MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: my istockphoto illustration on a Redbubble t-shirt  (Read 891 times)

1 Member and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: December 12, 2017, 20:29 »
0
I found one of my illustrations being sold on a t-shirt on redbubble.com. I contacted redbubble. They said they removed the product and informed the contributor.

Then I get this email, supposedly from Getty Images, today. I can't decide if it is even legitimate. paragraph 8 of the istockphoto eula clearly states no "on demand" sites without an extended license. Do you all think someone is spoofing me? Or would Getty really send something like this email? It does not seem very professional or something a "legal team" member would write.

--------------------
NofrmNor--

 

 

Norma,
 

I am writing to you from the legal team at Getty Images. It has come to our attention that one of our customers has been contacted regarding an image they have used from your portfolio. Further details of this notice can be viewed below.
 

Our client has licensed the image in question and the use is within the terms of the Agreement that they have been granted. We ask that you please ensure that this false claim to our client ceases immediately.
 

Please confirm that this will be taken care of.


« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2017, 20:38 »
+2
Did you sell an extended license for the illustration in question? If not, I would NOT reply to the email from getty (in case it is bogus) but instead would start a new email to them, copying and pasting the content of the email, and explaining that you have not sold an ext license for that illustration and therefore the person at redbubble had no right to use it, etc.


Its possible the email is from the disgruntled redbubbler and not getty, which is why i suggested not replying to that. Or if istock getty has a support phone number, you could call too.

« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2017, 20:49 »
0
well I suppose Getty could have sold them an extended license but that is hard to believe. No one makes any money on redbubble. Not enough to by an extended license anyway.

« Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 02:17 »
+5
So,
You don't even know if an extended licence has been sold....
For wich reason you asked to redbubble to remove the product????

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 08:24 »
+2
well I suppose Getty could have sold them an extended license but that is hard to believe. No one makes any money on redbubble. Not enough to by an extended license anyway.

Hmmm, by your Getty contract, you're not supposed to contact any suspected infringer yourself.
"10c. You agree that iStock shall have the right to determine whether and to what extent to proceed against a licensee or other third party (an Infringer) for any violation of a license agreement or alleged infringement of any other of your rights."
They have in the past said that people can have their contract terminated for contacting suspected infringers directly.

And, as Derby says, you don't even know that they didn't buy an extended license, you're just 'assuming' that?
There have been in the past murmurings (I don't know how official) that some people come to a deal with various of the agencies whereby they only pay the EL if something actually sells, so they can offer for sale without having bought an EL. iS was one of the agencies in the murmurings. But as I say, I'm not sure if that was ever confirmed.

Also with Getty some buyers have up to 3 months to pay, so when you fill in the infringement form, you have to establish that the suspected misuse has been going on for over three months. Even if you're indie, your files are available to Premium Access buyers.

I suspect if Getty had contacted you, their tone would have been sharper.
I wouldn't mention the email you received, as that would be an admission that you contacted them directly, but you could contact them to ask whether an appropriate licence was purchased for the file. I assume you're either iS exclusive or you don't have that file for sale elsewhere?

« Reply #5 on: Yesterday at 10:25 »
+4
This is exactly why i got out of IS and SS a year ago. This isn't even "stock" - we need a new name for it. And not a nice one.

« Reply #6 on: Yesterday at 10:35 »
0
Originally I had no idea the illustration was from istockphoto. I am not exclusive to istockphoto. I asked redbubble to check on the image because print on demand is not allowed in the standard licenses of the several sites I contribute to and through my own EULA. I assumed redbubble would ask the seller if they had an extended license, and redbubble may have done just that.

I got this odd email from supposed Getty out of the blue. I have no idea how or why they would even know I was the one who contacted redbubble.

« Reply #7 on: Yesterday at 10:47 »
+1
I got this email this morning. Which sounds similar to what you were saying Sue.

I also wanted to delete some items from my portfolio and Getty will not allow you do that either, evidently.

Maybe time to leave. Will they make it hard for me to just pull the portfolio all together?

--------------
Hi Norma,
 

Thanks for the reply.
 

It appears that you are only looking at the terms of one of our license  agreements. We offer this  this content multiple platforms such as iStock, Thinkstock and Getty Images. According to the Artist Supply Agreement which you accepted, we are permitted to offer this content on all of our platforms. We have a custom agreement in place with this client which allows for this use.
 

Should you wish to discuss the agreement which you have accepted in further detail, please feel free to reach out to our contributor relations team for more details.
 

Please confirm you will cease this erroneous claim against our client.

----------------

« Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 11:08 »
+2
I got this email this morning. Which sounds similar to what you were saying Sue.

I also wanted to delete some items from my portfolio and Getty will not allow you do that either, evidently.

Maybe time to leave. Will they make it hard for me to just pull the portfolio all together?

--------------
Hi Norma,
 

Thanks for the reply.
 

It appears that you are only looking at the terms of one of our license  agreements. We offer this  this content multiple platforms such as iStock, Thinkstock and Getty Images. According to the Artist Supply Agreement which you accepted, we are permitted to offer this content on all of our platforms. We have a custom agreement in place with this client which allows for this use.
 

Should you wish to discuss the agreement which you have accepted in further detail, please feel free to reach out to our contributor relations team for more details.
 

Please confirm you will cease this erroneous claim against our client.

----------------

Since it takes months to see sales, you wouldn't know if there was a license. No you can't remove items by choice only all by deactivating your account. iStock and Getty are not your friend. Too bad they didn't explain the license, just threat to you.

« Reply #9 on: Yesterday at 11:12 »
0
how do you deactivate your account?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: Yesterday at 11:13 »
0
how do you deactivate your account?
You can deactivate individual files or close your account by contacting their support via their website.

« Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 11:31 »
0
I tried to deactivate individual files and they told me no. They said they do not allow contributors to deactivate individual files because it makes for a bad client experience.

« Reply #12 on: Yesterday at 11:43 »
+9
I tried to deactivate individual files and they told me no. They said they do not allow contributors to deactivate individual files because it makes for a bad client experience.

They should add to that message that a bad contributor experience is perfectly acceptable, just in case there are still people out there who don't know.

« Reply #13 on: Yesterday at 13:33 »
+3
We have a custom agreement in place with this client which allows for this use.

So you agreed to their regular agreements. How did you agree to their custom agreement? I suspect you didn't but to cover their ass, they just say they have a custom agreement? I bailed from istock a long time ago for this kind of nonsense. Unless you are raking in money from them, sounds like your best course is to bail.

« Reply #14 on: Yesterday at 13:40 »
+2
By the way, when I was still at istock, I happened across one of my images in Good Housekeeping magazine. The circulation of that mag would have required them purchasing an extended license. There was an attribution line, so I knew the image came from istock. Only I had not received an ext license payment for that image. I called them out on it. This might have been before Getty and the "custom license bull$hit" line because they did end up making it right, but if I hadn't seen the magazine (I hardly ever bought GH), I never would have known. I suspect that goes on a lot. Sounds like it still is, only they have come up with the custom license nonsense.

« Reply #15 on: Yesterday at 14:04 »
+4
I'm not a fan of custom agreements that contributors aren't allowed to know the terms of, but it's not just iStock and Getty doing that - Shutterstock and Adobe Stock also do (probably others, but I don't know a full list).

For example, when we get a "Single and Other Download" license from SS with a $120/$90/$75/etc royalty we have no knowledge of what was included in that license. There was a "discussion" about that and the team licensing when these first came about and SS will only talk generally about the sorts of things that might be included. I think we can be sure that no transfer of copyright occurs because that's specifically noted in the Artist Supply Agreement (that it stays with us).

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/single-image-no-longer-in-trial-mode/msg257232/#msg257232

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/changes-to-the-tos-at-shutterstock/msg346281/#msg346281

Obviously no one has to contribute to any agency they don't want to support, but I'm not sure what the point would be in leaving only one of the agencies that has secret licensing deals while staying at others. If I were to find something egregious that an agency had actually done - for instance, if resale rights were granted with one of these secret licenses, I would probably leave an agency unless they offered an opt out for all such deals. Absent any evidence of scammy actual behavior (versus the worry about it because the license terms are secret), I've decided I can live with this, even though I don't like it. YMMV
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 14:31 by Jo Ann Snover »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: Yesterday at 14:08 »
+1
...only they have come up with the custom license nonsense.
Ah, I see that Jo Ann has beaten me, I was going to give the example of the 'special arrangement' SS have come to re sales to a UK tabloid, where they pay an enhanced licence, but not as much as it 'should' be with the circulation.
Alamy also have it in their contract that we agree that they can sell files according to any arrangements they make.
I'm sure they (nearly) all do it, but the wording is probably such that you don't imagine the things they will be able to do.


« Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 17:25 »
0
snip
Obviously no one has to contribute to any agency they don't want to support, but I'm not sure what the point would be in leaving only one of the agencies that has secret licensing deals while staying at others. If I were to find something egregious that an agency had actually done - for instance, if resale rights were granted with one of these secret licenses, I would probably leave an agency unless they offered an opt out for all such deals. Absent any evidence of scammy actual behavior (versus the worry about it because the license terms are secret), I've decided I can live with this, even though I don't like it. YMMV


Well I am down to two agencies, and yes, I feel the same. (Actual scam vs. worry.)

« Reply #18 on: Today at 08:39 »
0
my line has been "print on demand" and the other "rule" that really bothers me is I can not ask them to take certain pieces down. I feel like this is my copyrighted work and I should be allowed to determine what pieces I want in my protfolio and which ones I do not.

« Reply #19 on: Today at 08:43 »
0
...instead would start a new email to them, copying and pasting the content of the email, and explaining that you have not sold an ext license for that illustration and therefore the person at redbubble had no right to use it, etc....

BTW I did take this advice and write Getty directly through the ESP site. Now I am of course in a long cue but it will be interesting to see what they say.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2328 Views
Last post January 26, 2009, 16:00
by gbcimages
7 Replies
3260 Views
Last post February 16, 2011, 11:21
by Morphart
1 Replies
912 Views
Last post July 03, 2012, 03:49
by jm
1 Replies
807 Views
Last post April 23, 2013, 08:09
by Microbius
13 Replies
3953 Views
Last post May 02, 2015, 03:55
by lucato

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors