When I first started uploading to Dreamstime, I recall that the default setting for "Sell the rights - SR-EL" was set to "yes" and the price was $250. I think it has changed now to "no." However, my early images were offered for sale under this agreement, and today I received an email that one had sold and that I had 72 hours to remove the image from sale on other sites, remove from any personal web site or exhibition. Of course, earlier sales cannot be withdrawn. My payment was $125. This particular image (a similar one is here: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2011/07/sale-of-rights-to-an-image-dreamstime/) was only on 7 sites, and had only earned $27, and so a sale for $125 is OK, but it certainly made me think about going back through the old images on Dreamstime and changing this setting to $1000, say.

What do other contributors do with that SR-EL option?

Along the way, I wrote a "how to guide" to deleting single images from the web sites, as I had to search for instructions on each one. You can find that list here for future reference. I'll keep it updated and add new sites on my blog:

�   A key bit of information to search out before you start is when you uploaded the file to the stock sites!
�   Shutterstock: Go to �Stats: Status of Submitted Photos� and click on �Approved Photos� tab. Find the batch that contains the original uploaded image (it helps if you know the approx. date of upload.) Click on the �X� at the right hand edge of the image details to delete.
�   123RF: In the menus at the foot of the page, choose �History.� View stats for the month you uploaded the image, and then click on �View Images� for the range of dates to find the specific upload batch containing your image. Check the box �Delete this photo� and click �Save� at the foot of the page to complete the deletion.
�   Fotolia: Got to �My Files� and then the �Upload Files� tab. Find the image (sort by date to get to the approx. date of upload quickly.) Delete the file using the link at the far right of the row containing your image.
�   iStockPhoto: Click �My Account: Contributor Tools: My Uploads� from the bottom toolbar. Search for the image in the Keywords box. Click on the appropriate image to open up the details page for that photo. Click �Administration� in bottom right and then enter a reason for deactivation in the �Reason� box. Finally click �Deactivate File.�
�   Dreamstime: In Management Area, select �Online Files� and then filter the full list by entering keywords into the search box. On the particular image, click �Edit� and then �Disable� on the bottom row of the details page to delete the image.
�   CanStockPhoto: Click on �My Portfolio� to list all the files. Order by �Approved� to find the date of upload. Click �Edit� and then �Delete� followed by �Done.�
�   BigStockPhoto: You can�t delete an image on BigStock from their website. Contact support using the Contact form on �Contact Us� and give them the image ID and reason for deletion.
�   DepositPhotos: Click �Files: Online Files� from the contributors page, and find the image by moving to the appropriate upload date. You can enter a page number in the blank box to get there more quickly. Once the image has been found, click on �Deactivate.�
�   YayMicro: Click on �My Portfolio� under Photographer in the account Profile. Filter the portfolio by entering keywords in the search box. Click on the image in question, and then click the small �X� in the bottom left under the image.

What happens if you are on holiday and away from the internet for 72 hours when they sell one?

What happens with Fotolia affiliate sites, where I seem to recall they can take weeks to get round to removing pictures?

I never put anything into the DT SR program because I never felt able to guarantee that I could meet the conditions.

In my view, the onus is on you to comply with the terms you agreed to when you put the image into their "buy the rights" programme. They are not required to tell the buyer that he isn't getting the rights he thinks he is getting because its a bit impractical for you to meet your obligations.

In law, I think it would be perfectly clear-cut.

I have written to Dreamstime to try to get their view (not on this one image, but for future reference). I did ask BigStock to take down the image and they did that immediately. I'll update the post if I get a response from Dreamstime.

Can I assume that the general consensus is that we should not offer our images via the Dreamstime SR-EL option because of these issues with confirming full deletion of images on other sites?

Steve

I don't offer the rights for any of my images - but if I did, I'd choose only exclusive images.  Otherwise I'd go loopy worrying that one of the partner sites I don't know about might still be carrying the image somewhere.

See I don't really understand this.  What is the difference if a partner is still holding onto an image or if a buyer selling your image on a t-shirt after buying an EL licence from you on an exclusive site?

What if see a vector image here and I want to buy the rights so I can use it as a logo?  I know logos aren't allowed but if I owned the rights to the image, I could do whatever I want with it.  What if I then trademark my logo and then later find someone purchased a licence to print that image on a mug and I want them to stop?  Legally, as the copyright owner of a trademarked logo, I can stop them from using the image.  But how fair is it to the poor person who purchased a licence to print the image legally?  Selling S-ELs could cause many problems and I don't think it's right to be able to sell the rights to an image that's already out there being used by many.  It's not fair to those who've already purchased a licence and it's not fair to the person who bought the rights.

I really don't see how Dreamstime can get away with this.  It's just wrong.

I tend to agree with you on this. And besides, I've had 2 or 3 inquiries about SRs on some images, and any reasonable price I offered to sell them for was too much money for the client.

snip
Can I ask how much you asked for?  I never know what's reasonable.  I just know that $25,000 is very unreasonable... so it works at stopping the requests.

It depended on the photo. The range was $100 to $1000. The high end represents a best seller of mine they wanted to purchase. I don't know what's reasonable either, but if I am giving up all rights to something, I'm going to make it worth my while and I'm not just going to give it away for free. Just figuring the time it took me to shoot an image and basing it on my regular asking freelance rate, I don't consider those prices unreasonable. But I guess they did.

Sell the Rights (SR-EL):
This license represents a full ownership of the downloaded image. The buyer can use it exclusively (exclusivity applies from the moment that the file was downloaded using this license), and include it in any type of design with just a few restrictions: sensitive subjects may still apply and the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo.

That's a blatant lie.  The buyer of the SR-EL can't use the image exclusively if others have already purchased it and have the right to use it indefinitely according to whatever licence they purchased.  DT could possibly land themselves in trouble over this some day.  A small buyer probably won't do anything about it but say a company buys it and eventually grows as big as Pepsi and sue's DT for misleading them and failing to protect their brand?  No thanks.  I wouldn't want to ever be part of something like that.

But the first party that bought it did NOT have exclusive rights at all, so I don't think they would have a leg to stand on. And the second party understands that they are only buying exclusivity from that point on, so I don't see where there is any misleading going on. But I do agree that it could definitely create confusion and hassles.

But the first party that bought it did NOT have exclusive rights at all, so I don't think they would have a leg to stand on. And the second party understands that they are only buying exclusivity from that point on, so I don't see where there is any misleading going on. But I do agree that it could definitely create confusion and hassles.

But they aren't buying any sort of exclusivity "from that point on" or anything else, because they cannot cancel the licenses that have already been sold. All they are buying is the right to use it and to benefit from any future sales of it they may choose to make. The main thing they acquire is the right to sub=license it, which you give up.

This is where the big problem about affiliate agency sales comes in. Once you "sell the rights" your right to approve the licensing of the image anywhere else ends. If you get another commission payment from it, that is theft. No doubt, if a rights buyer finds the image on sale at another agency he can sue the agency, which - in turn - can probably sue you (or use the clause in most contracts by which we indemnify our agents against legal problems). The whole thing is a can of worms.

Sorry - found it. It is under "Manage Licenses"

Steve

Quote from: cclapper on July 07, 2011, 06:36

But the first party that bought it did NOT have exclusive rights at all, so I don't think they would have a leg to stand on. And the second party understands that they are only buying exclusivity from that point on, so I don't see where there is any misleading going on. But I do agree that it could definitely create confusion and hassles.

But they aren't buying any sort of exclusivity "from that point on" or anything else, because they cannot cancel the licenses that have already been sold. All they are buying is the right to use it and to benefit from any future sales of it they may choose to make. The main thing they acquire is the right to sub=license it, which you give up.

This is where the big problem about affiliate agency sales comes in. Once you "sell the rights" your right to approve the licensing of the image anywhere else ends. If you get another commission payment from it, that is theft. No doubt, if a rights buyer finds the image on sale at another agency he can sue the agency, which - in turn - can probably sue you (or use the clause in most contracts by which we indemnify our agents against legal problems). The whole thing is a can of worms.

I see what you are saying. I agree...can of worms. I just double-checked and I have my SR-EL unchecked, and I think it has been for quite a while. But as mentioned by someone else earlier, I think I still got a request.