MicrostockGroup

I've never bothered with 123 but the Agreement looks OK to me. All they're saying is that if you upload images that break the rules then, if there is a subsequent cost, you may be liable. I don't see any problem with the photographer having to take responsibility for what they upload. If that worries you then just make sure you have indemnity insurance.

That's the way I understand it too.

Yes here it is, the exclusive's agreement from iStock:

"Indemnity
You agree to indemnify, defend and hold iStockphoto and its affiliates, and their respective directors, officers, employees, shareholders, agents and licensees of Exclusive Content (collectively, the "iStockphoto Parties") harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal fees on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by any iStockphoto Party as a result of or in connection with: (i) any use or alleged use of the Site or provision of Content under your Member Name by any person, whether or not authorized by you; (ii) or resulting from any communication made or Content uploaded under your Member Name; (iii) any breach by you of this Agreement; or (iv) any claim threatened or asserted against any iStockphoto Party to the extent such claim is based upon a contention that any of the Exclusive Content used within the scope of this Agreement infringes any copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, right of privacy, right of publicity or other intellectual or other property rights of any third party.
iStockphoto reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with iStockphoto's defense of such claim."

It's probably riskier and more draconian than the 123 one, given that iStock offers to indemnify buyers against legal action, thus seemingly making you liable for an action against a buyer that iStock may not want to bother contesting.

There have been cases that completely fall into very gray areas as well.

For example, many photographers seem to think that fair use means "as long as I take this image in a public place, it's OK.", or when a building is built, maintained and paid for by taxpayers' money, so it doesn't require an Property Release.

We'll, we have had several authorities coming to us, claiming that a certain site, building, etc. is within their trust and hence, want to sue etc. etc. During that time, who will bear the responsibility and brunt of any legal action?

So do have a thought before you write to us and telling us that such and such a place doesn't require an MR. Have you checked? It's YOUR responsibility.....

Alex.

So far, I have not heard of anybody suffering as a result of these clauses. There are many millions of images on sale and scores of thousands of photographers selling stuff, so the risk seems to be minuscule. There's no doubt, though, that if anybody was caught up in a case the consequences could be devastating.

I think Istock has said it will take responsibility for paying out on its guarantee to buyers that images are legal. But it looks to me as if there is one contract (for buyers) saying "if there are problems with an image we will give you thousands of dollars" and another contract for sellers saying "if we pay anything out because of your images you will have to foot the bill".

Of course, some old iStockers may feel that iStock is too honorable to break a forum promise just because it seems to have the legal right to do something nasty. And there may be others who don't have quite so much faith in the company.

Anyway, so far there is no word of this ever being triggered.

Hi trekandshoot,

You may refer to the quote below for property release issue.

Have a nice day.


Cheers,
Anglee

Thank you, Alex.


It is confusing, over at iStock.

No matter where I submit, I always do my part to stay within the rules and hope for the best. Though it seems like there are gray areas (as Alex pointed out) that may catch anyone by surprise, if we aren't careful. That said, I'm glad that generally, there aren't myriad stories of big lawsuits and suffering as a result of these clauses.


Yes, thanks for the list. That is quite helpful.