MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Exclusivity, yes or no?  (Read 22921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2009, 18:59 »
0
As I said many times, I like IS and thinking about becoming exclusive a lot. However, being called "Freedom", I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free. I am not clear whether or not you can sell rejected photos as RM either. So it's too bad that I still haven't made the switch.

That is not true. You can give the pics to your family and friends for personal use. What you can't is to give away them for public licensed use. It's very different,
I'm not sure what you mean by 'public licensed use'. You can certainly give your images away for public use (e.g. to a charity) so long as it isn't for RF distribution.


puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2009, 19:04 »
0
EDITED
...except for a bizarre and ambiguous clause which seems to say that if you want to license your rejected files RM, you have to get the explicit permission from support.


this is what i still cannot fathom the sensibility. if you rejected those images why is it so forbidden to allow them to be sold RM ?  this sounds too much like work for hire where every single images really belong to the company that pays you. can anyone justify this for me? other than just being quote: ANAL unquote...?

bittersweet

« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2009, 19:06 »
0

I'm not sure what you mean by 'public licensed use'. You can certainly give your images away for public use (e.g. to a charity) so long as it isn't for RF distribution.

That's why I suggested a RM agreement. Even if the term is listed as 100 years, it is the only real way to ensure that your donated image is not used in a way other than originally agreed to, for instance being given away as a free download, or even uploaded under another name and sold as RF.

« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2009, 19:12 »
0
Loop, if you had read my follow-up message, you'd see I was considering helping friends and relatives for their e-commerce websites, not just for personal use.

Another consideration is whether or not I can sell my rejected images as RM.

As I said many times, I like IS and thinking about becoming exclusive a lot. However, being called "Freedom", I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free. I am not clear whether or not you can sell rejected photos as RM either. So it's too bad that I still haven't made the switch.

That is not true. You can give the pics to your family and friends for personal use. What you can't is to give away them for public licensed use. It's very different,

bittersweet

« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2009, 19:29 »
0
Another consideration is whether or not I can sell my rejected images as RM.

This is the clause in question:
Quote
You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.

The other ambiguous clause in the exclusive agreement is this one:

Quote
12. Effect of Termination
b. Upon the termination of this Agreement with respect to Still and Flash Content or Motion Content, or both, the grant of authority given to iStockphoto shall cease with respect to the relevant category of Content subject to the following conditions: (i) iStockphoto shall remove the applicable Accepted Exclusive Content from the Site and distribution partners within thirty (30) days of the termination of this Agreement; (ii) notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or distribution partner marketing programs; and (iii) regardless of the expiration or termination of this Agreement, iStockphoto will continue, in accordance with this Agreement, to pay compensation due to the Supplier at the non-exclusive royalty rate of 20% in respect of licenses granted to members during any transitional period, subject to any rights of set-off under this Agreement or at law.

It has been repeatedly brought up in discussion by people who understandably interpret this to mean that if you quit being exclusive, they will delete everything you uploaded as an exclusive. Admins have repeatedly countered by stating that is not the meaning of the clause, and that nobody's portfolio has ever been deleted against their will simply because they quit being exclusive. It is simply removing the "Accepted Exclusive Content" designation from the work, not removing the actual work.

I'm sure if it has happened, we would have heard about it. I haven't. Has anyone else?

« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2009, 19:55 »
0
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere IS doesn't care what you do if the image is RM. Does anyone know for sure?

Another consideration is whether or not I can sell my rejected images as RM.

This is the clause in question:
Quote
You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.


« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2009, 20:09 »
0
Yes, you can sell RM wherever you want. Or donate as RM. But not the same image you are selling as RF at istock; that would cheat istock and the customer who bought this image as RM as well. Once one image is sold as RF it can't never be RM.

« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2009, 20:32 »
0
Another consideration is whether or not I can sell my rejected images as RM.

This is the clause in question:
Quote
You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.

The other ambiguous clause in the exclusive agreement is this one:

Quote
12. Effect of Termination
b. Upon the termination of this Agreement with respect to Still and Flash Content or Motion Content, or both, the grant of authority given to iStockphoto shall cease with respect to the relevant category of Content subject to the following conditions: (i) iStockphoto shall remove the applicable Accepted Exclusive Content from the Site and distribution partners within thirty (30) days of the termination of this Agreement; (ii) notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or distribution partner marketing programs; and (iii) regardless of the expiration or termination of this Agreement, iStockphoto will continue, in accordance with this Agreement, to pay compensation due to the Supplier at the non-exclusive royalty rate of 20% in respect of licenses granted to members during any transitional period, subject to any rights of set-off under this Agreement or at law.

It has been repeatedly brought up in discussion by people who understandably interpret this to mean that if you quit being exclusive, they will delete everything you uploaded as an exclusive. Admins have repeatedly countered by stating that is not the meaning of the clause, and that nobody's portfolio has ever been deleted against their will simply because they quit being exclusive. It is simply removing the "Accepted Exclusive Content" designation from the work, not removing the actual work.

I'm sure if it has happened, we would have heard about it. I haven't. Has anyone else?
I was exclusive videographer at IS. After canceled my exclusivity NO one file was removed.

« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2009, 20:48 »
0
I would disagree about reaching payout faster. Rate of payout is determined by a few factors like portfolio size, quality of the work, agency customer base, ect. I see regular payout each month at many of my big sites, and the little ones are getting very close to monthly payout as well, so its really a non issue for serious non-exclusive submitters. As for having your stuff at only one place, well, like I said in my other post, I have data suggesting you won't always win at the same agencies every time.

Interesting. CHeers cardmaverick. I wonder if anyone has a different opinion. It's good to know, tho!
I think the argument that images not accepted at one agency can be accepted at another is a bit misleading. It's a bit like hedging bets - you win more often but smaller amounts. Only those who have been on both sides of the fence can really speak about this, and even for them there are other changes that make comparisons not really fair. I think it's important not to get too attached to any one image and it's fate, but the success of your work as a whole.

I think you are misunderstanding me. My images from an entire shoot were accepted at all of my agencies. What I'm saying is the performance varied sales wise at each, and it was different from what was "usual" for me. SS was not the top grosser, which is typically the case. Anyhow, just clearing that up.

bittersweet

« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2009, 21:17 »
0
Yes, you can sell RM wherever you want. Or donate as RM. But not the same image you are selling as RF at istock; that would cheat istock and the customer who bought this image as RM as well. Once one image is sold as RF it can't never be RM.

From the clause quoted, it would appear that that is not necessarily the case for rejected content.

« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2009, 21:49 »
0
Yes, you can sell RM wherever you want. Or donate as RM. But not the same image you are selling as RF at istock; that would cheat istock and the customer who bought this image as RM as well. Once one image is sold as RF it can't never be RM.

Yes it can.  As mentioned before, you would just not be able to offer history or exclusivity as additional options.

« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2009, 22:14 »
0
Seems like there is a lot of conflicting info in this thread and conflicting interpretations of the exclusive contract - even from istock exclusives.

I stick by my original suggestion that if and when Freedom decides to be exclusive she(or he?) should call Support, explain the specific issues, and get the official word. 


bittersweet

« Reply #37 on: July 07, 2009, 23:50 »
0
Seems like there is a lot of conflicting info in this thread and conflicting interpretations of the exclusive contract - even from istock exclusives.

The only conflicting interpretation that I've seen seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the term rights managed, which does not inherently mean "exclusive use".

But you are right that the best way to reassure yourself that you have a complete understanding is to contact support. I would recommend via the support ticket system rather than a call, so that you have a record of your conversation for future reference, should you need to refresh your memory.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2009, 07:35 »
0
Seems like there is a lot of conflicting info in this thread and conflicting interpretations of the exclusive contract - even from istock exclusives.

