Author Topic: Worried about iStockphoto contributor agreement (Read 9542 times)

Andy P · « **on:** August 04, 2010, 22:50 »

I have just been accepted as a photographer on iStockphoto

But... the license agreement worries me a lot. Alas, I can't ask questions about the agreement on their forums until I've already agreed to it!

I read these statements in different places on the site...

"Every file accepted into iStockphoto’s collection has undergone a rigorous inspection process" - From the FAQ
"iStockphoto does not and cannot review all Content uploaded to the Site " - From the photographer's agreement

They can't both be right! Which one?

There's also some worrying stuff about agreeing to indemnify iStock against any accusations made against them, valid or not... Right up to the point of paying their legal fees for them!

I'm obviously not planning to infringe upon anyone else's copyright. But this looks like cause for concern. Does anyone else share my concern? Has this ever affected anyone here?

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2010, 02:23 »

I think if this had ever affected anyone doing microstock, we would hear about it. I think that if a buyer sued because they lost money using an image that shouldn't be sold as RF, the site would get a lot of bad publicity and other buyers would be concerned. I hope they would do all they can to prevent the contributor from having to pay large legal fees.

madelaide · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2010, 05:54 »

The first statement is valid for non-exclusives; the second is for non-exclusives.

Stu49 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2010, 06:22 »

Quote from: madelaide on August 05, 2010, 05:54

The first statement is valid for non-exclusives; the second is for non-exclusives.

fullvalue · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2010, 06:47 »

In the legal definitions section are Collection and Content the same?

Offhand, I think of Collection as all those items for license and Content as everything on the site which would include forum postings.

If the definitions are the same, the first statement is telling you why they'll reject your photo and the second is telling you why the other guy's got in.

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2010, 06:51 »

Quote from: madelaide on August 05, 2010, 05:54

The first statement is valid for non-exclusives; the second is for non-exclusives.

I think she meant the first statement is valid for non-exclusives, the second for exclusives.

The OP's concerns are valid; the statements do appear contradictory, but I don't think it matters one way or another. They can choose to review your files (content) or they can choose not to. Whichever way you either get in or not. Add in the reviewers' bias and it all really becomes irrelevant.

As far as indemnifying istock, that sounds like a pretty standard clause that any company includes when they write some sort of agreement. I'm not too worried about it.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2010, 07:26 »

The image content is inspected. However, there are no guarantees on keyword or description validity, etc.

Ask away here, however thousands of others haven't taken issue or had problems with it. I doubt you will .

Andy P · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2010, 08:15 »

Thanks for all your answers.

Sharpshot's point does make sense. If there had been any big issues in the past, the stock photography community as a whole would have reacted.

sharpshot · « **Reply #8 on:** August 05, 2010, 08:30 »

If there hasn't been any legal action taken against a contributor in all these years, I wonder how much it would cost the sites to insure against it? As most of us aren't legal experts and would like the peace of mind knowing that we wont get in to trouble, it would be a good feature for contributors.

donding · « **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2010, 09:40 »

I think it's basically saying that the inspection process is rigorous, but also subject to human error. The legal stuff has to do with your part as a photographer to be responsible enough NOT TO upload copyrighted material. Although iStock is pretty...I guess I should say very very picky when it comes to copyrighted material...there is the chance for this material to get through because of human error on their inspectors part. It is covering their butt in case of a big lawsuit.

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2010, 10:17 »

Quote from: cclapper on August 05, 2010, 06:51

Quote from: madelaide on August 05, 2010, 05:54
The first statement is valid for non-exclusives; the second is for non-exclusives.

I think she meant the first statement is valid for non-exclusives, the second for exclusives.

Precisely! Don't copy&paste when you are in a hurry!

UncleGene · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2010, 10:23 »

Quote from: donding on August 05, 2010, 09:40

It is covering their butt in case of a big lawsuit.

AFAIK this does not help (in most jurisdictions). They either review or not. If they review even small part of content, they are assumed responsible for everything. This true for all other legal issues, and I do not thing copyright law is an exception

lefty · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2010, 13:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 05, 2010, 07:26

The image content is inspected. However, there are no guarantees on keyword or description validity, etc.

Ask away here, however thousands of others haven't taken issue or had problems with it. I doubt you will .

Yes, agree sjlocke is with IStock long, so, I believe he know what he is talking. It affect his
work if not , but so far he see no problem.
Also, lately IStock Shutterstock a bit more restrictive, rejection on possible copyright or trademark problems. I think is good safety measure . I don't want to get into problem for 25 cents commission.
Not even for a lot more.

Suljo · « **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2010, 18:56 »

Quote from: Andy P on August 04, 2010, 22:50

There's also some worrying stuff about agreeing to indemnify iStock against any accusations made against them, valid or not... Right up to the point of paying their legal fees for them!

I'm obviously not planning to infringe upon anyone else's copyright. But this looks like cause for concern. Does anyone else share my concern? Has this ever affected anyone here?

First is for pain in the ass, and second is for ass paining...
Wellcome to club of unbreakable ass plasters.
Otherways you will must prepare youself to study which is you most prefered lubricant.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Worried about iStockphoto contributor agreement (Read 9542 times)

Andy P

sharpshot

madelaide

Stu49

fullvalue

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

Andy P

sharpshot

donding

madelaide

UncleGene

lefty

Suljo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors