pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Exclusive iStock artist selling on other sites  (Read 6335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ink

« on: October 07, 2016, 05:27 »
+1
I have a serious concern!
I have found exclusive iStock artists selling under different names on Shutterstock and Fotolia. I don't want to post links to their accounts but it is fairly obvious with almost identical styling and the same model/photographer appearing in the images!!!

they have thousands of images selling on these sites even though they are exclusive artists!!

I have sent 2 emails to iStock compliance enforcement but had no response.
Any ideas of what to do next?


alno

« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2016, 05:36 »
+22

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.

« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2016, 05:38 »
+7
Are you sure they are exclusive or is it that their images are in signature collection. I'm only saying as if you were once an exclusive, even when you leave you're files still stay in the signature collection.

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2016, 05:40 »
+8
Another legit possibility, as you're not saying the pics are identical, only the models and styling, is that an exclusive is sharing shoots (costs/assisting) with an indie.

« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2016, 19:39 »
+6


I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.
[/quote]

+1

« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2016, 20:35 »
0
That has been happening for years and no one does anything about it. No point in worrying it about.

« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2016, 02:53 »
+1
Good luck to whoever this person is.  Istock have allowed a person to be exclusive and have thousands of images on multiple sites in the past.  They might be so desperate to get more exclusives that they will allow this for a time period?  As long as the contributor is the copyright holder, I don't think its their fault.  Istock are at fault but its not surprising that they have different rules for different people, they have shown in the past that they have double standards.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2016, 04:33 »
+20

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.

I think that's a bit unfair. Everyone has to follow the rules, and if somebody isn't following the rules, then that's not on. Another rule on a lot of sites, is that you can't use items for certain uses if you've only bought a regular license rather than an extended license. If you found out a buyer of one of your items was doing so... how would you feel if support told you that you should focus on your earnings rather than worrying about such stuff like that?

« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2016, 06:27 »
+5

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.
You are right with this, however, in my experience, those who defend these clever cheaters often have something to hide themselves. We should all stick to the rules.

« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2016, 07:17 »
+6

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.
You are right with this, however, in my experience, those who defend these clever cheaters often have something to hide themselves. We should all stick to the rules.

No one is defending the "clever cheaters".  They just realize IS could likely not care less, and could even have approved them to do it, since there are many others, and in the end, is a useless pursuit.  Send a support email if you're really concerned.

« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2016, 08:24 »
+4

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.
You are right with this, however, in my experience, those who defend these clever cheaters often have something to hide themselves. We should all stick to the rules.

No one is defending the "clever cheaters".  They just realize IS could likely not care less, and could even have approved them to do it, since there are many others, and in the end, is a useless pursuit.  Send a support email if you're really concerned.
Thanks for the translation, I already got that from sharpshot's comment. I'm not an IS contributor, so no reason to be concerned about. My message was completely different, I spell it out for you: everybody has the right to open whatever topic he/she wants as long as polite, without being brutally "put down", always by the same colleagues. Forums are there to talk, not to bite each others head off.

« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2016, 00:52 »
+3
[] Forums are there to talk, not to bite each others head off.
I have always thought (reading MSG) that forums were there to whine

« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2016, 14:25 »
+4

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.

I think that's a bit unfair. Everyone has to follow the rules, and if somebody isn't following the rules, then that's not on. Another rule on a lot of sites, is that you can't use items for certain uses if you've only bought a regular license rather than an extended license. If you found out a buyer of one of your items was doing so... how would you feel if support told you that you should focus on your earnings rather than worrying about such stuff like that?
I would agree if istock followed their own rules but they have shown in the past that they don't.  So reporting a contributor for breaking their rules seems like a waste of time because they are very likely to have allowed it.  This is just one of the reasons why I lost all confidence in istock, allowing some people to be exclusive when we can all see they aren't is just wrong.

« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2016, 16:17 »
+7
All iStock exclusives are exclusive, but some are more exclusive than others.

« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2016, 09:33 »
+3

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.

Yes, because turning a blind eye to injustices is always the morally correct choice. Topkek.

« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2016, 11:34 »
+1
Thanks Ink!

Duplicitous & crooked people should be called out publicly for their scams.

They know the rules, they broke the rules, they took a risk, and now they should suffer the consequences of their actions.  Simple as that.

Scammers should be called out as a matter of habit.  It has nothing to do with whether or not you want to help or hurt Getty / iStock.

Just post the links in this thread.

Mark


« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2016, 11:39 »
+3

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.

Yes, because turning a blind eye to injustices is always the morally correct choice. Topkek.

It's not really an "injustice", since IS allows it in many cases, and you don't really know the situation.

« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2016, 11:51 »
+1

[/quote]

It's not really an "injustice", since IS allows it in many cases, and you don't really know the situation.
[/quote]

Although some non-exclusive contributors have "Signature" files and a presence on Getty (most are legacy exclusives), their rate is that of non-exclusive.

« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2016, 12:09 »
0

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.

Yes, because turning a blind eye to injustices is always the morally correct choice. Topkek.

It's not really an "injustice", since IS allows it in many cases, and you don't really know the situation.

Neither do you, or the user who I quoted.

« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2016, 13:10 »
0
I would respond that IS my earnings because it is a use for which I should have been paid but was not.  I don't feel your analogy holds here.

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.

I think that's a bit unfair. Everyone has to follow the rules, and if somebody isn't following the rules, then that's not on. Another rule on a lot of sites, is that you can't use items for certain uses if you've only bought a regular license rather than an extended license. If you found out a buyer of one of your items was doing so... how would you feel if support told you that you should focus on your earnings rather than worrying about such stuff like that?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2016, 23:36 »
+2

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.

Yes, because turning a blind eye to injustices is always the morally correct choice. Topkek.

It's not really an "injustice", since IS allows it in many cases, and you don't really know the situation.

Maybe not a guaranteed injustice, but worth reporting it anyway. Like if you see a stranger breaking into your neighbours car... it might be his brother and the owner has asked him to as he's lost his keys... but it's still worth reporting it to be on the safe side.

« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2016, 06:05 »
+4
I am video non-exclusive, when I dropped my exclusivity my files did not change in price or collections! My files look exclusive on IS even though they are not exclusive!! The only way for you to know is my profile page and look for the clapper. I am image exclusive so there is a crown on my page so all of my files look exclusive. I do not feel this is fair to the buyer who thinks my files are exclusive when they are not!!

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2016, 06:21 »
+1
I do not feel this is fair to the buyer who thinks my files are exclusive when they are not!!

Why would they care?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2016, 06:44 »
0
I would respond that IS my earnings because it is a use for which I should have been paid but was not.  I don't feel your analogy holds here.

Any ideas of what to do next?

I suggest you to go shooting next. It's better to focus on your own earning instead of persistently put down somebody else's.

I think that's a bit unfair. Everyone has to follow the rules, and if somebody isn't following the rules, then that's not on. Another rule on a lot of sites, is that you can't use items for certain uses if you've only bought a regular license rather than an extended license. If you found out a buyer of one of your items was doing so... how would you feel if support told you that you should focus on your earnings rather than worrying about such stuff like that?

I just used the same words to draw comparisons... the analogy still holds though, the point is that rules are rules and you can't pick and choose which ones we should care about and which ones we should ignore. Maybe...

"If you found out a buyer of one of your items was doing so... how would you feel if support told you that you should focus on making more content rather than worrying about such stuff like that?"

...would have been better. Same message though!

« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2016, 07:55 »
+3
On a positive note I have found other sites to be very fair and treat me very well!

« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2016, 10:12 »
0
On a positive note I have found other sites to be very fair and treat me very well!

On another positive note, Getty / IS exclusivity does well for me. 

Exclusivity is simple and does not lead to the commoditization of my work.

« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2016, 10:17 »
+2
Glad it is working well for you! I am so glad to see my earnings where they should be now and I sleep better at night knowing my work is spread around. I love see high $$ 4k sales on a regular basis now! 

« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2016, 10:36 »
+2
Glad it is working well for you! I am so glad to see my earnings where they should be now and I sleep better at night knowing my work is spread around. I love see high $$ 4k sales on a regular basis now!

John, I'm happy you are doing well.  4K is ubiquitous now, so I doubt it will command a higher price for long.  Frankly, the higher price likely diminishes the demand for the clips.  YouTube commercials, cable tv commercials, in-house projects, etc usually are engaged by their audience at 720 or on a mobil phone, etc.  In my view, unique, well-shot, well-directed, content with believable diverse actors is all that matters to clients. -m

« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2016, 11:02 »
+3
Agreed that content is king and 1080 still the standard, I am happy to take the $$ while it is on the table! I love setting my prices and getting 50% I passed my GI/SI earnings in two months! I haven't doubled my income yet but close.

« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2016, 11:31 »
+3
Exclusivity never makes sense unless you have a close personal relationship with the agency and they actively promote you every week / you're the poster boy/girl.

« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2016, 22:34 »
0
Being exclusive means that you ONLY list those specific images on the site you are exclusive to, meaning they cannot be on any other site.

However if you are doing a model / product shoot you can select specific images to go on exclusive site and whatever you have left over (as long as they are different from exclusives) you are free to sell on any other site. Just make sure you do not accidentally post these alternate images to the exclusive site because they do check.

Anytime you do a shoot, try to get 2-3 shoots out of whatever you are shooting. Good Luck!

« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2016, 01:14 »
0
I do not feel this is fair to the buyer who thinks my files are exclusive when they are not!!

Why would they care?
I guess only if they paid a premium price for something they could have got for much less elsewhere they have been misled ....to me though its their problem not mine there are more significant things for me to get stressed about.

