MicrostockGroup

I just found one of my images in an advertisement for a branded produce in a national magazine with circulation 1,000,000+ which would seem to surpass any standard licensing usage.  I have not sold/received any extended licenses for this image.  Just so I don't jump onto any contributor relations person prematurely, what kind of licensing fee would I normally expect for that usage on iStockphoto, Shutterstock and Dreamstime?  A quick scan of my royalties does not show anything apart from standard licenses. 

On iStock, 100 credits http://www.istockphoto.com/license_contributor.php

Interesting difference between Shutterstock and iStockphoto regarding this matter.  Since the image used in the advertisement is available on these two sites (and no others) I contacted both about the lack of extended license for the image.  Both responded within a week.  iStockphoto offered no help other than the suggestion that I contact the party directly and a draft of letter to send them.  And that was from their 'Compliance Enforcement' department--What exactly would that department be doing if not what I was asking for? Shutterstock had an Account Service Manager contact with further questions about the issue and a statement that they would look into it. 

Shutterstock's response is by far more of what I would expect from a company about a legitimate issue such as this.

I do subscribe to a photographer's database called Adbase which lists magazines, companies and advertising agencies with their contact information, so I'll at least have a direction to start.

Given my other interaction and observation with iStockphoto, this does not surprise me.  What is surprising is that Getty would allow their lax attitude about collecting/enforcing royalties from extended licenses.

Did IS sell it or SS? How do you know which one if it's for sale at both and has sold on both?

This is always a problem since they don't tell us who the buyers are. Anonymous RF is a problem.

really?  ya think?  

I did contact both the publication and the product manufacturer.  It took a lengthy series of phone calls but I did finally get to the right person at the publisher who oversees the production of the advertorial that featured the image.  He stated that as a matter of course they secure extended rights for all images they purchase, but that this particular case was an oversight which was corrected.  The extended rights purchase was made retrospectively and appeared on my account this week.  Not the ideal way of going about it, but he did state that he was sensitive to the right of content creators and apologized for this error.  

I don't know if it was my effort or the effort of Shutterstock that prompted the extended license sale, but it was completed.

Regarding IS-- their response to my query was that they were not interested in pursuing the matter.  I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image.  It didn't even get to that point.  It was a flat out refusal.  And this was from their Compliance Enforcement Department.  I am assuming that person has a very easy job since they do not go after license abuse when brought to their attention.   Although in this particular case the image was sold thru Shutterstock, IS refused to take action before that issue was even brought up.  

Seriously, what is a contributor supposed to do when they find a license infringement?  You have to bring it up with the companies who are potentially involved.  Shutterstock proved that they are more responsive.  It is as simple as that.

'Regarding IS-- their response to my query was that they were not interested in pursuing the matter.  I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image.'

I'm pretty sure they know instantly if you are exclusive or not.

Unless in your initial contact you clearly stated the image was only available on IS even though you are clearly not exclusive (and we all know what 'exclusive' means in this context, so don't play silly games) I dont see the problem, and even then I don't see the problem.  Are they supposed to trust your word that even though you submit to X sites, this particular image is only on IS?

Whatever. 

Im not really sure where your from but theres no blind trust in business from where im from. thats why theres contracts.

Maybe.  I imagine though, that they'd want to spend time where they're assured of the 'exclusive' status of an image.  And I bet they have a lot of those to work on.

No, you must be hearing the voices in your head.  

At NO time did I obsfucate the image status.  I contacted the two websites that were selling the image.  I provided both the publication and the product name and manufacturer.  At the time I had no way of telling which had made the particular sale.  IS offered no further action on the situation and made no inquiries about the image.  Shutterstock asked for more information and ultimately referred the matter to their legal department.  In the meantime, I did my own research, still not knowing which site had made the particular sale.  I ultimately found the person at the publication that was in charge of creating the advertorial who indicated how the image was purchased and acknowledged that the extended rights were not purchased which was corrected.  Until that point I did not know which site made the sale.

What in that, to you, sounds uncooperative?

The point, made several times in this thread, is that IS offered no help.  The sale could have just as easily been made thru IS as the publication, I found out, uses IS more often than Shutterstock. The IS compliance officer offered no help though.  They didn't inquire if the image was available on other site.  I don't know if they offer more help to exclusive contributors, but they offered none to me.

What is the point in your accusation?  It is inaccurate and offensive.  What is your problem?

"At NO time did I obsfucate the image status.  I contacted the two websites that were selling the image. "

Did you tell them both that you were selling the image on multiple sites, or did you forget to mention that?

My apologies. I misread two responses as "they asked" and "I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image". After re-reading it looks like they just refused to provide support.

Unfortunately the end result is still the same. Because the image is on multiple sites if IS chased this they would have been wasting their time which I'm guessing is a major reason they decided not to pursue it.