Author Topic: Extended License royalties from Micros? (Read 19438 times)

danhowl · « **on:** February 28, 2011, 13:30 »

I just found one of my images in an advertisement for a branded produce in a national magazine with circulation 1,000,000+ which would seem to surpass any standard licensing usage. I have not sold/received any extended licenses for this image. Just so I don't jump onto any contributor relations person prematurely, what kind of licensing fee would I normally expect for that usage on iStockphoto, Shutterstock and Dreamstime? A quick scan of my royalties does not show anything apart from standard licenses.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** February 28, 2011, 13:41 »

I had the same situation arise. I found one of my images from istockphoto being used in a national magazine that had a circulation of over 3 million, but had not received an EL for it. I contacted CR, they looked into it, and sure enough I should have gotten an EL royalty for it. My share was around $36.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2011, 14:17 »

Quote from: danhowl on February 28, 2011, 13:30

I just found one of my images in an advertisement for a branded produce in a national magazine with circulation 1,000,000+ which would seem to surpass any standard licensing usage. I have not sold/received any extended licenses for this image. Just so I don't jump onto any contributor relations person prematurely, what kind of licensing fee would I normally expect for that usage on iStockphoto, Shutterstock and Dreamstime? A quick scan of my royalties does not show anything apart from standard licenses.

On iStock, 100 credits http://www.istockphoto.com/license_contributor.php

danhowl · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2011, 10:44 »

thanks, i'll follow up.

danhowl · « **Reply #4 on:** March 09, 2011, 19:17 »

Interesting difference between Shutterstock and iStockphoto regarding this matter. Since the image used in the advertisement is available on these two sites (and no others) I contacted both about the lack of extended license for the image. Both responded within a week. iStockphoto offered no help other than the suggestion that I contact the party directly and a draft of letter to send them. And that was from their 'Compliance Enforcement' department--What exactly would that department be doing if not what I was asking for? Shutterstock had an Account Service Manager contact with further questions about the issue and a statement that they would look into it.

Shutterstock's response is by far more of what I would expect from a company about a legitimate issue such as this.

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2011, 20:54 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 09, 2011, 19:17

Interesting difference between Shutterstock and iStockphoto regarding this matter. Since the image used in the advertisement is available on these two sites (and no others) I contacted both about the lack of extended license for the image. Both responded within a week. iStockphoto offered no help other than the suggestion that I contact the party directly and a draft of letter to send them. And that was from their 'Compliance Enforcement' department--What exactly would that department be doing if not what I was asking for? Shutterstock had an Account Service Manager contact with further questions about the issue and a statement that they would look into it.

Shutterstock's response is by far more of what I would expect from a company about a legitimate issue such as this.

So IS's answer to you was that you should handle it yourself? That is incredible. How would you know who to even contact?

danhowl · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2011, 07:36 »

I do subscribe to a photographer's database called Adbase which lists magazines, companies and advertising agencies with their contact information, so I'll at least have a direction to start.

Given my other interaction and observation with iStockphoto, this does not surprise me. What is surprising is that Getty would allow their lax attitude about collecting/enforcing royalties from extended licenses.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2011, 07:38 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 09, 2011, 20:54

Quote from: danhowl on March 09, 2011, 19:17
Interesting difference between Shutterstock and iStockphoto regarding this matter. Since the image used in the advertisement is available on these two sites (and no others) I contacted both about the lack of extended license for the image. Both responded within a week. iStockphoto offered no help other than the suggestion that I contact the party directly and a draft of letter to send them. And that was from their 'Compliance Enforcement' department--What exactly would that department be doing if not what I was asking for? Shutterstock had an Account Service Manager contact with further questions about the issue and a statement that they would look into it.

Shutterstock's response is by far more of what I would expect from a company about a legitimate issue such as this.

So IS's answer to you was that you should handle it yourself? That is incredible. How would you know who to even contact?

I think iStock takes the view that it doesn't police non-exclusive content.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:14 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 10, 2011, 07:36

I do subscribe to a photographer's database called Adbase which lists magazines, companies and advertising agencies with their contact information, so I'll at least have a direction to start.

Given my other interaction and observation with iStockphoto, this does not surprise me. What is surprising is that Getty would allow their lax attitude about collecting/enforcing royalties from extended licenses.

Did IS sell it or SS? How do you know which one if it's for sale at both and has sold on both?

This is always a problem since they don't tell us who the buyers are. Anonymous RF is a problem.

fotografer · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2011, 04:00 »

In defense of IS, why should they investigate when it isn't clear who sold the image? You need to contact the people and ask them who sold them the image and then get the site concerned involved.

danhowl · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2011, 11:35 »

Quote from: fotografer on March 18, 2011, 04:00

In defense of IS, why should they investigate when it isn't clear who sold the image? You need to contact the people and ask them who sold them the image and then get the site concerned involved.

really? ya think?

I did contact both the publication and the product manufacturer. It took a lengthy series of phone calls but I did finally get to the right person at the publisher who oversees the production of the advertorial that featured the image. He stated that as a matter of course they secure extended rights for all images they purchase, but that this particular case was an oversight which was corrected. The extended rights purchase was made retrospectively and appeared on my account this week. Not the ideal way of going about it, but he did state that he was sensitive to the right of content creators and apologized for this error.

I don't know if it was my effort or the effort of Shutterstock that prompted the extended license sale, but it was completed.

Regarding IS-- their response to my query was that they were not interested in pursuing the matter. I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image. It didn't even get to that point. It was a flat out refusal. And this was from their Compliance Enforcement Department. I am assuming that person has a very easy job since they do not go after license abuse when brought to their attention. Although in this particular case the image was sold thru Shutterstock, IS refused to take action before that issue was even brought up.

Seriously, what is a contributor supposed to do when they find a license infringement? You have to bring it up with the companies who are potentially involved. Shutterstock proved that they are more responsive. It is as simple as that.

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2011, 17:19 »

Congratulations, Dan, on finally having a satisfactory resolution to this. Sorry it took so long.

Nice to know Shutterstock was willing to enforce it's licenses. My experiences with Istock have been the same as yours, refusal to do anything at all, even when I had proof the download was from their site.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2011, 17:27 »

'Regarding IS-- their response to my query was that they were not interested in pursuing the matter. I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image.'

I'm pretty sure they know instantly if you are exclusive or not.

danhowl · « **Reply #13 on:** March 19, 2011, 07:02 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 18, 2011, 17:27

'Regarding IS-- their response to my query was that they were not interested in pursuing the matter. I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image.'

I'm pretty sure they know instantly if you are exclusive or not.

And I'm pretty sure they don't know instantly if an image is on one site or seven. You apparently are too hung up on the word exclusive. I don't think that iStock has claimed exclusive use of the definition of exclusive, but it wouldn't surprise me if they tried. I have some images that are exclusively on iStock yet I am not in their Exclusive program.

Congratulations on missing the big picture.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** March 19, 2011, 08:16 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 19, 2011, 07:02

Quote from: sjlocke on March 18, 2011, 17:27
'Regarding IS-- their response to my query was that they were not interested in pursuing the matter. I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image.'

I'm pretty sure they know instantly if you are exclusive or not.

And I'm pretty sure they don't know instantly if an image is on one site or seven. You apparently are too hung up on the word exclusive. I don't think that iStock has claimed exclusive use of the definition of exclusive, but it wouldn't surprise me if they tried. I have some images that are exclusively on iStock yet I am not in their Exclusive program.

Congratulations on missing the big picture.

Unless in your initial contact you clearly stated the image was only available on IS even though you are clearly not exclusive (and we all know what 'exclusive' means in this context, so don't play silly games) I dont see the problem, and even then I don't see the problem. Are they supposed to trust your word that even though you submit to X sites, this particular image is only on IS?

