MicrostockGroup

I just found a US company with about 300 stores nationwide selling a product that features my image, like a mousepad with an image printed on it.  The image is obviously what is selling the product.  As far as I can tell there was no EL purchased for it.  Would it be worth it to talk to a lawyer about seeking damages?  Anyone else dealt with this kind of thing before?

Ok that's what I figured.  I wanted to ask here first because if they handle it I won't see anything more than the EL price and I have no idea if the damages could be much higher.

You should contact IS first (gathering from the other posts, I'm assuming you're exclusive?).  I just read a sticky forum post the other day that said contributors are forbidden from contacting IS's customers about copyright infringements or improper licensing. 

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330708&page=1

Read the second to last paragraph:



I'm interpreting that to mean "forbidden unless you want your account terminated."

And did they also mention in there that they want to handle it themselves because if there are thousands to be made in penalties for copyright infringement off of a company, istock wants to be able to get 99% of that money, while paying the contributor the cost of the EL license only? 

I found an image of mine being used in a major magazine and no EL was purchased for it...if any $ penalty was imposed on the customer, I never saw any of it...I got the price of the EL, which was about $33.00. And what if I had never seen the magazine? THAT'S why contributors are taking matters into their own hands! istock sure isn't looking out for contributors, especially non-exclusives (who I believe will be gone soon from istock anyway).

IS will try to get the EL if it was purchased there.  There will be no damages.

10.c says:
"The Supplier agrees that iStockphoto 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 other rights of the Supplier."

That's pretty funny.

I think the split has to be according to the usual percentage, so they would take 85% of the wealth you created. As normal.

It says for Nons that they will only peruse cases where the watermark is present. This is a no brainer, because when someone has the same image on 25 sites, and 200 partners, and then wants IS to chase people for illegal use, they have no way of knowing where the image came from.

It may suck, which is true, but no agency will waste their time chasing an independent sale, with no way of knowing who actually sold it.

I believe (and may be wrong) that Indemnity has to do with us holding IS responsible, not the cost of infringement cases. Yes, if we pursue someone and collect, IS wants a bite of that money according to out compensation agreement. WHAT? We do all the work and they want a share. That also sucks!

The option is, don't sell there, which when I've said before "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" was offensive and a Pollyanna approach. Hey, guess what, all the writing and hand wringing here, won't change the contract. It is what it is.

The only way people will ever get anything changed is for a unified revolt of major sellers, pulling their files from IS and that's not going to happen, is it?

So we are enjoying this debate and discussion which has no fruit or gain for anyone of us.