pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Infringement of iStock exclusivity  (Read 12307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 13, 2015, 15:25 »
+5
iStock exclusive account selling images elsewhere under different accounts.

iStock exclusive "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/computer-key-feedback-47922796
Shutterstock "mstanley": http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-167677004/stock-photo-feedback-computer-key.html


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2015, 15:43 »
+5
Everything in there is duplicated.  Maybe he doesn't understand the meaning of the word?

« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2015, 16:20 »
+3

KB

« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2015, 19:32 »
+3
Everything in there is duplicated.  Maybe he doesn't understand the meaning of the word?
I don't see the problem. 'Exclusive' means he has the exclusive right to upload his files wherever he wishes, right?  ::)

Based on the SS file numbers, this isn't someone who is in the midst of dropping exclusivity -- at least some of those files have been up there quite a while.

I suspect, however, that frender won't be an exclusive contributor much longer.  ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2015, 20:42 »
0
.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2015, 20:46 by ShadySue »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2015, 21:20 »
+5
Makes you wonder how many are playing this game for percentages?

IS Member since: November 2010
SS Member since 2011

Just a little honest mistake in the translation.  ::)


« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2015, 06:05 »
+2
He said that December was his WORST MONTH OF ALL TIME on iStock.  ::)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364739&messageid=7072057

« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2015, 06:27 »
+6
He said that December was his WORST MONTH OF ALL TIME on iStock.  ::)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364739&messageid=7072057


Someone should let KJ or support know.  This is quite egregious.

« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2015, 08:12 »
-2
Istock's Exclusive "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/tm-symbol-26816739
Shutterstock "mstanley": http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159334409/stock-photo-tm-trade-mark-symbol.html
Fotolia "mstanley13": http://en.fotolia.com/id/64291379

Istock's Exclusive "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/copyright-26816826
Shutterstock "mstanley": http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159344906/stock-photo-copyright-mark.html
Fotolia "mstanley13": http://en.fotolia.com/id/64286413


All the images (also the others ones) are not identical. It's the very same motive but it's a different image - see the shadows below the circle, in the other images the other keys on the keyboard have a different name, the fringe on the price tag is different.

Also, "mstanley" has different (and more) images than frender.

If you ask me, I'd rather assume that "mstanley" is a copycat.

« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2015, 08:19 »
-1
You may be right.  On closer inspection, there are ever so slight differences in all of them.  Or more obvious ones.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-176811998/stock-photo-approved-stamp.html?src=WKBXwufPILqudHetbaTsTg-1-36&ws=0
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/approved-stamp-19186962?st=12b763d

Shelma1

« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2015, 08:40 »
+9
They're both from Turkey. My guess is same person, making slight changes to his own images.

« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2015, 08:45 »
+5
Copycat uploads the copies before the originals?
Copycat that can predict the future?
"original" uploaded on 09-23-14 to Istock as Exclusive "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/global-shipping-48206804
"copycat" uploaded much earlier to Fotolia "mstanley13": http://en.fotolia.com/id/64234894

« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2015, 09:04 »
+2
Copycat uploads the copies before the originals?
Copycat that can predict the future?
"original" uploaded on 09-23-14 to Istock as Exclusive "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/global-shipping-48206804
"copycat" uploaded much earlier to Fotolia "mstanley13": http://en.fotolia.com/id/64234894


Okay, that is correct. Then again, there is another image with the same model: http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/global-shipping-38078930?st=86288d1 - uploaded in April 2014 which is about the same time as the Fotolia image.

Interesting... so it could be two people co-operating by exchanging their render models, make adaptations and upload them to different accounts. Anyways, it's not a simple "exclusive at iStock, same images elsewhere" thing. As far as I can see it is quite common in the 3D world to exchange models and adapt them. Almost any of them is using those white (or orange) men, right? So... who knows, it might actually be legal to do that...

« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2015, 09:46 »
+7
As iStock exclusive artist "frender" is getting much higher royalty rates,
better search placement, distribution throw Getty website etc.
Making exclusive content available elsewhere is a breach of Artist Exclusivity.

ISTOCKPHOTO ARTIST'S SUPPLY AGREEMENT (EXCLUSIVE):
http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php
The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor to sell, license or sublicense Exclusive Content.
Provision of Exclusive Content - "Exclusive Content" , as applicable to Supplier, means
all Royalty Free stock photo content created by the supplier.
By uploading Exclusive Content, exclusive supplier is warranting that he is not making any of the Exclusive Content available to or through any other distributor, website or other marketing, distribution, sale or licensing venue of any kind not specifically permitted herein.

MxR

« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2015, 10:45 »
-17
you are very boring people.

Istock remains between 85% and 55% of photographers money.

  This large percentage is to pay INSPECTORS to control exclusivity among other things besides eating oysters and light cigars with money.

Do not be so foolish as to make them work for free. Those photos are clich millions across the image banks.


« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2015, 12:26 »
+4
This sort of thing happens a lot more than you think.  A company I work with counts among its contributors exclusive contributors from various agencies, mostly DT.

« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2015, 13:33 »
+2
you are very boring people.

Istock remains between 85% and 55% of photographers money.

  This large percentage is to pay INSPECTORS to control exclusivity among other things besides eating oysters and light cigars with money.

Do not be so foolish as to make them work for free. Those photos are clich millions across the image banks.

Although I don't think the folks here are boring, I have to agree that agencies need to earn their huge commissions by doing their part...again another time they are not living up to their end.

« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2015, 14:06 »
+5
None of those images appear to be available on iStock at present -  got 'page doesn't exist' message

No Free Lunch

« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2015, 14:17 »
+4
you are very boring people.

Istock remains between 85% and 55% of photographers money.

  This large percentage is to pay INSPECTORS to control exclusivity among other things besides eating oysters and light cigars with money.

Do not be so foolish as to make them work for free. Those photos are clich millions across the image banks.

We surely are not boring! Maybe a little curt at times by telling the truth even if it hurts.   As for inspectors making big money- NOT! Personally, I have a few as friends and they make from $30,000 to $45,000 year and review 2,000 images a day to include long hours and weekends.  They probably could make more working at Wal-mart with those 60 plus hours per week.


« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2015, 17:34 »
+4
NFL is right.  If there is a more tedious underpaid job than image inspecting I can't imagine what it is.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2015, 17:46 »
0
...being paid pennies as a keymaster.

« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2015, 17:59 »
-2
Why does anyone care if someone is taking IS for a ride?  I don't condone it and sure there will be a reckoning at some point but not gonna waste any sympathy on either party.

KB

« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2015, 18:59 »
+3
there will be a reckoning at some point but not gonna waste any sympathy on either party.

www.istockphoto.com/profile/frender no longer exists, so I'd say the reckoning has occurred.

« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2015, 20:13 »
+5
NFL is right.  If there is a more tedious underpaid job than image inspecting I can't imagine what it is.

Umm...they seem to fair better than a micro stock contributor...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
5317 Views
Last post May 27, 2014, 15:26
by bunhill
25 Replies
5850 Views
Last post July 21, 2014, 01:47
by disorderly
90 Replies
17761 Views
Last post September 11, 2014, 18:26
by KB
19 Replies
5615 Views
Last post July 24, 2017, 08:12
by MxR
8 Replies
7585 Views
Last post May 06, 2019, 16:44
by jjpd747

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle