iStock Exclusive Loophole

[Evty]

I've been a vector contributor at iStock for years now. I'd like to test the waters but I don't want to lose my exclusivity status. Here is the thing I'm thinking. All of my iStock work is credited to me as an individual. All royalties are paid to in my legal name as well. Could I, as an individual, sell exclusive vectors through iStock while an independent business i own creates and sells royalty free vectors through other sites? Would this violate the exclusivity terms?

[MichaelJayFoto]

I've been a vector contributor at iStock for years now. I'd like to test the waters but I don't want to lose my exclusivity status. Here is the thing I'm thinking. All of my iStock work is credited to me as an individual. All royalties are paid to in my legal name as well. Could I, as an individual, sell exclusive vectors through iStock while an independent business i own creates and sells royalty free vectors through other sites? Would this violate the exclusivity terms?

If you have a look at the Exclusive Artist Supply Agreement, there is a number of things you are allowed to do as an exclusive listed in section 2. a. One of the statements is:

"Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity,"

As you can read Jo Ann Snover doesn't remember it correctly: You are allowed to work for hire and sell your works directly to others but not if they are going to resell or license them. So you you can not provide content to anyone else if that content is going to be put up as stock somewhere, no matter if you own that other entity or not.

If you want to explore the world outside of iStock, I would say as a vector artist your best bet is to move into the world of pixel based illustrations or maybe 3D. Images that are being saved and sold as JPG. Because that is in fact a possibility: Stay exclusive with your vector work but sell everything that is counted as a "photo" on iStock on other places as a non-exclusive.

But again, it's a thin line. You can not just take your EPS (or AI) files and save them as JPG. In some way they need to be different enough to classify them as JPG files.

[tickstock]

Just go nonexclusive you can go back to exclusive in a few months if you choose.  It seems ethically wrong to me to try to cheat and is it worth getting banned altogether?

[Shelma1]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

[PixelBytes]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

Sorry if this sounds preachy, but aren't ethics an individual thing?  Should Istock lack of ethics effect my ethics or your ethics? 

[tickstock]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

[Shelma1]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

[tickstock]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

[Shelma1]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

[tickstock]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

[Shelma1]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?

[tickstock]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?

If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person.  iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business.  Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.

[Shelma1]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?

If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person.  iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business.  Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.

If you're OK with skirting the boundaries of ethics by doing business with a company that offers sweetheart deals and breaks the law, don't chastise others for seeing what they're doing and looking for ways to skirt around things as well.

You've drawn an arbitrary line that stops exactly where you personally feel comfortable with questionable ethics and illegality as long as it makes you money, but still feel entitled to climb up on your high horse.

[tickstock]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?

If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person.  iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business.  Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.

If you're OK with skirting the boundaries of ethics by doing business with a company that offers sweetheart deals and breaks the law, don't chastise others for seeing what they're doing and looking for ways to skirt around things as well.

You've drawn an arbitrary line that stops exactly where you personally feel comfortable with questionable ethics and illegality as long as it makes you money, but still feel entitled to climb up on your high horse.

The line I'm drawing is nowhere near arbitrary.  I'm saying committing immoral and illegal actions by a person is wrong, even if you're committing them against someone or some business you see as immoral or doing something illegal.  Just because someone might think a company is immoral and doing illegal things doesn't mean they should be excused from stealing from them or defrauding the company.  It's a clear bright line and I'm honestly surprised that this a point that needs arguing, it should be clear to everyone here.

You aren't going to persuade me that defrauding a company and buyers is ok and I'm not going to persuade you that it's wrong so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Pixart]

We can't forget that Istock is the most ethical company on the planet either.  They would never enter into an agreement with you and then reduce your royalties. And they would never enter into an agreement with you to sell your art on their site and then drop the price and sell as subscription elsewhere.

[tickstock]

We can't forget that Istock is the most ethical company on the planet either.  They would never enter into an agreement with you and then reduce your royalties. And they would never enter into an agreement with you to sell your art on their site and then drop the price and sell as subscription elsewhere.

And you can leave whenever you see fit.  Defrauding the company and buyers should never be your reaction.  I hope you can agree with that.

[gbalex]

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?

If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person.  iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business.  Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.

If you're OK with skirting the boundaries of ethics by doing business with a company that offers sweetheart deals and breaks the law, don't chastise others for seeing what they're doing and looking for ways to skirt around things as well.

You've drawn an arbitrary line that stops exactly where you personally feel comfortable with questionable ethics and illegality as long as it makes you money, but still feel entitled to climb up on your high horse.

Confusing conversation considering that you shelma1 are still doing business and making money from such a despicable company.

[Pixart]

I do agree Tickstock.  It just drives me mad that we abide to an agreement and they do whatever, whenever they want.  Because they can.

[PixelBytes]

Confusing conversation considering that you shelma1 are still doing business and making money from such a despicable company.

I am still doing business with this despicable company too.  I think majority of us are.  But that doesn't excuse us to do unethical actions.  Others' lack of ethics are no excuse for our own. 

[Shelma1]

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

[tickstock]

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

Like I said you won't convince me that it's ok to defraud buyers or a company, no matter how bad you see them (obviously it can't be that bad or you wouldn't be paying them 85% to license your work).  It's wrong, period.

[Shelma1]

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

Like I said you won't convince me that it's ok to defraud buyers or a company, no matter how bad you see them (obviously it can't be that bad or you wouldn't be paying them 85% to license your work).  It's wrong, period.

So you think iStock is wrong for defrauding buyers. Ok, then. Great.

[gbalex]

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

It is your double standards that are confusing.

"Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?"

As for the original question, there is no grey area when it comes to right or wrong.

It is like saying because my wife does not clean the house the way I think she ought to; it is okay for me to cheat on her because she deserves to be punished for her infractions.

[Shelma1]

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

It is your double standards that are confusing.

"Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?"

As for the original question, there is no grey area when it comes to right or wrong.

It is like saying because my wife does not clean the house the way I think she ought to; it is okay for me to cheat on her because she deserves to be punished for her infractions.

iS created a legal loophole for some contributors to get the benefits of exclusivity while also contributing to other sites. The OP is asking about the possibilty of a similar loophole that would allow him or her to act the same way as the contributors who benefit from iStock's special loophole. Who's wrong?