I uploaded an image on 7/31/2007: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3898325

An extended license was sold for: $12.13 on     
Sunday August 26, 2007, 04:30 PM


So I Googled my name, and a link came up:

http://www.lightgate-imagery.com/Scenica/

I never saw that site before, nor has anyone downloaded this image from any other stock site I have uploaded it too. No idea what to do... Also if you visit their homepage, this image is in the popular buys section. As well as far as I understood the agreement on IstockPhoto, extended license does not allow this... any ideas? or advice.... or similar experiences??

Aw thank you I am just worried how much money this person made of me

It's still up, on the second page when you follow the link.
They sell prints (on canvas or fine art paper) of your picture, so I thought that's allowed with an extended license?

It's still up, on the second page when you follow the link.
They sell prints (on canvas or fine art paper) of your picture, so I thought that's allowed with an extended license?

Under the same impression here. I think there is an extended license for selling prints, t-shirts, coffee mugs, calanders etc..

So is selling that Ansel Adams print legit?

I think these people have come up before on istock - they buy the correct extended licence for prints (if they are the one's I'm thinking of) and are legit.

Here's the thread on it:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=63570&page=1

Is it really legit to resell images though? If it is then there is a hole in the agreement with iS.

There's one by Laurin Rinder on there too - page 2 of "metro."

Quote from: Susan S. on July 08, 2008, 04:17

I think these people have come up before on istock - they buy the correct extended licence for prints (if they are the one's I'm thinking of) and are legit.

Here's the thread on it:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=63570&page=1

Is it really legit to resell images though? If it is then there is a hole in the agreement with iS.

I do not believe they are selling the image - as such - they sell artwork that uses the image.  The IS thread that was posted is pretty clear that this is what an EL is for so that should not be a problem as long as they purchase an EL.  I'd let Ansel Adams work out his problems with the site on his own - not a real fan of copyrights attaching much past the life of the artist. 

What you might want to look at is what kind of protection is required by the EL holder.  The large, unwatermarked thumbnails could be a problem, but it would depend on what the EL holder's responsbility for protecting the work is.

fred

Hi everyone,

This is Jonas from Lightgate Imagery.

As far as I have understood the Extended License allows items for resale. I have mailed most of the photographers and had this discussion on the iStock-site before and I don't think there should be any problem.

I also think that i am allowed to have a preview of the image as large as the ones i'm using:

on�line or electronic publications, including web pages to a maximum of 800 x 600 pixels;

newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php [nonactive]

I'm considering removing Ansel Adams image because I've had some comments that they are copyrighted but as far as I have understood they belong to Public Domain. At lest most of them. But i don't like people believing that I'm a thief.

Public Domain. Additional source description and credit info:

Records of the National Park Service.
(79-AAG-1)
Ansel Adams (1902�1984)
"The Tetons--Snake River" Wyoming, 1942. Vintage signed print. National Archives: Unrestricted.

It's on Flickr as well: newbielink:http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/274983381/ [nonactive]

Regards,
Jonas

Just another reason not to sell images of this caliber on microstock!

Actually Ansel Adams invented Microstock or was it the Zonesystem Sometimes i confusing things 

Please people, at least attempt to check your facts before bashing your customers!

I'd hardly call the original post 'bashing your customer'.

Eugenef wrote:

Also if you visit their homepage, this image is in the popular buys section. As well as far as I understood the agreement on IstockPhoto, extended license does not allow this... any ideas? or advice.... or similar experiences??

which is simply asking for advice.

The trouble is that there is an awful lot of image theft going on. I have found a number of my images that have been clearly stolen. Someone had one of my best selling images of a bunch of mistletoe on her site as though it was her own. Admittedly she wasn't selling it (but giving it away) and another site was using the same image as part of freebie images that could be used on MySpace/Facebook pages.

Nowadays it can be difficult to know if an image is being used legally or not, what with the number of agencies that may carry the same image, and their differing licensing options.

And a month or so ago there was another thread about some petty crook in London who clearly was stealing images and flogging them off as his own.

Seems to me to be fair enough to pose the question and get it sorted (as here).

Section 4(a)2
4. Standard License Prohibitions

Those statements are in reference to the standard license. The extended license states:

Items for Resale - Limited Run
Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a) of the Standard License Prohibitions prohibiting the use or display of the Content in items for resale, you shall be entitled with respect to this specific Content to produce the following items for resale, license, or other distribution:

up to 100,000 postcards, greeting cards or other cards, stationery, stickers, and paper products,
up to 10,000 posters, calendars or other similar publications, mugs or mousepads,
or up to 2,000 t-shirts, sweatshirts, or other apparel, games, toys, entertainment goods, framed or mounted artwork
in or on which the Content is used or displayed (the "Resale Merchandise"), provided that:

the right to produce the Resale Merchandise in no way grants any right to you or any recipient of the Resale Merchandise in any intellectual property or other rights to the Content;
you agree to indemnify the iStockphoto Parties from any cost, liability, damages or expense incurred by any of them relating to or in connection with any of the Resale Merchandise;
any production of Resale Merchandise in excess of the allowed run size is prohibited and requires the Content to be purchased separately;
all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses.

Quote from: sharply_done on July 08, 2008, 12:42

Section 4(a)2
4. Standard License Prohibitions

Those statements are in reference to the standard license. The extended license states:

Quote

Items for Resale - Limited Run
Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a) of the Standard License Prohibitions prohibiting the use or display of the Content in items for resale, you shall be entitled with respect to this specific Content to produce the following items for resale, license, or other distribution:

up to 100,000 postcards, greeting cards or other cards, stationery, stickers, and paper products,
up to 10,000 posters, calendars or other similar publications, mugs or mousepads,
or up to 2,000 t-shirts, sweatshirts, or other apparel, games, toys, entertainment goods, framed or mounted artwork
in or on which the Content is used or displayed (the "Resale Merchandise"), provided that:

the right to produce the Resale Merchandise in no way grants any right to you or any recipient of the Resale Merchandise in any intellectual property or other rights to the Content;
you agree to indemnify the iStockphoto Parties from any cost, liability, damages or expense incurred by any of them relating to or in connection with any of the Resale Merchandise;
any production of Resale Merchandise in excess of the allowed run size is prohibited and requires the Content to be purchased separately;
all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses.

The issue here, I believe, is that the image is being used in a print-on-demand environment, which clearly violates the standard licensing agreement. The extended license does not modify the standard license in this regard, and thus its terms still apply - just read the last part of the clause (which I highlighted).