The only thing you can't do is sell you images elsewhere as RF or  allow them to be freely downloaded.  Otherwise, they're your images.

Shady Sue is right.

The publication must pay for and download the image from Getty/iStock.

No, they don't.

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.

No, they don't.

Apologies, that's only the case for exclusives.

It's not the case for exclusives.

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).

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.

No, they don't.

Apologies, that's only the case for exclusives.

It's not the case for exclusives.

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;

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'.

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.

No, they don't.

Apologies, that's only the case for exclusives.

It's not the case for exclusives.

It is the case for exclusives. I was with Getty for years until very recently and left for a few reasons. You can't use anything anywhere otherwise you'll risk having Getty send out one of their infamous legal extortion letters to the party who used the photo. If Getty knew you were distributing photos on the side that they have exclusivity to, they would not hesitate in terminating your agreement.

This sort of issue is rehearsed often in the iStock forum with the answer I have given above.
Of course, it would be more reassuring to have the answer for one's own circumstances.
The trouble with CR is that you can get a totally different answer depending on who is answering.
But if they want to terminate your contract, they'll do it - even if you have something in writing from their CR. That's in the contract!

Hi everybody and thanks for the comments! I have managed to get a response from them (believe it or not, this is the first ticket they have ever actually responded to within less than three months I think), and they say that it's against exclusivity. Which, honestly, I am speechless. Who bars their photographers from being featured in a little labor of love of a fine art photography magazine? Are they deliberately trying to hinder people's success as photographers?

Anyhow, I guess I will just purchase a license to my image and then terminate that Getty agreement asap.

P.S.: To clear some things up, this is about an actual Getty exclusive image, not about iStock exclusivity.

Ah, true,  you did say Getty in your OP. My mistake, somehow I read that and interpreted it as iS.

I have several times contacted iS re rejections for 'odd' reasons (obviously, quite some time ago!) being sent to RM. Replies from different people included:
1. Yes, go ahead.
2. Yes, you don't need to ask (sic!)
3. Under no circumstances
4. Yes, provided you remove any other similars / sisters from iS (in the days when we could)
5. Why don't you submit to RM first, then submit any RM rejections here as RF?

Still, within a week, we had an email saying images of mammals could not be submitted if they were in unnatural settings (but zoos are 'natural', if you have a release), then there was a request for 'surreal' images, featuring, as an example, an image (photomontage, presumably) of an elephant walking down a city street.
Left hand, talk to right hand. 

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on May 14, 2018, 16:51

Hi everybody and thanks for the comments! I have managed to get a response from them (believe it or not, this is the first ticket they have ever actually responded to within less than three months I think), and they say that it's against exclusivity. Which, honestly, I am speechless. Who bars their photographers from being featured in a little labor of love of a fine art photography magazine? Are they deliberately trying to hinder people's success as photographers?

Getty aren't exclusive if anyone else is allowed to sell the pix.

Even the photographer (as direct sales mean less money for Getty).

Well yes, obviously, but what does that have to do with this? Not trying to sell anything.