How is that breakping any Adobe copyright rules?
i don't see anything that breaks the standard license rules. The images are not the main entity of the product, the sounds are. And credit was given. Unless I am missing something? I don't even see any use of Adobe Stock Images? And if there is, how would you know or not if they paid standard or extended or even Premium for that matter?
seems to me more of a spam promotion of the sound than a legitimate concern here?
2. I've attached an image of one of their videos that say's on the bottom of the description that the images are used from "Adobe Stock".
3. Adobe clearly states,
- Create more than 500,000 copies of the image in print, digital documents, software, or by broadcasting to more than 500,000 viewers.
4. I'm assuming they do not individually buy each image they use to remove the restriction with an enhanced/extended license as that would be ridiculously costly... which leads me to believe they are breaking Adobe's rules because I talked to a rep from Adobe personally and he said that in the case that they do only use the standard license, that it would seem that they are breaking the rules even though he couldn't look into it and tell me specifically at the time. Although he didn't enclose that information, he notified me that these guys have over 9 million subscribers and are clearing well over 1Million views per video so if they only have standard licenses for their images, they could potentially be risking a lot. But hey, I'm just looking out for Adobe. I never said I wasn't assuming, but I'm just making a safe bet here.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've confirmed with our product management team and there is no limitation on web impressions, only print runs.