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2016, 01:23 »
+1
Being exclusive means that you ONLY list those specific images on the site you are exclusive to, meaning they cannot be on any other site.

However if you are doing a model / product shoot you can select specific images to go on exclusive site and whatever you have left over (as long as they are different from exclusives) you are free to sell on any other site. Just make sure you do not accidentally post these alternate images to the exclusive site because they do check.

Anytime you do a shoot, try to get 2-3 shoots out of whatever you are shooting. Good Luck!

That's image exclusivity. iS has artist/media exclusivity whereby you can't sell e.g. any  photos RF via any other agency if you are photo exclusive with IS. Unless you are one of the few with a special deal.

« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2016, 01:41 »
0
Being exclusive means that you ONLY list those specific images on the site you are exclusive to, meaning they cannot be on any other site.

However if you are doing a model / product shoot you can select specific images to go on exclusive site and whatever you have left over (as long as they are different from exclusives) you are free to sell on any other site. Just make sure you do not accidentally post these alternate images to the exclusive site because they do check.

Anytime you do a shoot, try to get 2-3 shoots out of whatever you are shooting. Good Luck!

That's image exclusivity. iS has artist/media exclusivity whereby you can't sell e.g. any  photos RF via any other agency if you are photo exclusive with IS. Unless you are one of the few with a special deal.
Presumably though if the photo is almost identical those without "special" status would be in trouble, maybe?

ShadySue

« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2016, 01:58 »
+1
Being exclusive means that you ONLY list those specific images on the site you are exclusive to, meaning they cannot be on any other site.

However if you are doing a model / product shoot you can select specific images to go on exclusive site and whatever you have left over (as long as they are different from exclusives) you are free to sell on any other site. Just make sure you do not accidentally post these alternate images to the exclusive site because they do check.

Anytime you do a shoot, try to get 2-3 shoots out of whatever you are shooting. Good Luck!

That's image exclusivity. iS has artist/media exclusivity whereby you can't sell e.g. any  photos RF via any other agency if you are photo exclusive with IS. Unless you are one of the few with a special deal.
Presumably though if the photo is almost identical those without "special" status would be in trouble, maybe?
Apparently not if you are shooting together with an indie. That was stated by a well-known exclusive in the old forum and never refuted by admin, but as it was mid-thread I can't now find the post.

« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2016, 09:31 »
+1
Interesting, I would not see this as my problem.

« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2016, 09:43 »
0
Being exclusive means that you ONLY list those specific images on the site you are exclusive to, meaning they cannot be on any other site.

However if you are doing a model / product shoot you can select specific images to go on exclusive site and whatever you have left over (as long as they are different from exclusives) you are free to sell on any other site. Just make sure you do not accidentally post these alternate images to the exclusive site because they do check.

Anytime you do a shoot, try to get 2-3 shoots out of whatever you are shooting. Good Luck!

That's image exclusivity. iS has artist/media exclusivity whereby you can't sell e.g. any  photos RF via any other agency if you are photo exclusive with IS. Unless you are one of the few with a special deal.
Presumably though if the photo is almost identical those without "special" status would be in trouble, maybe?
Apparently not if you are shooting together with an indie. That was stated by a well-known exclusive in the old forum and never refuted by admin, but as it was mid-thread I can't now find the post.
I remember that thread, but only took passing interest at the time. It makes sense that people might share a shoot. Wasn't there something about a husband and wife team where one was exc. and one non-exc. ?
I'd reckon that any such arrangement has been Okayed with TPTB though. Risky to just assume it was OK I'd have thought.

ShadySue

« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2016, 10:04 »
+2
The person concerned said that CR said it was OK, and it wasn't disputed.

With model shoots, it's one thing.
However, with e.g. public events or certain wildlife shots (from public hides, whalewatching boats, safari vehicles) you have no control of who might be photographing right next to you. I found a photo on Alamy which must have been taken within a couple of seconds of one of mine, and from a very few yards of where I was standing at a public event (yet I didn't notice any other 'decent' camera in the vicinity at the time, and it needed a long lens).
There was a legal case a couple of years back where some pro tog accused someone else of stealing her image and claiming it as her own, but the forensic examination showed they must have been standing right next to each other on a boat (maybe that was whalewatching, I can't remember).

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2016, 17:27 »
+2
I think chasing false exclusive is a task that should make the agency and not the boring photographers.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2518 Views
Last post January 14, 2008, 19:46
by leaf
19 Replies
6626 Views
Last post May 19, 2009, 18:57
by PeterChigmaroff
30 Replies
7746 Views
Last post October 11, 2010, 12:18
by relicon
26 Replies
7268 Views
Last post March 28, 2014, 23:14
by lisafx
2 Replies
1982 Views
Last post September 07, 2016, 05:39
by jeca

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results