MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 70180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« on: January 10, 2013, 08:17 »
0


Microbius

« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2013, 08:26 »
+3
I am finding this really upsetting and my images aren't even being given away!

My sympathies to those who have suddenly found that they are in bed with a company prepared to exploit those promotional contract terms to the max.

"Oh it's okay we would never take advantage of the clause to do give all your images away, it's just legalese, tick the box and move on." A few months down the line and you have no control over your work. Reminds me of the stuff Facebook keeps trying to sneak into their terms of service.
So much for starting afresh.

ETA turned out they were being given away after all
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 05:57 by Microbius »

« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2013, 09:07 »
+6
To me, this is the demonstration of something I've been thinking lately.

Agencies believe the content appears magically in their servers and contributors are noisy users of the service and it would be great if they just simply disappeared.

Agencies and their CEOs/Executives have stopped valuing content and contributors long time ago.

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2013, 09:17 »
+2
Well, at least iStockLawyer was speaking the truth when he said re the original Microsoft deal:
"Would we do this same deal now? No, not in this way. "
Clearly not. In the original 2007 deal, contributors were paid.
Now they are not paid.
Nice one, legalman. You're treating our work like wholly owned content.

« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2013, 09:23 »
+2
If you haven't assumed the position as an iStock exclusive its time you now do. Bend over and hold your ankles as we have more deals coming your way :-)

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2013, 10:05 »
0
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.

« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2013, 10:08 »
0
t
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.

there are non exclusive images as well

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2013, 10:10 »
+2
Two words:  Class Action.

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2013, 10:10 »
+1
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.
It's death by a thousand cuts.

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2013, 10:12 »
+1
Two words:  Class Action.
I think moving on I will stick to UK agencies. At least then I'll know where I stand without having to resort to international lawyers.
Here we have legally 'unfair contracts', which can be rendered null and void. I have no idea if our ASA would be an unfair contract (the notion that they can rake in money giving away our stock files, and we can't give away even non-stock files freely), and I have no idea if such a concept exists in Canadian or US law.

« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2013, 10:21 »
+1
hmmm perhaps we should all have read this part of the artist supply agreement a bit more carefully:

Quote
In addition to the foregoing grant iStockphoto and its Distribution Partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Supplier's registered and unregistered trademarks relating to Content for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes. http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php


 >:(  >:(  >:(

« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2013, 10:32 »
0
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.

If I were to terminate my account, I would be sure that my content would not be available anywhere for another year.

« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2013, 10:40 »
0
Two words:  Class Action.

How hard would it be? its about time really. out of thousands of contributors, im sure people have friends that are lawyers...
I find it funny now we see a lawyer from istock chiming in the forums.

« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2013, 10:48 »
+4
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.

aspp

« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2013, 10:54 »
0
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.

Are overseas NDAs unconstitutional ? Do they violate free speech ?

Just curious.

« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2013, 11:04 »
0
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.

Are overseas NDAs unconstitutional ? Do they violate free speech ?

Just curious.

I am not a lawyer, so I am not the right one to go in to details, but hiding behind vague terms such as "for promotional use" surely does not give them right to do whatever they want with our images.

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2013, 11:09 »
0
The ASA is according to the laws of Alberta and Canada:
"this Agreement will be governed under the laws of the Province of Alberta and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein (without reference to conflicts of laws principles). You hereby irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the Province of Alberta, Canada with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement will not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the application of which is expressly excluded. "

« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2013, 11:20 »
+1
I cast my crown to the ground
Where can honesty be found?
Is it at iStockphoto?
With another promo?
No, freedom is in the work I do
Which will never be for you!

lisafx

« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2013, 11:30 »
+2
I cast my crown to the ground


I think this is a very smart first step.  However, going non-exclusive may not help protect your images from promotional use.  Looks like they can use non-exclusive content the same way if they want. 

Pretty ironic that one of the main reasons most people gave for going exclusive was they wanted the copyright protection and the security of knowing their images were only available in one place. 

mattdixon

« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2013, 11:33 »
+1
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.

Are overseas NDAs unconstitutional ? Do they violate free speech ?

Just curious.

I am not a lawyer, so I am not the right one to go in to details, but hiding behind vague terms such as "for promotional use" surely does not give them right to do whatever they want with our images.

You would think not, they must be on legally shaky ground.

tee

« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2013, 11:50 »
+2
What about just shopping around the story of how the biggest microstock site in the world made all the wrong decisions, hired inept programmers, tarnished their reputation with buyers and contributors, and lost control of the market they dominated? Seriously, let's go to the press. Cheaper than hiring a lawyer, at least.

aspp

« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2013, 11:58 »
+2
What about just shopping around the story of how the biggest microstock site in the world made all the wrong decisions, hired inept programmers, tarnished their reputation with buyers and contributors, and lost control of the market they dominated? Seriously, let's go to the press. Cheaper than hiring a lawyer, at least.

twitter it

« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2013, 12:15 »
0
 

Even if extended licenses have been purchased, it would be crazy to give google free distribution rights.
furthermore images are as big as 2.56 MP! (1600 x 1600). Beyond normal accepted web usage.

I am waiting for the official response to loose my mind, but this really makes me sick.

Is there any point for the copyright holder to contact google directly and ask them to remove the images? I am thinking they will not do it, but if not copyright holders does contact them, they might be a little less eager to push more projects like that in the future.

« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2013, 12:16 »
+2
Based on all of what is happening, I think there might be grounds for a class action case. You cannot force contributors to an "agreement" to promote our images without giving us an option to opt out of it. There is a case against facebook now that seems to be of the same guide lines. Facebook is trying to settle it quietly. The judge has rejected the settlement since it does not award any damages to facebook contributors. For facebook, it could result in a lot money.

From the article: "The lawsuit, brought by five Facebook members, alleged the social networking site violated California law by publicizing users likes of certain advertisers on its Sponsored Stories feature without paying them or giving them a way to opt out, the documents said."

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/facebook_quietly_settled_lawsuit_that_could_have_involved_up_to_1_in_3_amer

There are also other articles that show how Facebook is forcing people to pay to insure all your followers will read your posts. Guess what? People are now turning against facebook. Amazing how you can screw up your own business...

« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2013, 12:21 »
+1
...Is there any point for the copyright holder to contact google directly and ask them to remove the images? I am thinking they will not do it, but if not copyright holders does contact them, they might be a little less eager to push more projects like that in the future.

A DMCA takedown notice might be an interesting approach - I don't have any images there to try it, but what could the contributor possibly lose? Probably should also try that with the Microsoft site as well.

If anyone does try it, please post here and let us know what happens.

Microstock InsiderPhotoDune

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
7485 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
4350 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by Uncle Pete
36 Replies
2854 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
1613 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
5 Replies
467 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 02:10
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors