicators are:

• A credit line naming an agency or a contributor account.
• Remnants of an agency watermark, or a file name containing an agency asset ID.
• An editorial context, such as a news article, that may correspond to an editorial licence.
• A user that is likely to hold an agency subscription, such as a publisher or media group.

None of these proves a licence. A credit can be copied along with the image, and file names travel with downloads from unlicensed sources. They do make a licence plausible enough that escalating at once would be unfair and often mistaken.

In those cases, Atlantic’s first message asks for the licence record rather than making a claim. The recipient can upload the licence certificate, invoice or download history through the secure case portal under the matter’s AID reference, or reply by e-mail, and the reply is filed in the Case File. A reply, a licence claim or a request for time puts the matter on hold until a stated date, and nothing is sent during that hold.

What follows depends on what is shown. A valid licence that covers the use closes the Case File without any claim. A licence that exists but does not cover the use, such as an editorial licence used in advertising or a standard licence used beyond its limits, leads to a licensing discussion limited to the use outside its scope. If no licence record is produced by the stated date, the matter continues through the graduated correspondence. At every stage, the contributor’s records, in particular the asset IDs, the dates and the licence models offered, are what allow Atlantic to assess a licence document on its merits instead of simply accepting or rejecting it.

Section 11

What users of stock images usually say

Users confronted with a stock image tend to raise the same points. Most of them have a precise answer.

• “It is royalty-free.” Royalty-free describes a licence model that has to be purchased, not an absence of rights.
• “We bought it.” The licence record will then show it, and if it covers the use, the matter is closed.
• “Our web designer bought it.” Licences are usually issued to a named licensee, sometimes the designer’s client, and transferability depends on the agency’s terms. The site operator, as the party that published the image, is generally the one asked to produce the record, although responsibility for a contractor’s choice depends on the jurisdiction.
• “It came from a free trial” or “our subscription has ended.” Whether downloads remain licensed afterwards depends on the agency’s terms; the download history and those terms answer the question.
• “It is on stock sites, so anyone can use it.” Being available for purchase gives no rights to someone who has not purchased.
• “We credited the photographer.” A credit is not a licence.
• “The agency owns it, not you.” In most contributor agreements the photographer keeps the copyright, and the agreement itself shows who holds what.
• “There is no registration.” Under the Berne Convention, the enjoyment and exercise of rights are not subject to formalities. In the United States, registration is required before suing on a United States work, foreign works being exempt (17 U.S.C. § 411(a)), and timely registration generally conditions statutory damages and attorney’s fees (§ 412). It does not determine whether the right exists.
• “Send a court order” or “you are not a law firm.” Atlantic is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. The matter is at an amicable stage; if it goes further, the file may be handed to qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
• “We have removed it.” Removal ends the ongoing use but does not erase the use already made.

ReferencesBerne Convention · 17 U.S.C. §§ 411(a), 412

Section 12

Starting a case as a stock contributor

Contributors submit stock images to Atlantic through the platform. A well-prepared submission includes the account sheet for each agency, the asset IDs with their dates and licence models, the exclusivity status, any enforcement clause and the agency’s consent where required, the original files and, where available, a contributor statement.

Atlantic verifies identity, ownership and the licence chain before accepting the mandate, issues an authority certificate with a public verification address that recipients can check, and handles every stock occurrence with the licence-first review described above.