MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: PedroV on October 02, 2009, 14:17
-
I met a person doing that: He joined IS for exclusivity but told me he was sending his refused images to other agencies. A bit dangerous, you can be caught and bannes ;)
-
I think you answered your own question. :)
Once the rejection is in the istock system, it is very easy for them to confirm any reports of such activity. It's not like they delete it once it's been rejected.
Not a wise choice, and certainly riskier than the ones who have wives, husbands, girlfriends uploading their work that is not on istock to other agencies in a different name. ;)
-
All of the above sound not only risky, but entirely dishonest.
It never occurred to me that exclusives would have friends and relatives upload images to other agencies and reap the benefits of exclusivity and independence at the same time. Pretty reprehensible IMO. I hope Istock polices this sort of thing vigorously!
-
It's a plain and simple violation of your contract with iStock. I don't like their rules on exclusivity, so I remain independent. For someone to accept a set of rules and then violate them is reprehensible. I hope they find your friend and nail him to a wall. Not literally, mind. Well, probably not literally.
-
About 1% of people have no conscience. They wouldn't know the meaning of reprehensible. Reference (http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html).
-
About 1% of people have no conscience. They wouldn't know the meaning of reprehensible. Reference ([url]http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html[/url]).
Only 1%? I would have thought it was more.
-
That percentage seems a little higher in my field – advertising. :-\
-
Public hanging... :P
-
That percentage seems a little higher in my field – advertising. :-\
haha...ditto...me thinks 25%-30% with another 25% straddling the fence :)
-
All of the above sound not only risky, but entirely dishonest.
It never occurred to me that exclusives would have friends and relatives upload images to other agencies and reap the benefits of exclusivity and independence at the same time. Pretty reprehensible IMO. I hope Istock polices this sort of thing vigorously!
I completely agree. I do not have any firsthand knowledge of anyone doing such a thing, but it has been implied/reported by numerous people over the years. Maybe it is an urban legend. :)
-
Pedro,
First the fake model releases, now this. You are walking on fire, you know? :)
Refused images can be sold as RM in other agencies. Anything different is contrary to the exclusivity agreement of any agency.
On the other hand, we've heard about exclusives whose spouses/gf/bf with a remarkably similar type of work are non-exclusive contributors to other agencies, what always raised some suspitions.
-
First the fake model releases, now this. You are walking on fire, you know? :)
Good point Adelaide! It's beginning to smell a lot like Troll around here ;)
-
I know this has all been hashed over before but, I can and have sold copyrights of groups of images to agencies. I am no longer the owner of those images and I expect the agencies I sold them to would be more than unhappy if I licensed one of those images. Sure I have the original RAW files on my HDs but they are not mine anymore. I see absolutely nothing "technically" wrong with assigning a copyright to another individual for them to do as they like with. Just because I was the original photographer does not necessarily mean I still own the image. Or say a get a summer job shooting for a large production company. Does it mean those images can't be sold by that production company in a market outside my usual exclusive agreements? Some obvious discretion regarding similars needs to be adhered to. I should note that this how I see it and it doesn't really matter what I think if I get turfed cause of my misunderstanding of exclusive agreements. Which, for the record, I am not a part of.
-
Pedro,
First the fake model releases, now this. You are walking on fire, you know? :)
Refused images can be sold as RM in other agencies. Anything different is contrary to the exclusivity agreement of any agency.
On the other hand, we've heard about exclusives whose spouses/gf/bf with a remarkably similar type of work are non-exclusive contributors to other agencies, what always raised some suspitions.
Are Istock's refused exclusive files eligible to be sold as RM on other sites? I was under the impression that rejected exclusive IS files could not ever be sold anywhere else at all, including as RM, unless arrangements were made with IStock on a case-by-case basis.
-
I vote for PedroV as "troll of the month"
-
Are Istock's refused exclusive files eligible to be sold as RM on other sites? I was under the impression that rejected exclusive IS files could not ever be sold anywhere else at all, including as RM, unless arrangements were made with IStock on a case-by-case basis.
This is what IS says in the FAQ (bold text highlighted by me):
Does that cover all of my files?
Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:
* Rights-managed files with other organizations
* Personal portfolio sites
* Work for hire/editorial work contracts
* Prints for sale
* Prints, t-shirts and the like produced on art-only sites such as cafepress.com
Are there other restrictions?
* Images, video or audio files may not be sold on the artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
* Artist may not give away files for free, from their own or any other site.
* Rejected files may not be sold elsewhere
I believe the last sentence gives a dubious interpretation, but I suppose it applies to RF only. I believe this was the interpretation given here before - am I wrong?
-
I vote for PedroV as "troll of the month"
seconded
btw isn't yuri's girlfriend an exclusive at Istock ?
-
I vote for PedroV as "troll of the month"
seconded
btw isn't yuri's girlfriend an exclusive at Istock ?
Do you think he's selling her istock rejects!! egad!!
-
I vote for PedroV as "troll of the month"
seconded
btw isn't yuri's girlfriend an exclusive at Istock ?
Do you think he's selling her istock rejects!! egad!!
No I don't think he is selling her rejects, but it would allow him to evaluate the benefits of Istock exclusivity.
-
I vote for PedroV as "troll of the month"
seconded
btw isn't yuri's girlfriend an exclusive at Istock ?
Do you think he's selling her istock rejects!! egad!!
This wins the Best laugh of the Day award! Brilliant. ;D ;D
-
Is she still there? I asked for the link here once, and was told her portfolio was gone.
-
This is dishonest, there is no point to argue it.
What I have always been against is the fact that with IS your whole portfolio and future work is "agency exclusive", they are the only ones (I know, at least) that do that. I can agree that "image exclusivity" makes sense, total and absolutely true, but to tie your destiny and fate to one agency does not play well in my book.
And there are those couples that do what has been stated. It is sort of a loophole...
-
What if I robe a bank?
-
What if I robe a bank?
Would that be a velvet or satin robe?
-
What if I robe a bank?
You may have a large sum of money for a short time, maybe get shot, or maybe get nothing, but you will have a designated place to stay for a long time right after that? ;)
He left out, what if someone sells their images as exclusive on multiple sites. Remember that one. The guy was featured photographer of the month and people found the same pictures on six or seven sites. Oops! :o I never did follow up if all his accounts were closed, or if one site kept him. Don't even remember the name anymore.
-
What if I robe a bank?
I believe you can come to Brazil, have a child here and you won't be sent to prison.
At least this is what happened to Ronald Biggs, and I always wondered why the Brazilian father of a Brazilian child can go to jail, but a foreign father would not. Even if not returned to UK, Biggs should have been in jail here. Instead, he made a living receiving British tourists in his restaurant to tell them all the story about his escape.
-
What if I robe a bank?
Would that be a velvet or satin robe?
Either way, you'd probably have to rob a bank to pay for all the fabric. ;)
-
S'why I'm not exclusive. I have plenty of IS rejects that sell well at SS, DT, BigStock etc.
Just doing some simple math, taking into consideration the bennies of being exclusive for IS... vs non-exclusive and selling where ever I want. ...I made a bunch more bucks selling everywhere rather than I would if I went exclusive with IS in the beginning.
Of course I am not a world renown, household word photographer. 8)=tom
-
What if I robe a bank?
Would that be a velvet or satin robe?
Either way, you'd probably have to rob a bank to pay for all the fabric. ;)
OK, thanks for supporting my bad English. Really thanks.