Author Topic: Exclusive iStock artist selling on other sites (Read 14220 times)

Ink · « **on:** October 07, 2016, 05:27 »

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 »

Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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.

Cider Apple · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2016, 05:38 »

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 »

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.

Roberto · « **Reply #4 on:** October 07, 2016, 19:39 »

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

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** October 07, 2016, 20:35 »

That has been happening for years and no one does anything about it. No point in worrying it about.

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** October 08, 2016, 02:53 »

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 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2016, 04:33 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36

Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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?

Dodie · « **Reply #8 on:** October 08, 2016, 06:27 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36

Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** October 08, 2016, 07:17 »

Quote from: Dodie on October 08, 2016, 06:27

Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36
Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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.

Dodie · « **Reply #10 on:** October 08, 2016, 08:24 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 08, 2016, 07:17

Quote from: Dodie on October 08, 2016, 06:27
Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36
Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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.

Chichikov · « **Reply #11 on:** October 09, 2016, 00:52 »

Quote from: Dodie on October 08, 2016, 08:24

[…] Forums are there to talk, not to bite each others head off.

I have always thought (reading MSG) that forums were there to whine…

sharpshot · « **Reply #12 on:** October 09, 2016, 14:25 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 08, 2016, 04:33

Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36
Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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.

LDV81 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 11, 2016, 16:17 »

All iStock exclusives are exclusive, but some are more exclusive than others.

spike · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2016, 09:33 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36

Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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.

Kokkoros · « **Reply #15 on:** October 12, 2016, 11:34 »

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

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** October 12, 2016, 11:39 »

Quote from: spike on October 12, 2016, 09:33

Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36
Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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.

Kokkoros · « **Reply #17 on:** October 12, 2016, 11:51 »

[/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.

spike · « **Reply #18 on:** October 12, 2016, 12:09 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 12, 2016, 11:39

Quote from: spike on October 12, 2016, 09:33
Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36
Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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.

CJH Photography · « **Reply #19 on:** October 12, 2016, 13:10 »

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.

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 08, 2016, 04:33

Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36
Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 12, 2016, 23:36 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 12, 2016, 11:39

Quote from: spike on October 12, 2016, 09:33
Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36
Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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.

jjneff · « **Reply #21 on:** October 13, 2016, 06:05 »

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 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 13, 2016, 06:21 »

Quote from: jjneff on October 13, 2016, 06:05

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 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 13, 2016, 06:44 »

Quote from: CJH Photography on October 12, 2016, 13:10

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.
Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 08, 2016, 04:33
Quote from: Irina Anosova on October 07, 2016, 05:36
Quote from: Ink on October 07, 2016, 05:27

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!

jjneff · « **Reply #24 on:** October 13, 2016, 07:55 »

On a positive note I have found other sites to be very fair and treat me very well!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Exclusive iStock artist selling on other sites (Read 14220 times)

Ink

alno

Cider Apple

ShadySue

Roberto

cathyslife

sharpshot

SpaceStockFootage

Dodie

Sean Locke Photography

Dodie

Chichikov

sharpshot

LDV81

spike

Kokkoros

Sean Locke Photography

Kokkoros

spike

CJH Photography

SpaceStockFootage

jjneff

SpaceStockFootage

SpaceStockFootage

jjneff

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors