MicrostockGroup
Macro Stock / Midstock => General Midstock => Topic started by: leaf on September 18, 2009, 12:37
-
A new site has opened it's doors called FocalPop. It is a shoot on request type of site where buyers come with $$ in hand requesting an image. The prices are in the $100-$200 range giving 70% to the photographer so it seems like it could be an OK set up
http://www.focalpop.com/ (http://www.focalpop.com/)
[mystockphoto (http://www.mystockphoto.org/focalpop/)]
-
Sounds like it could be fun :)
-
looks ok never know your luck in a raffle ;D
-
Would this be considered RM then?
-
Would this be considered RM then?
There is no licensing done by the site itself. You as a seller agree to the license terms of the buyer. You are also responsible for completing the transaction with the buyer.
Also not liking this in the company Terms
Intellectual Property
(a) Content License and Access. When you submit content to the Site, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform the content in connection with the Site, in any media known now or in the future.
This is simply "working on spec" in its worst possible form. Anyone considering this should read the site Terms in their entirety.
-
Would this be considered RM then?
In the 'job specifics' the buyer says what type of license they need. In the current open posting the image is to be a Royalty Free license.
I am not sure the terms are so bad. When you upload an image to the site, you are giving them the right to use your image for their advertising or other uses - just like the regular micros get. If someone buys your image on a micro they also get a world-wide, irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free license. How is this different?
-
We don't give sites the "perpetual, irrevocable" license to use our images, do we? ???
I confess I don't have the patience to read all the legal terms, so I am glad someone does! ;)
-
I can't say i know all the sites terms by heart :) but when we sell a microstock image we are selling it with perpetual and irrevocable rights.
-
Here is the equivalent terms for iStock
Grant of Authority
1. The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's non-exclusive agent and distributor to sell, license or sublicense Content to third parties within the jurisdictions of iStockphoto's business and to collect and remit funds in connection with those endeavours on the terms set forth in this Agreement. For all Content, Supplier grants iStockphoto:
1. The right to use, reproduce, distribute, redistribute, sublicense, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, crop, package, repackage, produce and sell prints or similar image products or publicly perform or display Content to prospective licensees: (i) through the Site; (ii) through other venues owned or operated by iStockphoto or its affiliates from time to time, and (iii) through third party distributors and alliance or channel partners of iStockphoto; and
2. The right to grant perpetual, world-wide, non-exclusive and non-transferable licenses or sub-licenses to end-users in accordance with the terms of the Content License Agreement (a current copy of which can be found here that the Supplier hereby acknowledges having reviewed and approved) as such agreement may be amended from time to time or modified for certain clients consistent with the rights granted herein or any distribution partner license agreement provided that such agreement is consistent with rights granted to iStockphoto herein.
2. In addition to the foregoing grant, so long as the Supplier has not opted out of the “Promotional Uses” category under the Control Panel of his or her account profile on the Site, iStockphoto and its distribution partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and expand the market for the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Supplier's registered and unregistered trademarks relating to Content for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes.
3. The Parties agree that all rights, including title and copyright, in and to the uploaded Accepted Content will be retained by the Supplier, and no title or copyright is transferred or granted in any way to iStockphoto or any third party except as provided in this Agreement and any license agreements, which iStockphoto is authorized to enter into on the Supplier's behalf
Bolding by me.
-
Leaf,
In IS: " Supplier grants iStockphoto:(...) The right to grant perpetual, world-wide, non-exclusive and non-transferable licenses or sub-licenses to end-users in accordance with the terms of the Content License Agreement"
In FocalPop: "you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare (...)"
If I understand it right, in IS you give them the rights to sell your work as RF; in FocalPop you are giving them the RF rights, including the right to redistribute it. Notice also non-transferable in IS vs transferable in FocalPop.
-
Leaf,
In IS: " Supplier grants iStockphoto:(...) The right to grant perpetual, world-wide, non-exclusive and non-transferable licenses or sub-licenses to end-users in accordance with the terms of the Content License Agreement"
In FocalPop: "you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare (...)"
If I understand it right, in IS you give them the rights to sell your work as RF; in FocalPop you are giving them the RF rights, including the right to redistribute it. Notice also non-transferable in IS vs transferable in FocalPop.
Madelaide, you got it right.
-
Hey guys - My name is Becky and I'm from FocalPop. Hope you don't mind if I jump in and answer some questions.
Leaf is right that the image buyer defines the rights (royalty-free at first, but they'll be able to request rights-managed soon.) Photographers can determine whether they are interested when they review the request. There are many factors a photographer will likely consider before choosing to participate (the rights, price, the turnaround time, whether they already have a photo fitting the request, etc.)
As far as the rights retained by FocalPop - the intent is as Leaf guessed, which is that we can display the images on our site, use them in advertising to show what FocalPop members can do, and do it in a way that is similar to what other microstock photography sites as well as crowdsourcing sites do.
You guys make some good points about how our terms differ from istock specifically. It's always good to hear feedback from photographers, so I'm glad we got a chance to hear your take on the terms. We're going to take a look at them again with our lawyers to make sure they aren't more rigid than we intended.
Nothing is set in stone, especially during this initial beta period, so please feel free to provide any other feedback that you think we should consider. :)
Becky
-
Thanks for taking the time to clarify Becky. I'll be submitting, for sure!
-
As far as the rights retained by FocalPop - the intent is as Leaf guessed, which is that we can display the images on our site, use them in advertising to show what FocalPop members can do, and do it in a way that is similar to what other microstock photography sites as well as crowdsourcing sites do.
Then you should be sure modify them to make it clear what you want to do instead of throwing a huge net over the permissions granted.
-
Hi Leaf, hi all,
if you are interested, there's a "FocalPopBecky" (FocalPop’s Co-Founder / VP of Marketing) small interview on my blog; my public thanks to her.
http://bit.ly/focalpop-msp (http://bit.ly/focalpop-msp)