Extended License royalties from Micros?

gostwyck

« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2011, 11:00 »

#link

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 20, 2011, 08:21

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.

Why would IS be "wasting their time" because the image is on 'multiple sites' (actually just 2) but SS do not consider that to be a waste of their time? It seems to me from what I've read on other forum threads that IS can barely be bothered to lift a finger even for their exclusive contributors.

In total contrast SS have chased similar causes, got the money from the buyers (including on a couple of occasions a 'fine') and passed on the value of the EL + fine to the contributors ... without the contributors even being aware of the inappropriate use. I've had the money for 5 EL's that way.


	Ignore \| Logged

PaulieWalnuts

« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2011, 11:21 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on March 20, 2011, 11:00

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 20, 2011, 08:21

Why would IS be "wasting their time" because the image is on 'multiple sites' (actually just 2) but Shutterstock do not consider that to be a waste of their time? It seems to me from what I've read on other forum threads that IS can barely be bothered to lift a finger even for their exclusive contributors.

In total contrast Shutterstock have chased similar causes, got the money from the buyers (including on a couple of occasions a 'fine') and passed on the value of the EL + fine to the contributors ... without the contributors even being aware of the inappropriate use. I've had the money for 5 EL's that way.

Because it may cost IS more to pursue the infringement than what they would recover from it and if the image is on 10 or 20 sites the odds it was purchased from them is fairly slim. And again, in this case if they assigned a customer service rep to spend a day or even few days chasing this they would have lost money because they didn't even sell the image.

I'm not saying I agree with the level of support provided but from a business standpoint this is why I'm guessing they decided not to pursue it. Maybe IS doesn't care. Maybe Shutterstock can profitably recover infringements. Or maybe it's not profitable and Shutterstock is willing to lose money to maintain good contributor relations. Who knows...


« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 11:42 by PaulieWalnuts »	Ignore \| Logged

danhowl

« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2011, 12:56 »

#link

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 20, 2011, 11:21

Thanks for the acknowledgement of the misread. And I think you are right--IS is making a judgement call, as is SS. I reported, I think fairly, about the differences in response. As I said earlier, I believed that there was an equal chance that it came from one site or the other. As it turned out, this is one of the biggest publishers in the US and uses both sites--I assume extensively. I would guess they both have customer service people assigned to the account and it would have taken at most a couple of phone calls, not days of time.

What is apparent is that the two sites have different policies. Personally, I thought it was important to report the difference.


	Ignore \| Logged

Phil

« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2011, 15:16 »

#link

my best selling image on IS has made me over $2000, So Istock has made over $8000 on this image alone. I would think that it was justified that I would get some level of support if required.


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2011, 15:21 »

#link

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 20, 2011, 11:21

No, that's not why they didn't pursue it. Not sure if you saw my post, but I had a case of misuse where the buyer ADMITTED they got the image from Istock. They had a corporate account, and all the stock images on their TV show and website were from Istock. Istock still didn't pursue it AT ALL. Never heard back from them after the form reply to my initial inquiry. I had to pay a lawyer $1,100 out of my own pocket to resolve the issue.

I have seen similar posts from exclusives. Unless you are a TOP selling exclusive or an admin of some sort at Istock, you are SOL in the case of misuse of your images. Sorry to dispel any lingering illusions about Istock's level of commitment to enforcing their licenses.


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2011, 15:45 »

#link

Quote from: lisafx on March 20, 2011, 15:21

[snip important information]
I have seen similar posts from exclusives. Unless you are a TOP selling exclusive or an admin of some sort at Istock, you are SOL in the case of misuse of your images. Sorry to dispel any lingering illusions about Istock's level of commitment to enforcing their licenses.

From the Exclusive ASA starting halfway through point 7b:
"#

NOTICE: You acknowledge that the Exclusive Content you provide pursuant to this Agreement that becomes Accepted Exclusive Content may be purchased or licensed by members of the Site or distribution partner sites with the intention that they will adhere to the terms of the Content License Agreement or any distribution partner license agreement. Where iStockphoto becomes aware of the breach of a license agreement by a user of Exclusive Content, it agrees that it will take initial steps in accordance with its usual business practices for the exclusivity program to request that the offending party refrain from its prohibited use of such Exclusive Content."
From what I've heard, that is a cease and desist, which might be reasonable if it's an online use, but not much consolation if something has gone out in print.
iStockphoto will use commercial efforts to further assist in the protection of your intellectual property rights, at your request and expense.
# Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the exigencies of the stock photography business and the prevalence of royalty-free content, iStockphoto cannot take responsibility for the compliance by purchasers and licensees of the terms of such agreements. Accordingly, you acknowledge and agree to the possibility of Exclusive Content being used in a manner that is not contemplated in this Agreement or the Content License Agreement or any distribution partner license agreement, and you agree that notwithstanding any rights you may have to pursue the licensees of such Exclusive Content at law, iStockphoto shall have no liability to you or any person claiming through you for any breach by a licensee of the terms of any agreement respecting Accepted Exclusive Content. "


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Extended License royalties from Micros?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results