MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Outsourcing Creation  (Read 9626 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 12, 2010, 16:31 »
0
Saw this posted on twitter.  I know people have asked about things like this.

http://bit.ly/ed3MP8


« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2010, 16:48 »
0
That's asking a bit much, in my opinion. If you can produce 100 quality illustrations, why not upload them yourself?

« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2010, 19:12 »
0
It wouldn't interest me, It doesn't make sense selling outright unless the price was much higher,
maybe if it worked out at a price equivalent to time taken x typical freelance rates per hour

« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2010, 19:36 »
0
Interesting that he has a bid of $471. I wonder what images which cost $4.71 each will look like.  :-\

helix7

« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2010, 11:13 »
0
And he wants mostly Complex level images.

Someone would have to be an idiot to do this. Creating and uploading them yourself and just selling each image once or twice would pay better.

« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2010, 11:20 »
0
This request asks for 3 illustrations for the purchaser to use to get approved on IS. Isn't that essentially fraudulent? The name on the account is asking for approval as an illustrator and what they're using to get approved, even if they own the copyright to the purchased items, isn't something they created. So later they upload work from other people - perhaps of differing standards?

If that sort of approach were allowed, you'd have to ditch the initial approval and go to a system where your account gets suspended if your approval rate drops below a certain percentage.

And I agree, if I had the ability to produce 100 15 credit vectors, why would I let someone else make money from them?

« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2010, 11:59 »
0
Amazing. I'm very surprised to see the amount of people begging for the job. One of the bidders refers to one of my images (the book/tree part) as his own work. Probably downloaded from Heroturko. Good luck trying to get it in though http://tinyurl.com/32osyej

To offer and accept such a deal is incredibly stupid for both parts.

« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2010, 12:02 »
0
You see a lot of inexpensive bids go through some of these job sites. It definitely makes you think about outsourcing stock or other work. I'd definitely be worried about putting my own name on something someone else created though. Basically, vouching that they didn't copy anything to create it. I could see hiring someone to make derivative versions of my own work, but I'm not sure about trusting them with something entirely new.

« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2010, 12:26 »
0
This doesn't make sense on so many levels that I'd assume there's something else going on __ a referral-harvesting scheme perhaps?

The offer is from an individual with 0 feedback; he names IS and even links direct to their pricing structure (rather than just copying it after having removed names, etc). Why start with 100 illustrations? Surely safer to start with 5 or 10 and possibly 'employ' more than one artist to test out who's images have the greatest sales potential.

Could it be a cheap contributor recruitment scheme by IS? They don't have to actually take up any offers but I bet a few more illustrators become aware of them and sign up to submit.

« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2010, 12:46 »
0
 Hi All,

 I had an Istock Exclusive call me just last week wanting to rep me through Istock and offer me 35%. I don't agree with this kind of business practice. Stay above board and follow the rules or you get sent back to square one and have to roll again.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2010, 13:00 »
0
And I only offered %25!

I thought you were all for banding together to get a higher percentage?  (off topic)

lisafx

« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2010, 13:01 »
0

 I had an Istock Exclusive call me just last week wanting to rep me through Istock and offer me 35%. I don't agree with this kind of business practice. Stay above board and follow the rules or you get sent back to square one and have to roll again.

Yikes!  What a can of worms that would open!  Looks like a great way to get him and you kicked off Istock and banned!  Don't blame you for steering clear... :o

rubyroo

« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2010, 13:04 »
0
Well if someone's already claiming Thomas's work (above) as their own in order to bid for this, I'd suggest the actual proposer steer well clear of the whole idea.

It's crazy madness to go down this road IMO.

Sorry to hear this is happening to you Thomas.   >:(

Microbius

« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2010, 13:15 »
0
I'm pretty sure this is just flat out against IStock policy.
Don't you have to tick a box saying the illustration is your own work (not only that you own the copyright but that you actually created it)?

« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2010, 13:37 »
0
I'm pretty sure this is just flat out against IStock policy.
Don't you have to tick a box saying the illustration is your own work (not only that you own the copyright but that you actually created it)?

Well, obviously it's allowed, otherwise, Yuri, Monkeybusiness and the rest wouldn't be allowed to upload.  Even Jonathan doesn't shoot his video.

« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2010, 16:45 »
0
 Hi Sean,

 I do shoot my own video, I used a group to help me learn but they do not work with me anymore also I am not exclusive, neither is Yuri or Monkey business. I don't think exclusives can represent others work under their name or am I wrong. Thanks for the help Sean.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2010, 17:12 »
0
I do shoot my own video, I used a group to help me learn but they do not work with me anymore also I am not exclusive, neither is Yuri or Monkey business. I don't think exclusives can represent others work under their name or am I wrong. Thanks for the help Sean.

Ah, well that's changed then, as far as your shooting.  I was under the impression you just directed.

I don't see the differences between exclusives and independents.  We all answer the same four questions on upload, yes?


« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2010, 19:28 »
0
Hi Sean,

 Thanks for the reply. Yes, we started out with a crew to show us the Red One  and cinematography without having to make the big investment and because of the learning curve. We made a deal that they would teach us video and we would teach them stock video and how to produce it at low costs, so you were right assuming that I don't shoot our video. I just haven't ever posted that we are on our own now.
 I am confused on one point, sorry for my not being clear. Are you saying that an Exclusive at Istock can represent other photographers than themselves? I thought this was an absolute no-no. I ask you because there isn't anyone here that knows the ins and outs of Istock better than you.

Thanks,
Jonathan

« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2010, 19:57 »
0
I don't know.  I'm saying that if the contributor holds copyright that I've not seen anything that stops them from uploading regardless of the source.  As we know exclusivity is has it's ambiguity problems occasionally.

« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2010, 00:14 »
0
 Hi Sean,

 Maybe you could ask someone at Istock this seems to be a very grey area. Thanks agin for the help. That goes for any exclusives that might know the answer. I must add that the person asking used the term Hypothetically when asking me, I still felt it was an inappropriate question without the person first knowing if it was even allowed with his agency before e-mailing another photographer, I would not start e-mailing people and ask such questions unless I understood how my agency would feel about it. It's not just about not breaking the rules or walking a thin line, it's about business integrity. They even asked me for my advice. I am not an exclusive and you would think they would have a better idea than me.
 The first question I would ask myself is " How would Istock feel about it " people may not like the changes they have made recently and might feel more justified in doing what is best for themselves but no one is twisting anyones arm to be an exclusive at Istock. If you choose that road you should have to play by their rules.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2010, 01:53 »
0
I'm pretty sure this is just flat out against IStock policy.
Don't you have to tick a box saying the illustration is your own work (not only that you own the copyright but that you actually created it)?

A simple contract transferring all rights to the images is all you need. Its sorta like a model release for second shooters, you release all rights to the material.

« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2010, 02:38 »
0
I'm pretty sure this is just flat out against IStock policy.
Don't you have to tick a box saying the illustration is your own work (not only that you own the copyright but that you actually created it)?

A simple contract transferring all rights to the images is all you need. Its sorta like a model release for second shooters, you release all rights to the material.
Correct.

« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2010, 19:26 »
0
Thanks CardMavirick and Aeonf,

 I appreciate the feedback that is what I thought, glad to get a clear answer on the subject. Do others agree with this point from Istock, I always thought so but it seems like we have mixed answers on here. Sean says he doesn't know and I would think he would be someone who would be sure. I guess I just want to make sure this is a either a no-no or a thumbs up.

Cheers,
Jonathan

« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2010, 21:12 »
0
Thanks CardMavirick and Aeonf,

 I appreciate the feedback that is what I thought, glad to get a clear answer on the subject. Do others agree with this point from Istock, I always thought so but it seems like we have mixed answers on here. Sean says he doesn't know and I would think he would be someone who would be sure. I guess I just want to make sure this is a either a no-no or a thumbs up.

Cheers,
Jonathan

It's not something I ever investigated.  I'm just making a best guess.

« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2010, 22:02 »
0
I'm betting that from a legal point of view, its probably best to setup a multi shooter outfit as a company (s-corp, LLC, Inc.) and then have all shooters (including the lead shooter) sign contracts transferring rights to the company, which the lead shooter would be the owner of. If the lead shooter ever needed to sell it off, this setup should, or at least could, make the rights issues very easy to figure out.

« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2010, 00:34 »
0
 I think that is a good approach Card Maverick but I am pretty sure from my conversations with Istock that you cannot do that if you are exclusive. I'll drop someone there a note and find out what the answer is and get back to those that are interested in what Istock have to say.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2010, 18:08 »
0
The link in the first post leads to a page that has been deleted.

Seems like somebody took action.


« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2010, 18:19 »
0
Hi Spike,

 Yea, that is interesting. I still haven't inquired but someone must not like the idea.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2010, 18:45 »
0
I would guess that running a company with several shooters would be ok but to upload your pics under someone else's name and take a commission would be like having two accounts which is not allowed at iStock.

helix7

« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2010, 23:15 »
0
I don't know.  I'm saying that if the contributor holds copyright that I've not seen anything that stops them from uploading regardless of the source.  As we know exclusivity is has it's ambiguity problems occasionally.

I'd bet that if yuri wanted to go exclusive, the fact that he's not the sole creator of his images would probably not be a barrier to getting the crown. Same probably goes for anyone else.

« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2010, 12:46 »
0
Hi Helix7,

 They still will not let anyone in as an exclusive that has RF work anywhere else, I have spoken directly to them several times about that subject and it has been made very clear they will not take on exclusives unless all their work is removed from all other RF sites, Macro or Micro. They would take Yuri but he would have to pull all his work from Macro and Micro RF that he is shooting or has shot. His RF work in Macro has longer contracts on them so he wouldn't be able to go exclusive for a very long time.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2010, 13:01 »
0
I'd bet that if yuri wanted to go exclusive, the fact that he's not the sole creator of his images would probably not be a barrier to getting the crown. Same probably goes for anyone else.

That's kind of how I always saw it. Ownership is ownership, regardless of creation methods. As long as you are not trying to game the system (intentionally or unintentionally), they probably won't have any issues.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3633 Views
Last post September 12, 2010, 07:47
by microstockphoto.co.uk
4 Replies
4876 Views
Last post April 18, 2013, 02:14
by jareso
3 Replies
3078 Views
Last post July 25, 2013, 03:14
by cascoly
10 Replies
2735 Views
Last post July 27, 2013, 08:14
by Oldhand
15 Replies
3249 Views
Last post September 29, 2023, 15:54
by FHphotography

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors