MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Are you going exclusive with Istock in the next 6 months ?

I am already exclusive
33 (15.2%)
I am going to be exclusive
12 (5.5%)
I am not sure yet
28 (12.9%)
No I will stay independant
138 (63.6%)
Other (exclusive at DT/can't in the next 6 months)
6 (2.8%)

Total Members Voted: 195

Author Topic: Who is planning exclusivity ? -Poll-  (Read 33124 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« Reply #125 on: December 22, 2009, 12:23 »
0
It has been said that an exclusive is an employee of iStock, but it's worse. This employee can't even shoot in his free time and share his work. In fact, it's serfdom.

Actually the limitation is only for giving out royalty free licenses - either for payment or for free. There is no objection with "sharing" images, for example on Flickr, as long as you disable downloads, so nobody can use the images for free...

How do you stop someone takeing a screenshot and using that? I guess a big watermark would discourage any use by downloading or taking a screenshot.


« Reply #126 on: December 22, 2009, 13:44 »
0
How do you stop someone takeing a screenshot and using that?

In that case it's a breach of terms if you mark your images as "totally copyrighted".

Not that I feel any urge to go exclusive on iStock right now. I just resubmitted two rejects from my latest upload in September. Reject because the country was missing somewhere on the MRF. It was re-rejected for (1) bad keywords (I shouldn't mention "copyspace" on an image with copyspace) - (2) isolation too feathered or too rough (using the same procedure as always - mostly accepted) - (3) I added "country" on the MRF and re-shot it 1600pix high - they couldn't read it - (4) the inevitable artifacts.

Too much hassle for an image that will collect dust soon at the far end of the best match. Viva la indepencia !  ;D
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 13:47 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #127 on: December 24, 2009, 16:34 »
0
To summarize: sharing is still possible, as long as you disable downloads.

Just to get this "sharing" thing clear: I meant you are allowed to make people look at and comment on your images. You just need to make it in a way that doesn't allow them to use the image.

And yes, asking iStock Contributor Relations first is always the best choice in case of doubts.  ;)

« Reply #128 on: December 25, 2009, 03:39 »
0
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM?

ShadySue

« Reply #129 on: December 25, 2009, 04:21 »
0
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM?

Who knows? It seems that American/Canadian legalese is even more obfuscating than UK legalese (I know, there's no such thing, just making a generalisation):
Provision of Exclusive Content

"1. In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, either or both of: (i) Still and Flash Content, and (ii) Motion Content; together in any case with (iii) descriptive and other information, documents (such as model or property releases) or software relating to such Still and Flash Content and Motion Content, as the case may be (collectively, Content) or otherwise required to enable iStockphoto to realize the commercial potential of the rights granted in the Content ("Descriptive Information"); but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity, except to the extent Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement; (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked; (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto (such as stand alone audio files); or (5) other Content specifically designated by the Supplier and agreed by iStockphoto as being non-exclusive Content. "

The whole agreement is here: http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php
Note that they haven't updated point 4 to reflect the fact that they now sell audio files.

traveler1116

« Reply #130 on: December 26, 2009, 00:50 »
0
I will stay independent because I am sure other sites will have something to say about this.

Also istock is not going to win me over by burrying my files further down everytime they give exclusives better exposure.

Had they not changed their search behaviour last year to boost exclusives, I would have been exclusive long ago. But they showed me they can not be trusted.

I felt exactly the same but FT and DT both are worse, look at DT lowering %s a lot and FTs handling of their levels compared to IS.  Also DT adding tons of images to the FREE section.  I can't see myself staying with either of those companies(DT and FT) and without them exclusivity at IS makes sense.  Just a couple weeks left before I can leave DT. ;D
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 01:02 by traveler1116 »

« Reply #131 on: December 26, 2009, 02:34 »
0
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM?

"Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for.

iStock exclusivity means you can not sell RF licenses, no matter what image.

ShadySue

« Reply #132 on: December 26, 2009, 04:40 »
0
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM?

"Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for.

iStock exclusivity means you can not sell RF licenses, no matter what image.

"Editorial" refers to how the files can be used. They may or may not have releases (and releases may be irrelevant for the image concerned) but they're not needed. However, the main thing is that they cannot be used in adverts/commercials. They can be used in works of non-fiction, e.g. guide books, educational/instructional books, or factual articles in newspapers and magazines.

« Reply #133 on: December 26, 2009, 06:43 »
0
Editorial is a license type. You can sell any newsworthy photo (for instance, to your local newspaper), without releases, while being exclusive at DT. There's a second line, for books, etc.

« Reply #134 on: December 26, 2009, 09:34 »
0
Editorial is a license type. You can sell any newsworthy photo (for instance, to your local newspaper), without releases, while being exclusive at DT. There's a second line, for books, etc.

Editorial is not a license type.  Editorial is a restriction within a license type.  ie., licensing an image RF for editorial use places certain restrictions on how that image may be used.

vonkara

« Reply #135 on: December 26, 2009, 12:44 »
0
I just disabled my 3 last images at Dreamstime and applied for exclusivity at Istock. Still, I hope I won't have problems with partners sites and such things. I also hope I won't have to sell subscriptions anymore of my life... lol, fingers crossed, let Istock be wise

ShadySue

« Reply #136 on: December 26, 2009, 13:59 »
0
How do you stop someone takeing a screenshot and using that?
In that case it's a breach of terms if you mark your images as "totally copyrighted".


So, essentially if an exclusive were to post images on e.g. Flickr and designate them as Creative Commons for non-commercial use, that would not be RF, therefore would be OK?

« Reply #137 on: December 26, 2009, 14:39 »
0
No, that's pretty much an RF license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

ShadySue

« Reply #138 on: December 26, 2009, 14:52 »
0
No, that's pretty much an RF license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

That's an enormous restriction, though, compared to 'normal' RF licences.

« Reply #139 on: December 26, 2009, 15:00 »
0
So, essentially if an exclusive were to post images on e.g. Flickr and designate them as Creative Commons for non-commercial use, that would not be RF, therefore would be OK?

No. You should mark it as "all rights reserved". Never mind the Creative Commons "licenses", since they can't be enforced and they don't present any warranty at all.

Dan Heller has been for a while at "war" with CC, and he calls it a form of entrapment. More here and here. (CC is a semi-political action group in favor of Copyleft: a sort of sharing communist IP paradise were artists hand out the fruits of their sweat for free, since they are rich bourgeois *insult removed*).  :P

You can mention in your Flickr profile that your images can be licensed exclusively at iStock, but watch out with that. My paying Flickr account was set private without any comment when somebody tagged me for have portfolio links to my RF sites, then brutally terminated when I demanded an explanation. Flickr wants you to share. Since then, I call it Fuckr. ;)

Conclusion: stay away from Flickr and CC.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 15:05 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #140 on: December 26, 2009, 15:10 »
0
No, that's pretty much an RF license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

The only "license" of CC that makes sense is the "all rights reserved" one, but nobody needed CC for that. The other "licenses" are worthless since CC can't back up the claim of the poster of images that those are his, and they don't make any provision for releases.

« Reply #141 on: December 26, 2009, 19:23 »
0
No, that's pretty much an RF license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

That's an enormous restriction, though, compared to 'normal' RF licences.


Don't forget about this: "You are free ... to Share to copy, distribute and transmit the work"

That goes far beyond any RF license.


« Reply #142 on: December 26, 2009, 20:07 »
0
Editorial is a license type. You can sell any newsworthy photo (for instance, to your local newspaper), without releases, while being exclusive at DT. There's a second line, for books, etc.

Editorial is not a license type.  Editorial is a restriction within a license type.  ie., licensing an image RF for editorial use places certain restrictions on how that image may be used.

That's just semantics. Actually, it is. To begin with, you haven't tho work through an agent for sellin and publishing  editorial.

« Reply #143 on: December 26, 2009, 21:47 »
0
That's just semantics. Actually, it is. To begin with, you haven't tho work through an agent for sellin and publishing  editorial.

Well, it isn't semantics, but you lost me on whatever that second sentence is supposed to be saying.

ShadySue

« Reply #144 on: December 27, 2009, 04:21 »
0
That's just semantics. Actually, it is. To begin with, you haven't tho work through an agent for sellin and publishing  editorial.

Well, it isn't semantics, but you lost me on whatever that second sentence is supposed to be saying.

I think he's trying to say that you don't need to sell editorial through an agent. But of course, you could also try to sell commercial/RF from your own website if you like. If you're a big enough name, you might even succeed!
Just to note that editorial isn't only 'hot news', as seemed to be implied in an earlier post.

« Reply #145 on: December 27, 2009, 04:36 »
0
"Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for.

Not really. It sounds like any image of a person or a location where the photographer was too sloppy to ask for a release (or worse, the person didn't want to) or clone out the copyrighted elements is "Editorial".

Editorial should be newsworthy and/or be interesting in a cultural, educational or scientific way. That means it should depict a real situation or event, not something set up like an image of a bunch of friends making funny faces that turned out to be good. The images should also not be altered (except some contrast or luminance tweaking and/or minor cropping), or you fall into fauxtography. Also, if the main focus is on an unreleased person (like in street photography), it's not Editorial unless that person is a celebrity or in the news or involved in some editorially meaningful act (like a protester at a march).

I agree that Editorial is not a license type since it can be either RM or RF or any other self-defined type. Stock agents set usage restrictions on Editorial, but if acquired outside that channel (like from the photographer himself) the usage is always the responsibility of the user/buyer.

ShadySue

« Reply #146 on: December 27, 2009, 05:39 »
0
"Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for.


Editorial should be newsworthy and/or be interesting in a cultural, educational or scientific way. That means it should depict a real situation or event, not something set up like an image of a bunch of friends making funny faces that turned out to be good. The images should also not be altered (except some contrast or luminance tweaking and/or minor cropping), or you fall into fauxtography.


That's the thing: reality. It used to annoy the h**k out of me that educational textbooks still use images from the macros - they could be so much cheaper if the images were sourced from the micros, but of course, they have no way of telling which micro images are real and which have been altered: for educational images, that's usually really important.

RacePhoto

« Reply #147 on: December 27, 2009, 15:49 »
0
Editorial images are images that have not been released for commercial use.

"It is not limited to dissemination of news in the sense of current events, but extends far beyond that to include all types of factual, educational and historical data, or even entertainment and amusement, concerning interesting phases of human activity in general."

http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/02/commercial-vs-editorial-use-of.html

vonkara

« Reply #148 on: December 27, 2009, 16:32 »
0
I am confused... Can we submit editorial images elsewhere (like on Alamy) when we are exclusive at Istock ? Are we still debating this... If so, I will send a support ticket to Istock, because it's a question I need an answer on.

ap

« Reply #149 on: December 27, 2009, 16:51 »
0
I am confused... Can we submit editorial images elsewhere (like on Alamy) when we are exclusive at Istock ? Are we still debating this... If so, I will send a support ticket to Istock, because it's a question I need an answer on.

all "editorial" images without releases will require rm licencing, at alamy or elsewhere. so, yes, you're ok by is exclusivity rules.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 17:11 by ap »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
51 Replies
16154 Views
Last post October 02, 2007, 11:00
by KiwiRob
1 Replies
1894 Views
Last post May 11, 2009, 18:39
by Milinz
50 Replies
16163 Views
Last post July 31, 2010, 13:54
by Red Dove
3 Replies
3191 Views
Last post May 26, 2011, 01:52
by fotorob
8 Replies
2527 Views
Last post November 10, 2013, 08:58
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results