Author Topic: Exclusivity Denied! (Read 3670 times)

zorki · « **on:** January 04, 2010, 11:26 »

Not a big barrier to me going exclusive... they denied my application because of my personal flickr and photo.net. I can understand flickr, but photo.net??? I don't use either account that much, but it would be fairly simple to recreate the accounts with aliases so they couldn't find them... can someone tell me what the concern is with photo.net?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** January 04, 2010, 15:49 »

Probably this on the terms of use:
You also grant us a perpetual non-exclusive worldwide royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display your User Content on the Site and to promote the Site.

zorki · « **Reply #2 on:** January 04, 2010, 15:58 »

Wouldn't you know it... they found a 5 year old orphaned flickr account I set up! I can't figure out how to access it... now I have to email the flickr people and get the account disable... wish me luck with that!!!!

hqimages · « **Reply #3 on:** January 04, 2010, 16:28 »

I do find it strange if you're not offering downloads of your images from Flickr under the cc licence.. they don't allow you to display thumbs as part of your own photography portfolio? What if you had a web site with a gallery, not for download, but just for display, you can't display your own work??

alias · « **Reply #4 on:** January 04, 2010, 17:05 »

^ flickr is definitely allowed and lots of people have websites with galleries.

zorki · « **Reply #5 on:** January 04, 2010, 22:27 »

I thought it was overly restrictive. It was stuff I would never ever get past inspectors for stock work and it's only six images... Still nothing back from flickr yet. I might send the istock guys a note and see if they could look past this, but dealing with either of them through email is such a painful ordeal...

willie · « **Reply #6 on:** January 04, 2010, 22:59 »

Quote from: zorki on January 04, 2010, 22:27

I thought it was overly restrictive. It was stuff I would never ever get past inspectors for stock work and it's only six images... Still nothing back from flickr yet. I might send the istock guys a note and see if they could look past this, but dealing with either of them through email is such a painful ordeal...

yes, i do relate with you. i do find this a bit complicated too, all this retroactive skeletons in the closet syndrome. it's like blaming you for all the things you did as a child, that you never plan to forsee the future of becoming president . lol.
i find this fringing on absurdity, and we really didn't plan on becoming exclusive. who amongst us ever see this far in our crystal ball.
would it not be more realistic to say no more new images be freely distributed the moment you choose to be exclusive. much like being faithful to one woman or man when you marry?

i find this rather educating as well as hilarious.
remind me never to be exclusive , rofl.

chasmcn · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2010, 02:59 »

you learn something everyday,i didnt know havin a flickr account stops you going exclusive ,i post on flickr for fun not to sell .Must of the stuff on flickr is not stock usable , as this something to do with getty havin access to flickr accounts.

suemack · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2010, 03:06 »

Quote from: alias on January 04, 2010, 17:05

^ flickr is definitely allowed and lots of people have websites with galleries.

from the Photo.net tos
'You also grant us a perpetual non-exclusive worldwide royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display your User Content on the Site and to promote the Site'

Danicek · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2010, 06:00 »

Quote from: suemack on January 05, 2010, 03:06

Quote from: alias on January 04, 2010, 17:05
^ flickr is definitely allowed and lots of people have websites with galleries.

from the Photo.net tos
'You also grant us a perpetual non-exclusive worldwide royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display your User Content on the Site and to promote the Site'

This section of Photo.net TOS does not seem to have any impact on whether you can or cannot display your stuff on Flickr.

thesentinel · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2010, 06:20 »

Quote from: Danicek on January 05, 2010, 06:00

Quote from: suemack on January 05, 2010, 03:06
Quote from: alias on January 04, 2010, 17:05
^ flickr is definitely allowed and lots of people have websites with galleries.

from the Photo.net tos
'You also grant us a perpetual non-exclusive worldwide royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display your User Content on the Site and to promote the Site'

This section of Photo.net TOS does not seem to have any impact on whether you can or cannot display your stuff on Flickr.

But it probably does have relevance to the OP and iStock.

fullvalue · « **Reply #11 on:** January 05, 2010, 08:18 »

alias · « **Reply #12 on:** January 05, 2010, 09:16 »

Quote from: fullvalue on January 05, 2010, 08:18

Flickr accounts are OK as long as you set your permissions to "All Rights Reserved" I also watermark my images.

That is my understanding, that how the rights are set is the issue. The watermarking is optional I think but makes sense if you are posting anything bigger than a typical website size. Lots of IS Exclusives have collections at Model Mayhem too. Some people watermark there, some don't.

zorki · « **Reply #13 on:** January 05, 2010, 09:37 »

I got rid of my photo.net images, they were really old... not a big deal. It's all about how you set your flickr account. You can set it to no downloads, but apparently I didn't do that with this account. My problem is that it's an account I forgot about and can't access anymore. Six images just hanging out there that I can't access... Nothing from flickr support yet. This may take a couple of weeks.... argh...

zorki · « **Reply #14 on:** January 06, 2010, 12:55 »

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but it would be nice to have a list of websites that are not the obvious Microstock websites like pbase, photo.net or Flickr that could get you when you try to go exclusive... I couldn't find any such thing...

zorki · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2010, 16:18 »

OK, next wrinkle in my application... flickr got back to me with my orphaned account and I was able to disable it... whew... Then I went back to istock to resubmit my exclusivity application and bam! They want me to wait 90 days... what? I was able to disable those accounts in a matter of days... why the penalty??? I'm taking this to support, but this could really screw me out of a lot of royalty money...

zorki · « **Reply #16 on:** January 08, 2010, 10:20 »

Ha! Now they found an account of some guy with the same exact name! This is getting interesting...

zorki · « **Reply #17 on:** January 12, 2010, 13:20 »

Hey, final update... I became exclusive today... let the money roll in!

jsolie · « **Reply #18 on:** January 12, 2010, 14:50 »

Congrats! I hope it works out well for you.

zorki · « **Reply #19 on:** January 15, 2010, 14:25 »

I'm a silver canister, so it's nice seeing my payments almost double overnight!

willie · « **Reply #20 on:** January 15, 2010, 14:42 »

happy for you.
another bonus for being exclusive would be that you now only spend time uploading to IS. giving you more time to make more images instead of submitting to the other sites which may or may not be worth your expectations.

jsnover · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2010, 16:11 »

Quote from: zorki on January 15, 2010, 14:25

I'm a silver canister, so it's nice seeing my payments almost double overnight!

Math not your strong suit, eh?

crazychristina · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2010, 19:29 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 15, 2010, 16:11

Quote from: zorki on January 15, 2010, 14:25
I'm a silver canister, so it's nice seeing my payments almost double overnight!
Math not your strong suit, eh?

Exclusive images now sell at twice the price, with canister bonus on top of that.