Whatever.

dirkr · « **Reply #15 on:** March 19, 2011, 18:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2011, 08:16

Are they supposed to trust your word that even though you submit to X sites, this particular image is only on IS?

Yes they are. If I have a business partnership with an agency they are supposed to trust my word when I tell them something. How can you assume that should not be the case?

VB inc · « **Reply #16 on:** March 19, 2011, 19:23 »

Quote from: dirkr on March 19, 2011, 18:19

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2011, 08:16
Are they supposed to trust your word that even though you submit to X sites, this particular image is only on IS?

Yes they are. If I have a business partnership with an agency they are supposed to trust my word when I tell them something. How can you assume that should not be the case?

Im not really sure where your from but theres no blind trust in business from where im from. thats why theres contracts.

gostwyck · « **Reply #17 on:** March 19, 2011, 19:32 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2011, 08:16

Unless in your initial contact you clearly stated the image was only available on IS even though you are clearly not exclusive (and we all know what 'exclusive' means in this context, so don't play silly games) I dont see the problem, and even then I don't see the problem. Are they supposed to trust your word that even though you submit to X sites, this particular image is only on IS?

Whatever.

To be honest Sean when IS are helping themselves to up to 85% of a contributor's earnings I do think they have a duty to at least take an interest __ especially when they themselves will be grabbing up to 85% of the EL's sale price if it turns out to be from them.

SS acted properly, supported their content provider, policed the issue on behalf of of ALL stock photographers and earned themselves some extra money to boot.

To me this is just another example of what an utter shambles Istock has become __ and how much better Shutterstock are in their role as an agency.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #18 on:** March 19, 2011, 23:04 »

Maybe. I imagine though, that they'd want to spend time where they're assured of the 'exclusive' status of an image. And I bet they have a lot of those to work on.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #19 on:** March 20, 2011, 04:27 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 18, 2011, 11:35

Quote from: fotografer on March 18, 2011, 04:00
In defense of IS, why should they investigate when it isn't clear who sold the image? You need to contact the people and ask them who sold them the image and then get the site concerned involved.

really? ya think?

I did contact both the publication and the product manufacturer. It took a lengthy series of phone calls but I did finally get to the right person at the publisher who oversees the production of the advertorial that featured the image. He stated that as a matter of course they secure extended rights for all images they purchase, but that this particular case was an oversight which was corrected. The extended rights purchase was made retrospectively and appeared on my account this week. Not the ideal way of going about it, but he did state that he was sensitive to the right of content creators and apologized for this error.

I don't know if it was my effort or the effort of Shutterstock that prompted the extended license sale, but it was completed.

Regarding IS-- their response to my query was that they were not interested in pursuing the matter. I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image. It didn't even get to that point. It was a flat out refusal. And this was from their Compliance Enforcement Department. I am assuming that person has a very easy job since they do not go after license abuse when brought to their attention. Although in this particular case the image was sold thru Shutterstock, IS refused to take action before that issue was even brought up.

Seriously, what is a contributor supposed to do when they find a license infringement? You have to bring it up with the companies who are potentially involved. Shutterstock proved that they are more responsive. It is as simple as that.

So if I'm hearing this correctly, you were being uncooperative about the image status with IS and it ended up being a SS deal anyway. And you still wonder why they didn't shower you with support?

danhowl · « **Reply #20 on:** March 20, 2011, 07:58 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 20, 2011, 04:27

So if I'm hearing this correctly, you were being uncooperative about the image status with IS and it ended up being a Shutterstock deal anyway. And you still wonder why they didn't shower you with support?

No, you must be hearing the voices in your head.

At NO time did I obsfucate the image status. I contacted the two websites that were selling the image. I provided both the publication and the product name and manufacturer. At the time I had no way of telling which had made the particular sale. IS offered no further action on the situation and made no inquiries about the image. Shutterstock asked for more information and ultimately referred the matter to their legal department. In the meantime, I did my own research, still not knowing which site had made the particular sale. I ultimately found the person at the publication that was in charge of creating the advertorial who indicated how the image was purchased and acknowledged that the extended rights were not purchased which was corrected. Until that point I did not know which site made the sale.

