MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Are you doing Zazzle and Istock?  (Read 3734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 23, 2014, 18:09 »
+1
If so, Just head to the Zazzle forum and read the announcement in the zazzle news thread regarding istock.

What do you think?





ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2014, 18:26 »
-2
Can you give a little resume for those who are on iS but not Zazzle (but might be one day)?


ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2014, 19:33 »
+4
Isn't that note about people who buy iStock files and then try to sell them via Zazzle rather than people selling their own images on both iStock and Zazzle?
Certainly, I don't see how indies could be stopped from selling there.
Also I see some old files on iStock's exclusive forum about how Vetta and Agency (as was) files are (or were, in 2012) being sold there via Getty.

« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2014, 19:47 »
0
Isn't that note about people who buy iStock files and then try to sell them via Zazzle rather than people selling their own images on both iStock and Zazzle?
Certainly, I don't see how indies could be stopped from selling there.
Also I see some old files on iStock's exclusive forum about how Vetta and Agency (as was) files are (or were, in 2012) being sold there via Getty.

My thoughts exactly. How can they possibly dictate where I place my images? I do have a Zazzle account but haven't uploaded much but plan to this year. If IS thinks they are going to strong arm me into not placing my work there I would say bye bye in a heart beat to them.  But I agree with you that I believe the message is as you've stated.

« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2014, 05:21 »
+3
Isn't that note about people who buy iStock files and then try to sell them via Zazzle rather than people selling their own images on both iStock and Zazzle?
Certainly, I don't see how indies could be stopped from selling there.
Also I see some old files on iStock's exclusive forum about how Vetta and Agency (as was) files are (or were, in 2012) being sold there via Getty.

yeah, they are just advising "thieves" that IS license doesn't allow you (thief) to submit to Zazzle :)

the owners of the pictures can upload to where ever they wish, of course!

« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2014, 10:21 »
+1
"Additionally, it is important to note that by uploading an image to Zazzle, you grant us the license to display and sell your image, and many stock image sites such as iStockphoto prohibit such sub-licensing of their images. "

Since when does Zazzle 'sell' images?

fujiko

« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2014, 11:15 »
+1
About time Zazzle clarifies this stating that they require a license from the uploader and stock does not allow sub-licensing and is not suitable for uploading to Zazzle.

"Additionally, it is important to note that by uploading an image to Zazzle, you grant us the license to display and sell your image, and many stock image sites such as iStockphoto prohibit such sub-licensing of their images. "

Since when does Zazzle 'sell' images?

It's not really saying that they sell images, it's saying that they require a license that allows selling. It's in their agreement.

By uploading Designs to the Site or creating Designs with Zazzle's design tools, you grant the following licenses to Zazzle: the nonexclusive, worldwide, transferable, sublicensable right to use, reproduce, publicly display, sell, and distribute the Design in or on Products and in advertising, marketing, samples, and promotional materials for the purpose of promoting the Site and Products.

« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2014, 12:00 »
0
Since when does Zazzle 'sell' images?

It's not really saying that they sell images, it's saying that they require a license that allows selling. It's in their agreement.
[/quote]

That may not be what they _mean_, but it _is_ what they are saying.

fujiko

« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2014, 12:29 »
+2
Since when does Zazzle 'sell' images?

It's not really saying that they sell images, it's saying that they require a license that allows selling. It's in their agreement.

That may not be what they _mean_, but it _is_ what they are saying.

No, they are not saying:

"Additionally, it is important to note that by uploading an image to Zazzle, we sell your image, and many stock image sites such as iStockphoto prohibit such sub-licensing of their images. "


They are saying:
"Additionally, it is important to note that by uploading an image to Zazzle, you grant us the license to display and sell your image, and many stock image sites such as iStockphoto prohibit such sub-licensing of their images. "

It's all about licenses and sub-licenses, this whole business is.

PS: Zazzle is in fact selling the images. Printed on products. Maybe you thought they meant they were 'selling' images like the agencies, but the agencies don't sell images, they license images. Agencies 'sell' image licenses.

« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2014, 12:32 »
0
Can you give a little resume for those who are on iS but not Zazzle (but might be one day)?

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2014, 12:44 »
0

« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2014, 15:22 »
+2
PS: Zazzle is in fact selling the images. Printed on products. Maybe you thought they meant they were 'selling' images like the agencies, but the agencies don't sell images, they license images. Agencies 'sell' image licenses.

I know exactly what they are doing.  My point, which I guess was too subtle, is that the wording should say:
"Additionally, it is important to note that by uploading an image to Zazzle, you grant us the license to display and sell products that contain your image, and many stock image sites such as iStockphoto prohibit such sub-licensing of their images. "

The only way to "sell" a digital image is to have the image itself available for a digital download.

« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2014, 23:22 »
0
Sigh.    I REALLY hope this doesn't result in a mass takedown like Zazzle is so fond of doing.    Products get deleted and lose their search position while you fight the battle that the images from iStock are YOURS, not iStock's, etc. 


fujiko

« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2014, 04:14 »
0
PS: Zazzle is in fact selling the images. Printed on products. Maybe you thought they meant they were 'selling' images like the agencies, but the agencies don't sell images, they license images. Agencies 'sell' image licenses.

I know exactly what they are doing.  My point, which I guess was too subtle, is that the wording should say:
"Additionally, it is important to note that by uploading an image to Zazzle, you grant us the license to display and sell products that contain your image, and many stock image sites such as iStockphoto prohibit such sub-licensing of their images. "

The only way to "sell" a digital image is to have the image itself available for a digital download.

They are just being broad in their meaning so that they cannot be caught doing something they did not say.
I think you need to read again the Zazzle agreement and notice that they are in fact asking for a very broad license that includes selling the image (among other things like further re-distribution) in many ways. Maybe they plan to sell in the future pendrives with the digital image in it. Again, they are saying what they ask in the license, not what they actually do with the content.

In the end the whole point of this is that they clarified at last that the kind of license they ask from the uploader is not possible if the image was licensed through some stock sites.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
131 Replies
35587 Views
Last post February 21, 2011, 02:08
by gill
0 Replies
6165 Views
Last post January 29, 2008, 16:22
by madelaide
7 Replies
4003 Views
Last post January 26, 2009, 19:36
by eric.zx
1 Replies
2330 Views
Last post February 22, 2009, 23:34
by Phil
2 Replies
3863 Views
Last post December 08, 2009, 10:59
by epantha

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results