Author Topic: One more thing about subs (Read 2413 times)

CofkoCof · « **on:** April 21, 2008, 02:15 »

I read on IS that they will sometimes pay more for an image then they will earn from it (if I remember corectly). This means that there will be some sub package that will cost less than the ammount that has to be paid to the photographer. So if I buy this package and start buying my own images I would be making money. And if we all do that IS will have to change the subs or go bankrupt. What stops us from doing that (taxes maybe?)?

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2008, 02:31 »

you would be found out and banned pretty quickly. There was a case not long ago where people where buy their friends images as soon as they went online to make the rise in popularity and thus come first in the search results. The 'buying ring' was found out and appropriate action was taken against them.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2008, 02:50 »

Yeah I know, some Romanians were doing that. Made their pictures climb to the first pages of "Best match".

But still, they left a hole which can be exploited by some "organization" that dislikes IS.

hatman12 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2008, 02:51 »

I think that's an appalling suggestion and makes you no better than a thief. You should be ashamed of yourself.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2008, 03:06 »

Quote from: hatman12 on April 21, 2008, 02:51

I think that's an appalling suggestion and makes you no better than a thief. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yeah I'm planning to do it and I'm letting the whole world know. I might be dumb, but not that dumb and I for sure ain't no thief.

PS: Read between the lines (if you can).

Susan S. · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2008, 05:22 »

On the credit prices implied by the examples you would have to be a silver exclusive or better to do this sort of arbitrage - and be willing to pay out some serious sums of money (three months subscription at more than 100$ per day!) in the vain hope that you wouldn't be stopped after about five minutes. Not terribly likely although theoretically possible!

CofkoCof · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2008, 05:38 »

Quote from: Susan S. on April 21, 2008, 05:22

On the credit prices implied by the examples you would have to be a silver exclusive or better to do this sort of arbitrage - and be willing to pay out some serious sums of money (three months subscription at more than 100$ per day!) in the vain hope that you wouldn't be stopped after about five minutes. Not terribly likely although theoretically possible!

Ah ok, tnx for clearing it up, didn't go into calculations. It's hard to belive that someone would spend such big ammounts of money hoping it would bring down IS

Would be easier to buy it.

jsnover · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2008, 11:11 »

Discussions just like this happened when SS was new. At some point Jon weighed in to say that they had implemented some monitoring of buying patterns to try and catch things like this and that all earnings would be forfeit if they found it happening.

And think about how easy a pattern this is to spot. Very few buyers are going to purchase from only one portfolio (or even a small number) - things will typically be spread out a bit. If you set up something to monitor buying patterns where all credits are spent on only (let's say) 5 contributor's work, I'll bet you'd catch this type of stuff.

bittersweet · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2008, 11:16 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 21, 2008, 11:11

If you set up something to monitor buying patterns where all credits are spent on only (let's say) 5 contributor's work, I'll bet you'd catch this type of stuff.

They don't seem to have implemented this monitoring as evidenced by the fact than entire portfolios are being ripped off and sold illegally across multiple other sites. I am so glad my work is not on that site.

helix7 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2008, 11:57 »

Quote from: bittersweet on April 21, 2008, 11:16

...I am so glad my work is not on that site.

Yeah. It would really suck to be selling on the site that is the highest monthly earner for a large percentage of contributors. Good thing you're staying away.

The people that try to resell other people's images are often found out quickly and shut down. And this isn't something that happens just with SS portfolios.

bittersweet · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2008, 12:03 »

Quote from: helix7 on April 21, 2008, 11:57

Quote from: bittersweet on April 21, 2008, 11:16
...I am so glad my work is not on that site.

Yeah. It would really suck to be selling on the site that is the highest monthly earner for a large percentage of contributors. Good thing you're staying away.

The people that try to resell other people's images are often found out quickly and shut down. And this isn't something that happens just with SS portfolios.

For photographers who are used to being paid for a lot of x-small images, maybe a 25cent royalty isn't so bad. For a vector artist who is accustomed to earning at least $3.00 on 98 percent of my sales, yeah, I'm so glad my work is not on that site. It would most definitely not be a highest monthly earner for me, and it would erode my earnings where vectors are priced fairly.

There are at least weekly occurrences of vector artists finding their work stolen. Even if they are shut down "quickly" the thieves have made money up until the time they are discovered, and then continue to up until the time they are taken down, only to pop up somewhere else.

But you are right about the fact that it isn't just happening on SS portfolios, although I guess it's hard to know for sure if the same images are across several sites.

jsnover · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2008, 19:50 »

Quote from: bittersweet on April 21, 2008, 11:16

Quote from: jsnover on April 21, 2008, 11:11
If you set up something to monitor buying patterns where all credits are spent on only (let's say) 5 contributor's work, I'll bet you'd catch this type of stuff.

They don't seem to have implemented this monitoring as evidenced by the fact than entire portfolios are being ripped off and sold illegally across multiple other sites. I am so glad my work is not on that site.

If you're referring to the recent stolen images that showed up at DT (nearly 1300 images) and FT (less than 100), (a) no one knows if it was SS as the source - it could have been StockXpert and one sleuth found some of the images came from a Japanese site and (b) the thief ripped off lots of photos from lots of portfolios, not just one artists.

So, if it was SS as the thief's source, the buying patterns were pretty close to normal in that they were hitting multiple portfolios. The only clues would have been (a) no people images (without the model releases he couldn't resell them) and probably (b) he was downloading the maximum each day.

This scenario isn't at all the same as the legit owner of photos trying to boost their earnings by downloading their own stuff.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #12 on:** May 26, 2008, 07:08 »

Interesting addition to the Artist's Supply Agreement:

Quote

You represent and warrant that you shall not: (i) license your own Content (except occasionally and then only for legitimate creative purposes); or (ii) predominately license the content of only a few contributors. You agree that you will not collude with another iStockphoto member to have that member do either of (i) or (ii) above for your benefit. You acknowledge that genuine subscription customers typically license files from many contributors and you agree that your subscription licensing behavior will conform to this typical conduct. In addition to any other available remedies, if you breach this paragraph iStockphoto may immediately terminate this Agreement and/or, if applicable, cancel your subscription package without any refund to you. You further agree to forfeit any royalties earned by you in connection with your misconduct.

Maybe they read this topic?

lisafx · « **Reply #13 on:** May 26, 2008, 11:46 »

I hope this language doesn't have the unintended consequences of intimidating buyers who may only buy for a particular niche and use predominantly the work of one or two contributors who cater to that niche.

I am glad they are cracking down on fraud and collusion, but certainly don't want to see them force non-typical buyers to conform to "typical licensing behavior" which may not suit their needs.