What in that, to you, sounds uncooperative?

The point, made several times in this thread, is that IS offered no help. The sale could have just as easily been made thru IS as the publication, I found out, uses IS more often than Shutterstock. The IS compliance officer offered no help though. They didn't inquire if the image was available on other site. I don't know if they offer more help to exclusive contributors, but they offered none to me.

What is the point in your accusation? It is inaccurate and offensive. What is your problem?

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** March 20, 2011, 07:59 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 19, 2011, 19:32

Shutterstock acted properly, supported their content provider, policed the issue on behalf of of ALL stock photographers and earned themselves some extra money to boot.

Which is good, as the image was purchased from them.

Quote from: lisafx on March 18, 2011, 17:19

Congratulations, Dan, on finally having a satisfactory resolution to this. Sorry it took so long.
Nice to know Shutterstock was willing to enforce it's licenses. My experiences with Istock have been the same as yours, refusal to do anything at all, even when I had proof the download was from their site.

And that is just wrong.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #22 on:** March 20, 2011, 08:12 »

"At NO time did I obsfucate the image status. I contacted the two websites that were selling the image. "

Did you tell them both that you were selling the image on multiple sites, or did you forget to mention that?

cathyslife · « **Reply #23 on:** March 20, 2011, 08:13 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2011, 23:04

Maybe. I imagine though, that they'd want to spend time where they're assured of the 'exclusive' status of an image. And I bet they have a lot of those to work on.

I'm sure they do have a lot of those to work on, but I disagree with you. As long as they are taking dan's and every other non-exclusive's money, they should be treating the contributors equally when it comes to researching this. He had it narrowed down to two agencies the image could have come from. Heck, he even did most of the legwork! It was just a matter of looking something up to confirm.

I guess I'm thinking of the old istockphoto.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #24 on:** March 20, 2011, 08:21 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 20, 2011, 07:58

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 20, 2011, 04:27

So if I'm hearing this correctly, you were being uncooperative about the image status with IS and it ended up being a Shutterstock deal anyway. And you still wonder why they didn't shower you with support?

No, you must be hearing the voices in your head.

At NO time did I obsfucate the image status. I contacted the two websites that were selling the image. I provided both the publication and the product name and manufacturer. At the time I had no way of telling which had made the particular sale. IS offered no further action on the situation and made no inquiries about the image. Shutterstock asked for more information and ultimately referred the matter to their legal department. In the meantime, I did my own research, still not knowing which site had made the particular sale. I ultimately found the person at the publication that was in charge of creating the advertorial who indicated how the image was purchased and acknowledged that the extended rights were not purchased which was corrected. Until that point I did not know which site made the sale.

What in that, to you, sounds uncooperative?

The point, made several times in this thread, is that IS offered no help. The sale could have just as easily been made thru IS as the publication, I found out, uses IS more often than Shutterstock. The IS compliance officer offered no help though. They didn't inquire if the image was available on other site. I don't know if they offer more help to exclusive contributors, but they offered none to me.

What is the point in your accusation? It is inaccurate and offensive. What is your problem?

My apologies. I misread two responses as "they asked" and "I did not tell them any information regarding the exclusivity (or not) about the image". After re-reading it looks like they just refused to provide support.

Unfortunately the end result is still the same. Because the image is on multiple sites if IS chased this they would have been wasting their time which I'm guessing is a major reason they decided not to pursue it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Extended License royalties from Micros? (Read 19438 times)

danhowl

cathyslife

ShadySue

danhowl

danhowl

cathyslife

danhowl

BaldricksTrousers

RacePhoto

fotografer

danhowl

lisafx

Sean Locke Photography

danhowl

Sean Locke Photography

dirkr

VB inc

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

PaulieWalnuts

danhowl

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

cathyslife

PaulieWalnuts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors