Quote from: batman on April 07, 2009, 09:55

FUNNY YOU SHOULD BE IN HERE, mr sjl. I THOUGHT YOU WERE EXCLUSIVE WITH ISTOCK 

I don't care who is xclusive where. Sjlocke is a fantastic and successful photographer not hiding behind aliases and I always value his opinion.

some of us don't need aliases, like you and sjl, because everyone knows where your goad is

some of us don't need aliases, like you and sjl, because everyone knows where your goad is

Had to look up "goad" in the dictionary but still don't grasp the point. Internet trolls are everywhere and I have no time to feed them. So, byebye, take care, god bless, be happy, fare well, plonk. 

I'm confused.  Does Istock have a disable all button?  I went and looked for it the other day.  Personally, I like both IS and DT but if having a "disable all option" is a critical issue perhaps you should rethink exclusivity.  Obviously, on this issue, IS is just as "stupid".

I'm confused.  Does Istock have a disable all button?

Yes of course, although it's not a button. It's a text link at the bottom, "administration". Click on there and you can disable the picture, after entering a reason. I do it regularly when I get notified there is an image going into the dollar bin. I don't want my images there. It's easy.

Quote from: fullvalue on April 07, 2009, 11:46

I'm confused.  Does Istock have a disable all button?

Yes of course, although it's not a button. It's a text link at the bottom, "administration". Click on there and you can disable the picture, after entering a reason. I do it regularly when I get notified there is an image going into the dollar bin. I don't want my images there. It's easy.

I'm aware of the ability to disable individual files.  I've used it myself on occasion.  What I looked for, and what the OP is complaining about, is a disable all option.  To the best of my knowledge, Istock doesn't have one.  Would the admins disable an entire account on request?  Maybe, but there's no specific policy regarding it.

DT is ultimitely a business that services CUSTOMERS, and we are suppliers.  Dreamstime must keep the customers satisfied and I agree with that.  I think they could offer even BETTER service to the customers by changing things a little, while still shortening the notice period to 2 or 3 months.  When notice is given that a portfolio is being pulled, an automated message could go out to all the lightbox holders who this would affect.  Might even give them a bump in sales.  6 months seems to be an awful long time for lightboxes though, maybe it has something to do with the agency investing in their own ad campaigns as well.  Other than that, I could see the 6 months rule in the beginning, when DT was a young struggling agency with contributors coming and going.  They have made so much progress though since I've been with them, I can't see why anyone would leave other than IS exclusivity.  

And if I were Istock, I'm not sure I'd want someone who breaks a contract as a contributor.  Honor the agreement, suffer through disabling the files individually, and move on.  Burning bridges is never a good policy.

I'm confused.  Does Istock have a disable all button?  I went and looked for it the other day.  Personally, I like both IS and DT but if having a "disable all option" is a critical issue perhaps you should rethink exclusivity.  Obviously, on this issue, IS is just as "stupid".

I'm pretty sure that if you asked iStock, they would have no problem manually closing you out.

DT has always appeared to be not so nice in this regard.

I can understand that DT will act to protect its own interest, and the position Serban is taking (which I disagree). However I don't understand why some contributors are acting against the fellow photogs who seek fair treatment from an agency. Just because you are making a few bucks a month there, you can take anything that is not fair?

Although Sean is exclusive to IS, he can certainly speak out to say what he think is fair or not.

The courts in many jurisdictions have never failed to surprise us how they interprete seemingly iron-cast contracts on the principle of fairness. However, most micro photogs don't have the financial resources to test the water.

Quote from: Xalanx on April 07, 2009, 15:08

This is true, I closed my account once with iStock, by contacting support. They did it in a timely fashion with no problems.

Don't you regret it now? I don't fly at the moment at iStock, but I did in 2006. Perhaps when I get a better cam and I pay more attention to the iStock culture, I will fly again in 2010. Ruining something is very fast and easy, (re)building takes a long time. I don't think ichiro17 will ever be accepted at DT again, if he changed his mind in a year from now. In Asia, making lose face is a mortal sin, but I think it's universal.

Well I started very late with microstock, generally speaking. IS was already making my task difficult to built a port, with their upload limits. I am not the most patient person on the planet, so...
And when I quit first time I had something like 30 photos or so.

I'm back now, with 65 images at this point, reviews are good (14 out of 15 accepted last batch) but I fear that I won't have the patience to reach 1000 photos there. We'll see.

... I also suggest that you read copyright law, it has no similarity to buying a product like a car or a house and to make that comparison is ridiculous.

Copyright law can also vary tremendously by country, too. In Canada, for example, it's the owner of the film/CF card who owns the copyright, while in the USA it's the person who clicked the shutter.

There is another option albeit a bit more drastic, whether Dreamstime have a 6, 12, 18 or 24 month policy in their terms makes no difference whatsoever, you as a contributor are the copyright owner of those images, if you choose to no longer allow Dreamstime to distribute those images then send them a notice giving them 28 days to remove your images from their site ...

This also varies by country. I know of one photographer who signed an agreement with an agency such that the agency has the right to license his imagery for 20 years ! He's consulted with lawyers about getting out of the contract, but has been told it's a no-go.

Dreamstime have the ability to disable an account at a click of a button, they even make a point of telling you that in their terms and conditions.

Where is that mentioned? I just read the T&C and I didn't find the mentioning of a delete-all button. About deactivating, they mention: "The Photographer is entitled to disable file(s) from his portfolio by using the appropriate section of Dreamstime.com (Management area/Online files)". Looking at that section, you'll notice that you have to deactivate your images one by one. That's what they are committed to, nothing more, imho.

Quote from: RT on April 07, 2009, 16:17

... I also suggest that you read copyright law, it has no similarity to buying a product like a car or a house and to make that comparison is ridiculous.

Copyright law can also vary tremendously by country, too. In Canada, for example, it's the owner of the film/CF card who owns the copyright, while in the USA it's the person who clicked the shutter.

Quote from: RT on April 07, 2009, 14:22

There is another option albeit a bit more drastic, whether Dreamstime have a 6, 12, 18 or 24 month policy in their terms makes no difference whatsoever, you as a contributor are the copyright owner of those images, if you choose to no longer allow Dreamstime to distribute those images then send them a notice giving them 28 days to remove your images from their site ...

This also varies by country. I know of one photographer who signed an agreement with an agency such that the agency has the right to license his imagery for 20 years ! He's consulted with lawyers about getting out of the contract, but has been told it's a no-go.

Hi Sharply,

We could discuss copyright law all day, but my reference is to the OP who is the copyright holder (or at least he should be otherwise he couldn't of uploaded them in the first place) and his individual complaint about Dreamstime, as far as I'm aware he's complied with the terms he entered into with them and it's Dreamstime own policy which is in discussion here, which as I've pointed out is not something they can legally do, if deleting images causes them admin problems that is THEIR problem it does not mean they can circumnavigate the law, he is the owner of those images, he's completed the period required under the terms he entered into and now he wants them off the site, he is 100% legally entitled to make Dreamstime remove them. Of course as I pointed out later (and you noticed) Dreamstime can disable an account immediately, and of course if they can do that we all know they can delete those images as well, it is just them being pathetic and awkward that's the reason they expect people to do it one by one.

Re your other comment, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about in the USA the person that presses the shutter being the copyright holder, can't comment on Canada we never dealt with any Canadian law cases. As for your friend, that's nothing to do with the country he's in it sounds like it's more to do with the contract he signed, what do you think would happen say if another photographer claimed copyright to those images and your friend suddenly realised they weren't his in the first place.