Macro Stock / Midstock > General Macrostock
How to reach Getty with an urgent question?
ShadySue:
--- Quote from: namussi on May 14, 2018, 03:33 ---
--- Quote from: ShadySue on May 14, 2018, 03:12 ---
--- Quote from: namussi on May 14, 2018, 02:20 ---Shady Sue is right.
The publication must pay for and download the image from Getty/iStock.
--- End quote ---
No, they don't.
--- End quote ---
Apologies, that's only the case for exclusives.
--- End quote ---
It's not the case for exclusives.
namussi:
--- Quote from: ShadySue on May 14, 2018, 04:03 ---
--- Quote from: namussi on May 14, 2018, 03:33 ---
--- Quote from: ShadySue on May 14, 2018, 03:12 ---
--- Quote from: namussi on May 14, 2018, 02:20 ---Shady Sue is right.
The publication must pay for and download the image from Getty/iStock.
--- End quote ---
No, they don't.
--- End quote ---
Apologies, that's only the case for exclusives.
--- End quote ---
It's not the case for exclusives.
--- End quote ---
I'm not a lawyer, but.....
Doesn't this bit from the exclusive agreement mean you can't license your content other than through iStock?
Notwithstanding the definition of Exclusive Content and the exclusive license granted in this Agreement, nothing shall restrict you from (i) establishing or maintaining a personal portfolio on the Internet where Exclusive Content is posted for the purposes of art display so long as you are not licensing or giving away rights to the Exclusive Content for anything other than such display;
StanRohrer:
It's been a long while since I reviewed the Exclusive contract (and I am not a lawyer). But I remember this section as a definition under the RF Exclusive license definitions. IS defines RF Exclusivity. So the photog still has rights to sell as an RM license model to third parties. Now the sticky point is if IS reads your RM license and decides it is too liberal, even though it says it is an RM license, and challenges the photog as IS thinks the license is really operating as RF. Then all of the limitations of IS RF Exclusivity come into play in the smart minds of IS.
Another open discussion occurs, I think, when the photog is doing work for hire. But, the photog retains copyright and supplies such photos as IS Exclusive. The original hired work is also used as RF by the payer. Due to this concern I would consider writing an RM Licence for the payer even though it may be very liberal and nearing the gray areas above. Consider language in the RM license that would prohibit the organization from selling or giving away the photos (which would be competition to IS and IS Exclusivity and increase the chances of a problem with IS).
drd:
--- Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on May 14, 2018, 01:52 ---Does anybody know how to actually get a response to something from Getty? They never respond to inquiries through their ticket system, that's for sure.
The background is that I want to use one of my Getty exclusive images for a fine art publication and while the exhibition part of it appears to clearly exempt from the exclusivity, the publication part of doesn't... but of course I can't let the curator/publisher wait for months.
--- End quote ---
Quickest way to get an answer is through the getty forums.
ShadySue:
--- Quote from: namussi on May 14, 2018, 05:30 ---
--- Quote from: ShadySue on May 14, 2018, 04:03 ---
--- Quote from: namussi on May 14, 2018, 03:33 ---
--- Quote from: ShadySue on May 14, 2018, 03:12 ---
--- Quote from: namussi on May 14, 2018, 02:20 ---Shady Sue is right.
The publication must pay for and download the image from Getty/iStock.
--- End quote ---
No, they don't.
--- End quote ---
Apologies, that's only the case for exclusives.
--- End quote ---
It's not the case for exclusives.
--- End quote ---
I'm not a lawyer, but.....
Doesn't this bit from the exclusive agreement mean you can't license your content other than through iStock?
Notwithstanding the definition of Exclusive Content and the exclusive license granted in this Agreement, nothing shall restrict you from (i) establishing or maintaining a personal portfolio on the Internet where Exclusive Content is posted for the purposes of art display so long as you are not licensing or giving away rights to the Exclusive Content for anything other than such display;
--- End quote ---
Which, unless I misunderstood the OP, would cover their concerns.
(I assumed that there is going to be a physical exhibition and a print publication. Maybe I assumed wrongly?)
As Stan says, if you want to cover yourself, grant them an RM licence for the exact uses required. So long as they're not going to be selling your image RF or giving it away online, you don't need it, but no problem with granting the RM licence if you want the peace of mind. I have a charity I send photos to and have an RM licence stating 'for use only in X magazine (their members-only publication), issue Y'.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version