MicrostockGroup

More and more often I see my photos in advertisements in the newspaper, or a model will tell me that so and so saw them in the Edmonton Journal, or the Saskatoon Star Phoenix ...  I bet most of you have received these phone calls or opened up the paper yourself and seen your work.

So, last week a photo of mine appeared in a small paper in an advertisement for a huge name in the agricultural industry.   The newspaper is small with a circulation of only 59,000 so all is on the up and up. 

BUT, I simply can't believe that a huge international company like this would pick one tiny little market to place an ad one time in a little tiny newspaper.  I'm speculating it is a much, much bigger campaign. 

This particular photo has sold a few hundred times, but I just checked and there has never been an EL. 

So, as artists - are we hurting our industry if we shrug this off or should we individually perform audits in these situations? 

First - as I said, I'm only speculating that the photo has been used in more than one publication, but there is a high probability that it has been used on a US/Canada campaign.

Number of copies:  am I right about usage, a photo can be printed up to 500,000 times (DT/IS) and then requires and EL.  That is a combined number isn't it, not a per publication figure?

If we want to run a little audit, what do we do in this case?  Do you phone the marketing department, the legal department, or the division that ran the ad? 

I have to say, that in times like this - exclusivity would sure make things easier!  Do you start the phone call with "I'm performing an audit on my distributors and would like to know which agency you purchased _______ from".  Obviously I can't point my finger in this case and say "you didn't buy an EL", because hey - maybe they didn't even need one.

Anyone have experience with this?

I can't say I have what it takes to follow up on this, (is it worth it for 20 or 28 bucks?) but part of me thinks we need to educate the buyers and owe it to each other to make sure licenses are properly purchased.

Thoughts?

Exclusivity wouldn't help me because the only site worth going exclusive with is istock and they sell far less EL's than SS and FT.  I do wish the sites would tighten the licence and make designers buy EL's more frequently.

There have been a few times when I have seen one of my photos and I am not sure if the buyer should of paid for an EL.  I am pleased to see that twice SS have taken legal action and paid me when a buyer has failed to purchase an EL.

If we sometimes lose money from this, I wonder how much it is costing the sites?  They should all do more to make sure the buyer purchases an appropriate license.

If that is true, who was the idiot that made these rules?  So they can buy a photo, make an ad with it, put in on billboards around the world and run it in every single newspaper for infinity?  Seems a little wacked doesn't it?  A single share in their publically traded company is worth more than the photo they are using unrestricted in their marketing right now?

Am I reading this wrong - wouldn't a print ad fall under this:

Istock:
5. Excess Reproduction Run
In the event you contravene subparagraph 4(a)(xiii) above without purchasing an Extended License, you further agree to notify iStockphoto in the event that you (or a combination of you and others involved with you) reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content in excess of 500,000 times. Such disclosure notice must be sent to iStockphoto each and every month after which the Content, or an element of the Content, has been reproduced in aggregate over the term of this Agreement in excess of 500,000 times. Each such notice must contain the number of reproductions made in any particular month, provided however the first such notice will only be require disclosure of those reproductions which are in excess of 500,000. iStockphoto shall invoice you for the fees associated with such excess use and you agree to pay such invoice within 30 days of receipt.

There is no paragraph 4(a)(xiii) but paragraph 4(a)8 says  (...you may not...)
8.to the extent that source code is contained within the Content, reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble any part of such source code;

Are they not reproducing content in a print ad?

At Fotolia there is no limitation for the number of prints at all.

I think the point is that the buyers would have no problems paying a more reasonable fee for this usage and I can't understand why the sites don't charge more.  We a losing out but so are the sites.  The prices for pay per download have gone up a lot in the past few years but EL's should be required more often and are sometimes far too cheap.

They don't charge more because it's called microstock and it's supposed to be cheap. You can always sell your best stuff Rights Managed (RM) to get compensated properly (that's what I do).

I've often wondered about it this way...

  for the sake of argument,  a 33 cent buy gives you 500k prints... so to reach a million legitimately,  they spend another 33 cents...

it's happened to everyone... a certain picture at the same agency sells 3 or 4 times a day.  I've always suspected the above senario..   a cheap way to avoid paying for and EL... spend 33 cents four times and make 2 million prints in four legitimate batches....
or am i wrong?  set me straight.  =tom


p.s.  agree with the comment "thanks to SS who searches out this crap and makes it right"...  they just sent me mail on that too a couple weeks ago.  Thank you SS!!

I doubt this works legally this way. In my opinion, you coul buy two o three rf licenses instead of a multiseat license, but not two rf ordinary licenses for an one million run. That's, at least what I understand reading the TOS.