Author Topic: What if someone joins for exclusive and send refused images to other agencies? (Read 15136 times)

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

bittersweet · « **Reply #1 on:** October 02, 2009, 14:22 »

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2009, 14:57 »

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!

disorderly · « **Reply #3 on:** October 02, 2009, 15:27 »

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.

crazychristina · « **Reply #4 on:** October 02, 2009, 15:29 »

About 1% of people have no conscience. They wouldn't know the meaning of reprehensible. Reference.

lisafx · « **Reply #5 on:** October 02, 2009, 15:36 »

Quote from: averil on October 02, 2009, 15:29

About 1% of people have no conscience. They wouldn't know the meaning of reprehensible. Reference.

Only 1%? I would have thought it was more.

epantha · « **Reply #6 on:** October 02, 2009, 15:41 »

That percentage seems a little higher in my field – advertising. $:-\$

borg · « **Reply #7 on:** October 02, 2009, 15:53 »

Public hanging...

anonymous · « **Reply #8 on:** October 02, 2009, 16:04 »

Quote from: epantha on October 02, 2009, 15:41

That percentage seems a little higher in my field – advertising. $:-\$

haha...ditto...me thinks 25%-30% with another 25% straddling the fence

bittersweet · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2009, 16:14 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 02, 2009, 14:57

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2009, 16:20 »

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2009, 16:43 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 02, 2009, 16:20

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

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #12 on:** October 02, 2009, 17:05 »

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.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #13 on:** October 02, 2009, 17:22 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 02, 2009, 16:20

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.

eppic · « **Reply #14 on:** October 02, 2009, 18:53 »

I vote for PedroV as "troll of the month"

madelaide · « **Reply #15 on:** October 02, 2009, 19:18 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on October 02, 2009, 17:22

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):

Quote

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?

qwerty · « **Reply #16 on:** October 02, 2009, 19:22 »

Quote from: eppic on October 02, 2009, 18:53

I vote for PedroV as "troll of the month"

seconded

btw isn't yuri's girlfriend an exclusive at Istock ?

crazychristina · « **Reply #17 on:** October 02, 2009, 19:32 »

Quote from: qwerty on October 02, 2009, 19:22

Quote from: eppic on October 02, 2009, 18:53
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!!

qwerty · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2009, 22:38 »

Quote from: averil on October 02, 2009, 19:32

Quote from: qwerty on October 02, 2009, 19:22
Quote from: eppic on October 02, 2009, 18:53
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.

Clivia · « **Reply #19 on:** October 03, 2009, 00:51 »

Quote from: averil on October 02, 2009, 19:32

Quote from: qwerty on October 02, 2009, 19:22
Quote from: eppic on October 02, 2009, 18:53
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.

Pixart · « **Reply #20 on:** October 03, 2009, 14:43 »

Is she still there? I asked for the link here once, and was told her portfolio was gone.

HermanM · « **Reply #21 on:** October 03, 2009, 15:04 »

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...

Dook · « **Reply #22 on:** October 05, 2009, 08:42 »

What if I robe a bank?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #23 on:** October 05, 2009, 08:50 »

Quote from: Dook on October 05, 2009, 08:42

What if I robe a bank?

Would that be a velvet or satin robe?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #24 on:** October 05, 2009, 08:52 »

Quote from: Dook on October 05, 2009, 08:42

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!

I never did follow up if all his accounts were closed, or if one site kept him. Don't even remember the name anymore.

madelaide · « **Reply #25 on:** October 05, 2009, 14:22 »

Quote from: Dook on October 05, 2009, 08:42

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.

bittersweet · « **Reply #26 on:** October 05, 2009, 17:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 05, 2009, 08:50

Quote from: Dook on October 05, 2009, 08:42
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.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #27 on:** October 05, 2009, 18:47 »

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.

=tom

Dook · « **Reply #28 on:** October 06, 2009, 13:42 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 05, 2009, 17:36

Quote from: sjlocke on October 05, 2009, 08:50
Quote from: Dook on October 05, 2009, 08:42
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What if someone joins for exclusive and send refused images to other agencies? (Read 15136 times)

PedroV

bittersweet

lisafx

disorderly

crazychristina

lisafx

epantha

borg

anonymous

bittersweet

madelaide

lisafx

PeterChigmaroff

HughStoneIan

eppic

madelaide

qwerty

crazychristina

qwerty

Clivia

Pixart

HermanM

Dook

Sean Locke Photography

RacePhoto

madelaide

bittersweet

a.k.a.-tom

Dook

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors