Stock Photos and Vector Art for "Adult" books?

[Deirdre]

I've been asked to do the covers for a friend's less-than-literary endeavors. Fine.

Catch is, all the stock photo places I've seen specifically have a porn exception. No, I don't mean erotica, where I feel I could better justify the use of a standard license. Maybe.

BigStock's says: "[You may not] Use an Image in a way that places any person depicted in the Image in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive - this includes, but is not limited to the use of Images: a) in pornography, "adult videos" or the like; [...]."

Depositphotos: prohibits use "For pornographic purposes;"

I could go on, but you get the drift.

However, what I really want to know is -- where do you go? I can use Unsplash for photos without (recognizable) people in them.

Note that I'm not looking for pornographic cover content. The cover can't get the book pushed into the adult category. In this case, it's only the innards that will be wild and woolly. Or whatever.

I just want to honor the licenses and not get either myself or the author in trouble.

 

[Old Hack]

I think this question is more suited to our Art and Design room, so I'll move it there from Self Publishing.

 

[Gale Haut]

A quick Google search brought me to a reputable looking stock-photography source with an erotica category: HotDamnStock.com.

ETA: Found more. By the way for any of these... NSFW!

http://eroticstockphotos.com/

I'm sure you can find other sources. The answer is that you'll have to look for stock services that specialize in it. And whenever you use a photo that in anyway can allow others to identify the model via tattoos, faces, unique clothing, etc., you need to make sure there is a model release with the stock.


ETA:ETA: This is a question I've never considered because I've never been asked to work in erotica. But I just scoured the major stock sites and found a lot of suggestive and erotic images of people that have been approved for the sites. I would assume (tread carefully here since I don't know and I'm not a lawyer) that if an image rides the line between pornography and art in the same way as the erotic product you are selling, then the pornography clause would have to be read through a subjective lens. If the image is as suggestive as the product then you're covered.

A piece of anecdotal evidence for you... When I was choosing stock for an online retailer who sold erotic toys, the company policy was that if the image was suggestive enough it could be used. So a woman sitting in a pile of sheets with a smile on her face was fair game because the subject was suggestive enough to indicate an understanding of how the stock would be used.

 

[Deirdre]

Thanks!

I think in many cases since covers have to be clean, I'd probably be covered anyway, I'm just a bit paranoid about it. I'd rather tread on the right side of the license than the wrong one.

Gale, thanks for your experience on this.

 

[Old Hack]

I would assume (tread carefully here since I don't know and I'm not a lawyer) that if an image rides the line between pornography and art in the same way as the erotic product you are selling, then the pornography clause would have to be read through a subjective lens. If the image is as suggestive as the product then you're covered.

A piece of anecdotal evidence for you... When I was choosing stock for an online retailer who sold erotic toys, the company policy was that if the image was suggestive enough it could be used. So a woman sitting in a pile of sheets with a smile on her face was fair game because the subject was suggestive enough to indicate an understanding of how the stock would be used.

It's best not to assume.

Read the terms and conditions. Honour them.

 

[Gale Haut]

It's best not to assume.

Read the terms and conditions. Honour them.

You do have to figure out what the terms mean in order to do that. The ToS for these types of things usually feel like springboards for legal teams to bicker over and aren't always as clear cut as "read and accept" would suggest.

The word pornography makes this difficult. Any individual work of erotica might be classified as pornography and it might not. It's a subjective and not a clear cut question.

If you feel unease about the terms, it could be best to find another stock source that doesn't make you feel uneasy... hopefully they have decent images to choose from.

 

[DancingMaenid]

You do have to figure out what the terms mean in order to do that. The ToS for these types of things usually feel like springboards for legal teams to bicker over and aren't always as clear cut as "read and accept" would suggest.

The word pornography makes this difficult. Any individual work of erotica might be classified as pornography and it might not. It's a subjective and not a clear cut question.

Yeah, it's tricky. I've seen debate about whether the terms are referring to using the pictures in relation to anything that's erotic in nature, or just to using the pictures as visual pornography, such as putting a stock photo on a visual porn site, or editing the photo to make it look like the model is engaged in a sex act or something.

This discussion on the erotica forum was interesting. The policies of the companies that were asked about erotica seemed to vary a lot.

 

[veinglory]

I suggest that you ask the stock agency--most do not count any prose under 'pornography'.