But you are right that the best way to reassure yourself that you have a complete understanding is to contact support. I would recommend via the support ticket system rather than a call, so that you have a record of your conversation for future reference, should you need to refresh your memory.
Yes, I had two very specific (to me) queries, both of which were apparently OK uses according to Support.

However, although they have rewritten the exclusivity Agreement since I became exclusive, it's actually become longer and more convoluted. I really wish they'd set it out in plain, unambiguous English. Just like I wish they'd sort out the beginners manual to explain that nowadays just about any photo of a person or part of a person needs an MR.

The exclusive/reject thing is apparently so that they can, if they choose, distribute the rejected images elsewhere at some time in the future. I thought they might do this with the derisory-seeming photos.com and JIU deal, but they are not going to do so, apparently. I thought at least some images rejected for 'poor light' (which in my case means the real, 'flat' light which we get 90% of the time) could go there.

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2009, 08:54 »
0
going off slightly, i hope hawkeye  will allow me to ask this question-
 those of you who are not for exclusive, would you still go for exclusive image with a specific site? if so, which site, and were they beneficial?

« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2009, 10:42 »
0
going off slightly, i hope hawkeye  will allow me to ask this question-
 those of you who are not for exclusive, would you still go for exclusive image with a specific site? if so, which site, and were they beneficial?


Bit OT, but I would be happy to submit exclusive images to istock if they allowed it.  Particularly to Vetta.  But I don't think they are ever gonna allow it...

« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2009, 10:47 »
0
going off slightly, i hope hawkeye  will allow me to ask this question-
 those of you who are not for exclusive, would you still go for exclusive image with a specific site? if so, which site, and were they beneficial?


Bit OT, but I would be happy to submit exclusive images to istock if they allowed it.  Particularly to Vetta.  But I don't think they are ever gonna allow it...

I doubt it.  I believe the reason they don't allow for exclusive images is because its easy to post a similar image on another site, which would really defeat the purpose.  And yes, its not allowed, but if you are a non-exclusive posting to every site, the resources are just not there to monitor that type of stuff. 

I would love to see them build a much more exclusive gallery and weed out non-exclusives from my point of view as an exclusive artist, but that won't happen either and it doesn't enhance the value of their collection.  All-in-all, I do believe they are doing well at managing what they do have though, I have always thought this, and I'm not saying this just because I'm exclusive.  Sorry if its off-topic


« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2009, 11:30 »
0
I would love to see them build a much more exclusive gallery and weed out non-exclusives from my point of view as an exclusive artist

That's already there. A buyer can check the "exclusives artists" only checkbox.

« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2009, 11:48 »
0
Oh yes, I hadn't noticed that.  What I meant was no non-exclusives at all.  However, I realize thats unrealistic and possibly a very bad business model.  But that checkbox works for me.


« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2009, 12:11 »
0
Oh yes, I hadn't noticed that.  What I meant was no non-exclusives at all.

Ah, ok. Well that would be a great idea. Go for it!
The problem for the exclusives would then be that commissions would have to be lowered, since their higher commissions are partly subsidized by the lower commissions of free contributors.

« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2009, 12:30 »
0

Ah, ok. Well that would be a great idea. Go for it!
The problem for the exclusives would then be that commissions would have to be lowered, since their higher commissions are partly subsidized by the lower commissions of free contributors.


True that^^.  

Plus of course, the exclusives get many other advantages over non-exclusives, such as search engine placement, private forums, etc. and those perks would become irrelevant if everybody was exclusive.

But the number one reason not to get rid of independents is (drumroll please....)

Because istock would lose roughly half its content.  They could no longer claim to have what the others have PLUS exclusive content.  Other sites would then have much larger collections and a big competitive advantage.

But hey, if you want them to go that way, cool by me.  I have already run the numbers and I would get by just fine without the income istock generates.  Even more so when their buyers realize the collection has been halved and go joining other sites en masse ;D


puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2009, 12:46 »
0

Ah, ok. Well that would be a great idea. Go for it!
The problem for the exclusives would then be that commissions would have to be lowered, since their higher commissions are partly subsidized by the lower commissions of free contributors.


True that^^. 

Plus of course, the exclusives get many other advantages over non-exclusives, such as search engine placement, private forums, etc. and those perks would become irrelevant if everybody was exclusive.

But the number one reason not to get rid of independents is (drumroll please....)

Because istock would lose roughly half its content.  They could no longer claim to have what the others have PLUS exclusive content.  Other sites would then have much larger collections and a big competitive advantage.

But hey, if you want them to go that way, cool by me.  I have already run the numbers and I would get by just fine without the income istock generates.  Even more so when their buyers realize the collection has been halved and go joining other sites en masse ;D



interesting response from both sides (cevapcici, PixelBytes)  (ichiro17) .
 i was actually hoping to touch on exclusive images other than IS, but you (cevapcici, PixelBytes) brought up another pointer i never thought of, viz the importance independents figure in the whole IS equation. although i am sure exclusives will no doubt beg to differ.

 thx you 3, and thx too to hawk_eye for letting me go OT (silence mean consent ).


« Reply #47 on: July 08, 2009, 14:23 »
0

Ah, ok. Well that would be a great idea. Go for it!
The problem for the exclusives would then be that commissions would have to be lowered, since their higher commissions are partly subsidized by the lower commissions of free contributors.


True that^^.  

Plus of course, the exclusives get many other advantages over non-exclusives, such as search engine placement, private forums, etc. and those perks would become irrelevant if everybody was exclusive.

But the number one reason not to get rid of independents is (drumroll please....)

Because istock would lose roughly half its content.  They could no longer claim to have what the others have PLUS exclusive content.  Other sites would then have much larger collections and a big competitive advantage.

But hey, if you want them to go that way, cool by me.  I have already run the numbers and I would get by just fine without the income istock generates.  Even more so when their buyers realize the collection has been halved and go joining other sites en masse ;D



This is exactly why I said it would be a horrible business decision.  Thats why they manage the collection, and I submit to it :)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 14:25 by ichiro17 »

« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2009, 14:50 »
0
Has anyone ever tried to find an image at another microstock site that is similar enough to an exclusive image at IS? Is having exclusive images within a microstock collection that valueable considering the microstock model? How exclusive is an image if it has sold 10,000 times?

I think exclusive images via Vetta makes great sense.

I am sure there is going to be a great deal of change within the industry over the next few years, what if one of those changes was that every microstock agency insisted on contributor exclusivity, who would you partner with as they stand now? and what other changes would the agencies have to make to attract the talent? Would the race to the bottom be over?

« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2009, 14:58 »
0

..., if you have dulpicity over 5, 15 sites, you reach payout a lot later, if not even reaching payout on many ie. Crestock, because they sell little. IS, DT, because of their high payout point.
Being exclusive means a buyer has to come to one place to get your images, which also mean your sales would reach payout sooner, instead of selling 1 at Crestock, 3 at Dt, 5 at StockXpert,etc.. and not seeing a payout cheque too regularly.
This alone makes exclusiveness attractive to me.

 of course you're assuming that all the people who visit those other sites will come to IS to buy your images instead -- not very likely;  your exposure on IS will be increased, but you're getting ZERO exposure elsewhere;

re payouts, it doesnt make that big a difference - maybe get a payout every other month rather than every month.  in software, royalties are usually only pad quarterly

steve


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5455 Views
Last post June 30, 2007, 17:51
by yingyang0
9 Replies
3502 Views
Last post April 18, 2008, 12:11
by stokfoto
69 Replies
21682 Views
Last post July 02, 2009, 18:49
by gostwyck
67 Replies
23506 Views
Last post October 28, 2009, 07:33
by ichiro17
0 Replies
1993 Views
Last post September 26, 2009, 10:28
by pixeled

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle