MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Infringement of iStock exclusivity  (Read 2109 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 19, 2017, 11:15 »
+5



« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2017, 14:20 »
+2
Might have a special deal.

« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2017, 15:38 »
+3
Or could be an associate taking similar pics - or the wife as this has been done numerous times and istock are OK with it apparently. I still think it's wrong

« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2017, 00:32 »
+2
Different photos, different author's name.
I don't see where is the problem.

« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2017, 01:50 »
+3
Different photos, different author's name.
I don't see where is the problem.

Same "exclusive" author selling RF images at another agency. I can see very well where the problem is. But again it might be not a problem for Istock. Nowadays special rules and deals are common tongue.

« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2017, 07:57 »
+3

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2017, 08:38 »
+3
Different photos, different author's name.
I don't see where is the problem.

I don't think any infringer actually is daft enough to use the same user name!!

Either this is an exclusive selling different pics from the same shoot elsewhere, with or without a 'deal', or it's an indie tog sharing shoots with a exclusive, which is apparently allowed, as CiderApple said.

« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2017, 12:30 »
+4
Here we have similar photos, obviously shot in the same conditions, same model, same scenography, etc.
These photos are published on different sites under different names, but the same photo is never published on different sites and none of the authors have published the same images published by the others.

Here we can have two kind of situations:

1) The photographer can be the same and publish under different names on different sites (but dont publish the same images)

2) But they also could be different photographers (husband and wife, mother and son, friends, etc.) using the same studio with the same scenography and the same equipment.

So, even if it could seem obvious that the photographer is the same, but as in fact we dont know it, we cannot speak about any infringement of the iStock exclusivity, till we have not an evidence that the same photographer did all the photos.

I dont know how it works at you, but at me it exists something called the presumption of innocence, and I think that it is very fair to not consider somebody, anybody, guilty until you have no indisputable evidences of his guilt.

« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2017, 13:58 »
+7
Ah, if only I had had the initiative to have my wife stand next to me shooting similars so I could upload to both IS exclusively and non-exclusive sites.

« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2017, 21:55 »
+3
My caretaker and I stood side by side for 7 years and shot exactly the same thing. I was exclusive with istock. He was not. I made 5x more money than him a month and still do even though we don't shoot together anymore. Our content looked exactly alike because he had to stand by me so I didn't fall. Point being, you can shoot with someone that is non exclusive and their images will look the same. Just like at a Lypse.

« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2017, 02:15 »
0
.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 03:01 by Chichikov »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2017, 04:23 »
+5
My caretaker and I stood side by side for 7 years and shot exactly the same thing. I was exclusive with istock. He was not. I made 5x more money than him a month and still do even though we don't shoot together anymore. Our content looked exactly alike because he had to stand by me so I didn't fall. Point being, you can shoot with someone that is non exclusive and their images will look the same. Just like at a Lypse.

Notwithstading your personal circumstances, Jodie, you must admit that from the buyer's pov, it makes their claim of "Signature: Our very best images and video clips and you cant get them from anyone else" pretty farcical.
I doubt if there are many exclusives who would claim that their images are better than all of those from indies.

Officially 'lypses used to be for exclusives only, unofficial 'lypses could be attended by indies, but they had to submit all their 'lypse images only to iStock. In fact, on one lypse (maybe Japan, maybe another held around the same time) they said that all images taken on the trip, even if you stayed on a few extra days, had to be submitted only to iStock (don't know how they were going to police that, e.g. re locals).

I didn't know that had changed. They really are fooling the buyers.
Getty has long been in the 'alternative facts' brigade.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2017, 15:53 by ShadySue »

« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2017, 04:46 »
+10
My caretaker and I stood side by side for 7 years and shot exactly the same thing. I was exclusive with istock. He was not. I made 5x more money than him a month and still do even though we don't shoot together anymore. Our content looked exactly alike because he had to stand by me so I didn't fall. Point being, you can shoot with someone that is non exclusive and their images will look the same. Just like at a Lypse.

Yes, we know.  It was quite ridiculous.  I wouldn't brag about it.

« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2017, 15:18 »
+4
Wouldn't brag about what Sean,
There for the grace of G-d go I.  You could walk in my shoes one day. At any moment your life can change in a second like mine did. So don't be so righteous Superman! Actually yours did change in a moment, but only moneterally because of your cockyness and own wrongdoingins.
I still need someone to shoot with me but now I am on meds that keep me from fainting when I bend down.

As for Lypses, I agree, they should be for exclusives because IS can't keep track of the pictures taken outside of the Lypse

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2017, 15:51 »
+4
Wouldn't brag about what Sean,
... Actually yours did change in a moment, but only moneterally because of your cockyness and own wrongdoingins.
What cockiness and wrongdoing?
Is looking at possible alternatives doing wrong? You'll be calling out thought crimes next.

BTW, I was also wondering: why did your caretaker at that time not become an exclusive, if he was earning five times less than you with near identical photos, at a time when going exclusive was still a reasonable business decision?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 15:55 by ShadySue »

« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2017, 16:37 »
+15
I wouldn't brag about essentially breaking the exclusivity rules.  The point of exclusivity was to raise the value of the collection by having unique imagery.  In fact, this bit from Getty pretty clearly states what exclusivity means, and I think that applies to what IS had as well:.

"Can I submit Similars of Accepted Content elsewhere?
No, Similars of Accepted Content cannot be submitted to any other stock agency, and/or directly licensed by you because by signing our agreement you are granting us exclusive licensing rights which allow us to maintain ideal pricing. If Similars to Accepted Content on Getty Images are available elsewhere, customers will tend to shop for the lowest price, driving licensing fees for that image down over time. Please review our Similars Guide to learn more about what makes an image Similar."

Of course, the only person you really hurt would be yourself, since 'identical' content was available elsewhere cheaper.  Sorry, I didn't like it then and I still don't like it.  It's got nothing to do with 'your shoes'.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 16:52 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2017, 19:49 »
0
Wouldn't brag about what Sean,
... Actually yours did change in a moment, but only moneterally because of your cockyness and own wrongdoingins.
What cockiness and wrongdoing?
Is looking at possible alternatives doing wrong? You'll be calling out thought crimes next.

BTW, I was also wondering: why did your caretaker at that time not become an exclusive, if he was earning five times less than you with near identical photos, at a time when going exclusive was still a reasonable business decision?
We Had a deal. I was paying him to take care of me and shoot on the side when I couldn't even hold a camera without help. He wasn't producing enough at the time, and I didn't let his pics go up on Istock for a couple of years. So with all his agencies together, they didn't add up to Istock Exclusive. He started uploading to Istock around our 4th year together when I realized how much he needed the extra money.
Sean I didn't break any exclusive rules. I would have much prefered to shoot on my own! I didn't need or want competitive pictures out there. I'm still making 5x what he makes and I don't shoot with him anymore and he uploads everywhere except stocksy.

« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2017, 07:13 »
+3
I don't think any infringer actually is daft enough to use the same user name!!
Either this is an exclusive selling different pics from the same shoot elsewhere, with or without a 'deal'...

MxR

« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2017, 08:12 »
+1
you are really boring people.... this is stock work hunt fake exclusives.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
51 Replies
14139 Views
Last post October 02, 2007, 11:00
by KiwiRob
18 Replies
2767 Views
Last post May 27, 2014, 15:26
by bunhill
25 Replies
2869 Views
Last post July 21, 2014, 01:47
by disorderly
90 Replies
9298 Views
Last post September 11, 2014, 18:26
by KB
39 Replies
7424 Views
Last post January 29, 2015, 12:16
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors