MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Holmes on August 29, 2014, 11:50
-
My wife wants to open an account on shutter stock and shoot after my shooting -- meaning same props but rearranged for her shots some. (props and lighting etc). So the shots from those shoots will be similar but not the same as mine.
I have an IS account as exclusive so I am concerned about all this. Since she is taking the photos while I am not even in the studio she would own the copyright and could contractually submit to Shutter stock. But my shots will look similar when I upload to IS.
I am wondering if this would create a problem with my IS exclusive account.
-
no expert legalese here,
but outside in the production world,
in a studio owned by Photographer A, props,lighting,etc...
no matter who presses the shutter in that studio,
it all becomes the property of the Photographer.
but in micro or stock photography, i cannot and will not claim to know the rules there ;)
or to put it in a more objective nutshell...
eg. say it is not the wife, or partner, ... but an employee who uses the studio (props and all)
to shoot (with or without the knowledge or permission)...
it would consider it the photographer's property.
if not, what's there to prevent an employee ( or
in an extreme case...ie. office cleaner... at night, caretaker,etc) to do that???
-
Tell her to come up with her own ideas Obviously, essentially duplicating your ideas would be against the 'spirit' of the agreement.
You each own your own shots when you press the shutter. Doesn't matter about the same studio, props or whatever.
Of course, I couldn't care less how someone tries to take advantage of IS, so knock yourself out :)
-
I think the idea of exclusivity is dead, it's just waiting for a medical examiner to declare it as such. Until then people are going to hang to the hope that it will survive. "should I give it mouth to mouth", "where's the portable defibrillator?", "why's it twitching the way it is?", "what's that smell?".
-
I think the idea of exclusivity is dead, it's just waiting for a medical examiner to declare it as such. Until then people are going to hang to the hope that it will survive. "should I give it mouth to mouth", "where's the portable defibrillator?", "why's it twitching the way it is?", "what's that smell?".
Yea but bottom line is that he wants to enjoy exclusive income enhanced by very much the same port on other micros. This recipe could be significant in terms of income.
-
It's been done before, without even rearranging lighting and objects or camera position, but you really need to contact istock to see if they will allow you to be one of those doing this, or not.
-
It's been done before, without even rearranging lighting and objects or camera position, but you really need to contact istock to see if they will allow you to be one of those doing this, or not.
Why would you need to contact IS about this?
-
It's been done before, without even rearranging lighting and objects or camera position, but you really need to contact istock to see if they will allow you to be one of those doing this, or not.
So do you actually know of married couples who have received permission from IS to do this? Where do I sign up?? LOL :D
-
...I am wondering if this would create a problem with my IS exclusive account.
As you know, iStock can close your account at any time and for any or no reason with 30 days notice. So regardless of what the agreement says, if they don't like what you're doing, they could choose to boot you out (or involuntarily make you an indie).
Without knowing who you are or how high in the IS firmament you are, it's hard to say what the likelihood of that is. If you care very much about keeping iStock happy, then ensure that what your wife shoots looks different enough that a reasonable person wouldn't think someone had stolen your images (and same props is fine - unless you hand make all your props, anyone could have bought the same things as you bought even if they weren't married to you :) )
And given what iStock is accepting these days, I don't think they're looking all that closely at what's uploaded...
-
It's been done before, without even rearranging lighting and objects or camera position, but you really need to contact istock to see if they will allow you to be one of those doing this, or not.
So do you actually know of married couples who have received permission from IS to do this? Where do I sign up?? LOL :D
There is at least one iS exclusive who shoots in parallel with an indie shooting partner (not life-partner), is perfectly open about it, and said on their forum that iS said it's OK. But they might have got 'special permission'.
-
It's been done before, without even rearranging lighting and objects or camera position, but you really need to contact istock to see if they will allow you to be one of those doing this, or not.
Why would you need to contact IS about this?
Because if they choose to decide that you are violating exclusivity they could just scrap your portfolio.
-
Ask to Yuri…
-
Ask to Yuri…
I think this was BTrousers point. Some special people get special deals. Average person can't expect they will get the same deal.
-
Well at Istockolypses (not sure the spelling), does not everyone take the same photos and submit them as their own after? I have never done one and really don't know this, I'm just curious. I recall seeing some things in the Critic thread after them about submitting photos from it and thought it odd at the time they could submit something that was set up by someone else.
I would think that your wife can get quite different photos from you with the same studio props, models, lighting etc. I bet if you are not present and even given the same goal as to what the photo is to represent the photos will actually be quite different. I know when my husband and myself have the same idea with the same available props they would look very different. It might be a lot of fun to see what happens, but if you are not present at the shoot, you might be worrying about nothing and find the shots are very different.
-
Yes to both and I'd say, consider using a different camera, with different EXIF data for owners name, and different serial number, or it would look mighty suspicious. If the two people only do the same shoots, it would also look terribly suspicious.
Agencies don't live in a closet. They watch what people do on other agencies. How else would they know if an exclusive applicant, has images someplace? Reminder one agency asked me to upload one of my SS best sellers. How did they know that? It included a thumbnail of the specific image.
If someone wants to pretend to be two people to skirt the exclusive limitations and make more. It's risky business.
Ask to Yuri…
I think this was BTrousers point. Some special people get special deals. Average person can't expect they will get the same deal.