Ideas for Exclusives

[wut]

Better just to quit exclusivity than look for a fight that could end up getting you sued for the return of commissions and thrown off the site.

If you're from some 3rd world country, that is not really cooperating with USA&Canada, or the western world in whole, you just couldn't care less, since no one can touch you, you can just wipe your ass with their lawsuits and enjoy the money. I'd do it in a heartbeat to such a company. I'd become exclusive at FT too

[Karimala]

It is scary that he is asking

I think he was bordering on the sarcastic. My experience of Zazzle is that if it beat your iStock earnings you must be earning very little on IS.
Anyone who suggests Zazzle as a realistic alternative to exclusivity at IS is being a little less than realistic.

I wasn't suggesting Zazzle or Alamy or any other site as an alternative to exclusivity.  What I'm suggesting is exclusives look for other ways to build income (that don't violate their contracts) while they remain exclusive as a means of softening the blow once they decide to go independent. 

[JPSDK]

My advice to the exclusives would be to read their contract carefully and see what it actually says.
A contract is an aggreement between two parties and BOTH should stick to it.

First thing to focus on is WHO are the legal entities involved? Have they changed, are the entities not the same anymore?
Second... There might be a breech or two from one of the entities, and if so, it makes the contract invalid, or at least negotiable.

In other words... contracts might not be so valid as you may presume...

So far, we've always had to agree to changes in the contract whenever a change has been made.
Of course the changes have always been in their favour, but we've always been made aware of it.
(Actually, I think the most recent was a default one, whereby if you didn't agree you were automatically opted in after four weeks or a month, but I can't remember what that was for)

oh yes. I forgot that. All these popups where you just click accepted without reading it. Thats a bugger.

[Karimala]

My advice to the exclusives would be to read their contract carefully and see what it actually says.
A contract is an aggreement between two parties and BOTH should stick to it.

First thing to focus on is WHO are the legal entities involved? Have they changed, are the entities not the same anymore?
Second... There might be a breech or two from one of the entities, and if so, it makes the contract invalid, or at least negotiable.

In other words... contracts might not be so valid as you may presume...

So far, we've always had to agree to changes in the contract whenever a change has been made.
Of course the changes have always been in their favour, but we've always been made aware of it.
(Actually, I think the most recent was a default one, whereby if you didn't agree you were automatically opted in after four weeks or a month, but I can't remember what that was for)

Just because we have always had to agree to changes in the "as-is" contract, it doesn't mean IS doesn't breach parts of the contract from time to time, which would invalidate the contract.  Contracts can be invalidated for a variety of reasons, including being overly lopsided in favor of one party over the other...and as we all know, IS's contract is very lopsided in its favor. 

[Sean Locke Photography]

You know we don't discuss such matters around here.   

You brought it up. If you made $5, I don't care.  If you made $500, I might care.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Better just to quit exclusivity than look for a fight that could end up getting you sued for the return of commissions and thrown off the site.

If you're from some 3rd world country, that is not really cooperating with USA&Canada, or the western world in whole, you just couldn't care less, since no one can touch you, you can just wipe your ass with their lawsuits and enjoy the money. I'd do it in a heartbeat to such a company. I'd become exclusive at FT too

Except that once they catch you they would throw you off their site so all your future iStock earnings go down the swannee. I don't really see what the problem would be with waiting 30 days to quit exclusivity if that is what people want to do. If the suggestion is just to cheat on exclusivity then legal debate is irrelevant.

[Karimala]

You know we don't discuss such matters around here.   

You brought it up. If you made $5, I don't care.  If you made $500, I might care.

Let's put it this way...I earned enough to make up for what I consider a serious drop in my income at IS.  It wasn't $500, but that's only because I went through some serious life upheavals last year that prevented me from working enough in order to get to $500.  But I have no doubt reaching $500 per month is only a matter of time.  Just gotta get the work done.   

[JPSDK]

Cheating is not a way to go.
And I would say, that the agencies should not do business with people in countries out of reach of the law.
That would surely benifit us contributers from the expensive western world.

But of course they do. Again they dont care as long as it pays. The rules are always to their advantage.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Cheating is not a way to go.
And I would say, that the agencies should not do business with people in countries out of reach of the law.
That would surely benifit us contributers from the expensive western world.

But of course they do. Again they dont care as long as it pays. The rules are always to their advantage.

So you think people might want to get out of the contract and to do so their best option is to raise a legal challenge, not just to quit exclusivity after 30 days? I think you must be a lawyer.

Why shouldn't agencies trade with people outside the reach of State of New York law, or wherever the contract says it is based? So that if the agency get sued, they can sue the artists under the indemnity clause? What other function does it server? The ability to delete an account is an effective enough way of enforcing the "law" against people who cheat.

I really don't understand the point you are making. Not dealing with people outside the US wouldn't (you don't really think they can enforce this in Italy or France, do you?) would not help artists at all. Most of the agency's sales market would disappear.

[luissantos84]

And I would say, that the agencies should not do business with people in countries out of reach of the law.

thats what 1800? it doesn�t make any sense at all, lets do that on FB, twitter, I really don�t see how far business can go without growing into other markets

are you from CUBA?

[wut]

Better just to quit exclusivity than look for a fight that could end up getting you sued for the return of commissions and thrown off the site.

If you're from some 3rd world country, that is not really cooperating with USA&Canada, or the western world in whole, you just couldn't care less, since no one can touch you, you can just wipe your ass with their lawsuits and enjoy the money. I'd do it in a heartbeat to such a company. I'd become exclusive at FT too

Except that once they catch you they would throw you off their site so all your future iStock earnings go down the swannee. I don't really see what the problem would be with waiting 30 days to quit exclusivity if that is what people want to do. If the suggestion is just to cheat on exclusivity then legal debate is irrelevant.

Indeed, the suggestion is cheating. The suggestion is getting double royalties as long as you can, because if you drop exclusivity, your income will drop below 15%. Let me explain; earnings halved because of the royalty percentage decrease, split in half again, because you're no longer favoured in search results, you're at 25% now, now you should take into account the current state of best match and you can, at best, split the percentage again and you're at 12.5%. If you have and sell a lot of V/A, your income will be 5% of the current. Now why wouldn't just everybody from the "you MOFOs from IS can't touch me" country try that?

[JPSDK]

Cheating is not a way to go.
And I would say, that the agencies should not do business with people in countries out of reach of the law.
That would surely benifit us contributers from the expensive western world.

But of course they do. Again they dont care as long as it pays. The rules are always to their advantage.

So you think people might want to get out of the contract and to do so their best option is to raise a legal challenge, not just to quit exclusivity after 30 days? I think you must be a lawyer.

Why shouldn't agencies trade with people outside the reach of State of New York law, or wherever the contract says it is based? So that if the agency get sued, they can sue the artists under the indemnity clause? What other function does it server? The ability to delete an account is an effective enough way of enforcing the "law" against people who cheat.

I really don't understand the point you are making. Not dealing with people outside the US wouldn't (you don't really think they can enforce this in Italy or France, do you?) would not help artists at all. Most of the agency's sales market would disappear.

First I think the exclusives should read their contract. I thought they were bound for 6 months, not 30 days. That makes a difference. 30 days is not important enough to take any specific action.

Next, I really have a problem of the agencies do business in all those out of reach countries. The number is shrinking and law begin to apply more internationally. I can understand why the agencies are happy to increase both their customer volume and their contributers volume. But I, as a contributor am only happy with increase in costumers, not competitors. And also there are certain costumers I do not like as much as the agencies. Eg the type of customer that downloads our pictures and put them up for sale or for free on a .ru site.
Then there is the unfair competition with contributers from "lawless" countries. We just heard how someone might cheat with exclusivity, and thats not the only thing. And its not fair if it cannot be persecuted. In my country, which is Denmark there is a rule of law, and lawsuits coming from abroad would certainly find the way to the offender. I find it problematic that the agencies do not do more to protect our copyright, and that they only take the benifits of the global market and leave the competition and expenses to us.

[ShadySue]

First I think the exclusives should read their contract. I thought they were bound for 6 months, not 30 days. That makes a difference. 30 days is not important enough to take any specific action.

The contract says 30 days.
If you leave excusivity then decide you want to be exclusive again, it's a 3-month wait then.

"How long am I committed?
If you get cold feet, you can cancel your Exclusive contract with 30 days notice, after providing us with a reason ("it's not you, it's me"). And we'll always take you back, with a 90 day reinstatement waiting period."

Of course, the reason would be, "It's not me, it's you."

[JPSDK]

ja, of course.
I was mistaken, thought it was 6 months and made a fuzz.
However its always a good thing to read those small letters....

Another thing, I might be wrong, I might be terribly mistaken...but I think the closed environment of the exclusives and the overly green pastures they have walked might have lulled some.... and maybe the whole agency, into a belief of excellency, that does not hold water... outside of the green pasture.

[microstockphoto.co.uk]

Idea  for exclusives while you're waiting 30 days: you can subscribe to Shutterstock, pass the test and even start uploading while staying opted out from sales - There's an option for it, I think it's perfectly legal, and your port on Shutterstock is invisible until you decide to opt in.

Of course, I'd be much obliged if you could use my affiliate link  

[Janeen]

I'm very interested in those templates for Zazzle also! I have a solid idea for a shop there. I'm also uploading photography to Fine Art America, which sounds like the best site out there to sell prints from (newly uploaded images auto-synching to Facebook wall...huge plus). I looked into Spoonflower, which sells fabric with your designs on it, but it sounds like it is extremely hard to make money there, because you have to proof each fabric swatch before it can be offered for sale, and that's not free.

My Fine Art America gallery:
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/janeen-wassink-searles.html?tab=artworkgalleries [nofollow]

[Karimala]

I'll work on the template instructions this weekend.  I have a meeting with an attorney today about a copyright infringement case I'm pursuing, and will likely be working on that all day.

[JPSDK]

kari...
What did he say?

[Karimala]

kari...
What did he say?

Don't know yet.  Four more hours until my appointment.  Check your PM.  Can't go into details in public.

[cathyslife]

I'll work on the template instructions this weekend.  I have a meeting with an attorney today about a copyright infringement case I'm pursuing, and will likely be working on that all day.

I'd be interested in these too. I have a zazzle store, but haven't done much with it because it takes a lifetime to create the products. Sounds like your method would make that process much simpler.

[RacePhoto]

I'll work on the template instructions this weekend.  I have a meeting with an attorney today about a copyright infringement case I'm pursuing, and will likely be working on that all day.

Thanks I can use them too as I want to market some basic products not a massive store. A couple of Templates would be dandy for what I want to do.

Hope the meeting worked out with the attorney.

[Karimala]

My appointment was postponed until Monday, so I worked up the instructions instead. 

http://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/customized-quick-create-templates-for-zazzle/msg239628