pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How do we know we are getting what we have earned?  (Read 3776 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 09, 2007, 08:57 »
0
Here's an interesting one for you:

A few days ago I got a sitemail from someone saying that they had seen two of my images being used in a web template site. They were concerned that this wasn't allowed under normal licensing agreements and thought I should see what was going on.

I located the images in question and managed to send a query to the owner of the web template site. He replied saying the images had been downloaded from site A (I do not wish to name the site here). I replied saying that if the images had been downloaded from site A then an extended license would have been needed and from my records, those images had never been downloaded with an EL.

A reply came insisting that the images had been purchased with correct agreements and I replied that if that had been so, I would've received the correct payment, thinking that the buyer had not purchased the correct license at all.

Running out of patience, I explained what had occured in an email to Site A, hoping that they might follow this up since the buyer had admitted buying from this site in an email to me. Nothing heard from Site A as yet.

In the meantime, we exchanged a few more emails, with both of us getting more irate, with him insisting he had bought the images correctly and me insisting that I hadn't received the commission due to me. In the end, the buyer insisted he contact site A himself.

Not long after that, I find I have several EL sales, making Easter Sunday one of my best days ever on this site. So I am wondering?

Had the buyer gone back to the site to buy the ELs? OR
Did the site realise that I hadn't been paid for the ELs and credit me retrospectively.

If it's the latter (which I suspect it is), it's got me thinking....how do we really know if we have got the credits for all photos sold?


eendicott

« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2007, 09:04 »
0
Phil, I don't know the answer to your question but what I find interesting is that this very same discussion is taking place at another discussion group - and the discussion relates to a traditional agency, not a micro.

Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth registering images with the copyright office and choosing only the agencies/portals with which you agree to licensing terms with.  May make better sense to mark everything as RF, submit it to every non-exclusive site there is, and accept the fact that part of the cost of doing business is getting cheated - similar to a shortage allowance used in the retail industry.

It can get frustrating.

« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2007, 09:07 »
0
ayy.. mateee - there inlies the rub.

There must be mistakes from time to time - with the things we CAN see, many people are catching mistakes, there is obviously going to be mistakes in the things we can't see either.

Which sites don't 'bother' to fix the mistakes we can't see??  It would be nice to know somehow or be able to double check the sales.

eendicott

« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2007, 09:13 »
0
...thinking a little more

...there are certain agencies that have provisions in their contributor agreement that allow the contributor to make arrangements for an audit of the agency's records with relation to that contributor's activity.  I haven't seen this at many of the micros but if it's worth the time, money, effort, and part of the contributor agreement of the agency in question, then it may be something worth looking into.

« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2007, 09:25 »
0
There must be mistakes from time to time - with the things we CAN see, many people are catching mistakes, there is obviously going to be mistakes in the things we can't see either.

Leaf:

The only mistakes that should be made are by buyers that don't understand which license they should be purchasing.  Many buyers probably just purchase the standard license and use it for whatever they feel like.

Mistakes should never be made by the agency.  After all, they have applications run by lots of expensive computers.  They aren't keeping track of sales by hand.  And if there is a "bug" in the system, then more people should be affected by it.  There probably needs to be some sort of auditing done on these sales, but who would enforce it and who would do it?

« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2007, 09:29 »
0
....how do we really know if we have got the credits for all photos sold?

phildate:

My guess is that the buyer didn't understand that they needed an Extended License, and when confronted were too embarrassed to come forth with the truth.  They probably just went back to the site and purchased the appropriate licenses.  But if this is the case, then they should be penalized for their actions.  Otherwise, what is to prevent other buyers from doing the same thing?

I would like to ask that you pursue this matter further.  Please get an explanation from the agency on exactly what happened in this instance.  This is important not only to you, but to every artist that has images on these sites.  If there is any misconduct, then we should all be made aware of it.

Thanks for posting this.

digiology

« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2007, 09:36 »
0
....how do we really know if we have got the credits for all photos sold?

phildate:

My guess is that the buyer didn't understand that they needed an Extended License, and when confronted were too embarrassed to come forth with the truth.  They probably just went back to the site and purchased the appropriate licenses.  But if this is the case, then they should be penalized for their actions.  Otherwise, what is to prevent other buyers from doing the same thing?

I would like to ask that you pursue this matter further.  Please get an explanation from the agency on exactly what happened in this instance.  This is important not only to you, but to every artist that has images on these sites.  If there is any misconduct, then we should all be made aware of it.

Thanks for posting this.

I thought the same thing....to much of a coincidence if you ask me.

« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2007, 09:39 »
0
I have noticed another way for some companies to avoid paying the EL price:  they download the same image from different stock sites.

This is not a generous gesture.  It happens to me several times a week.  Suddenly a specific picture has a download from 3 or 4 stock sites the same day.  I don't take it as coincidence.  As a non-exclusive there is nothing I can do about it.

Integrity.  Some companies just don't have it.  Some companies do have it though, fortunately for them and for us.  In the end, one has to live with the consequences of our actions.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 13:48 by berryspun »

« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2007, 09:40 »
0
Yes, you are right, this should be pursued further. However I didn't really expect a reply from the agency until after the Easter break and tomorrow I am off to Angkor Wat for a five day photography trip. Internet access will be limited but if I hear anything I will post here for sure. I believe I have done the right thing by not posting anything about the site directly or posting on the forums on that site. I will be very interested to hear exactly what went on.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
5742 Views
Last post March 07, 2009, 11:16
by Rahul Pathak
55 Replies
16189 Views
Last post April 13, 2009, 04:36
by Milinz
0 Replies
2386 Views
Last post September 11, 2010, 05:44
by acv
11 Replies
3278 Views
Last post November 17, 2013, 09:33
by ShadySue
9 Replies
1304 Views
Last post June 09, 2021, 05:48
by kall3bu

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle