MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "You Deserve Exclusivity" email - anyone else got one?  (Read 33338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: June 01, 2008, 19:14 »
0
I also  donate prints to charity auctions such as RMCC and others.    That's the real kicker.  I can't even  give away a print that I own.  That's just wrong.   8)=tom

The exclusive contract has nothing to do with prints.  You can give away prints to the entire print loving USA, and that's fine.

The exclusive contract says you cannot sell imagery royalty free anywhere else.


« Reply #76 on: June 01, 2008, 19:22 »
0
I imagine those who choose exclusivity have their reasons.

I just won't have anybody restricting my work in any way. Period.

« Reply #77 on: June 01, 2008, 19:54 »
0
I imagine those who choose exclusivity have their reasons.

I just won't have anybody restricting my work in any way. Period.

Totally fair. Everybody needs to do their little math and decide for themselves. For example: I will be silver soon but I would still take ~20% royalty cut if I went exclusive now. But since it is only a hobby for me, the saved time and easiness of uploading to just one site may be worth it (I am still doing my little math).

« Reply #78 on: June 01, 2008, 21:48 »
0
thanks to all for the clarification...     On my own direct with publishers I work RM or for hire.  I still maintain all the rights to the images even at for hire. All is done on a 'one shot' deal.  One article, set price.  If they want to use the pix again, they pay again.  Only exception, if a picture is the topic of a future letter to the editor and they want to use it, I'm not going to be a jerk about that.
      Every time I begin to think about exclusive, threads like this come up and remind me of all the mundane things I forgot about.

Now... this may sound ignorant and if it does, please excuse me. I am still relatively new to this game.  But... say a pic I took way back in the day when I snapped my first pic out of a 35mm in the early 60's.... I want to sell it now .... if I was exclusive,  .... I couldn't.  Correct?
  In effect, once you sign exclusive with anyone,  everything you ever shot in your life comes under that agreement? True or no?

I just don't understand, when all is said and done, how this is beneficial to a photog unless they did 100% of their work thru that single agency.  What about all you folks that shoot weddings and such? Or do 'for hire' work.   How's an exclusive deal allow for that, or... it doesn't... ???   Told you it was an ignorant question....   sorry.      8)=tom

« Reply #79 on: June 01, 2008, 22:15 »
0
iStock exclusivity is only about selling images royalty free.  It has nothing to do with shooting weddings or selling RM.

« Reply #80 on: June 01, 2008, 22:28 »
0
iStock exclusivity is only about selling images royalty free.  It has nothing to do with shooting weddings or selling RM.

It's true that some protection is afforded you by way of selling RM and WFH contracts but it is still a very restrictive agreement. On the other hand it does seem straight forward enough to dump the agreement if you wish. Someone can correct me on this but I imagine you can go ahead and submit to other micros all the images that reside on iStock that got there during a exclusive agreement once the agreement is terminated. A shifty photographer can take advantage of the higher upload limits for a while, boost his/her portfolio and then go non exclusive. If you can run full tilt at bronze or silver for a year, it would allow a decent size portfolio, then off to non-exclusive land. Hmmm.

« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2008, 02:49 »
0
I wonder how many photographers wives have an account with istock?  That seems like the sensible option.  Pass over the copyright and have an exclusive account with istock while having accounts in your own name or a business name with the other sites.  I am not married and have just one account with them but if I was it would be tempting to do this.  Surely this goes on and is legal.

I can't see a good reason why we are not allowed to have exclusive images, like lots of other sites do.  Until that happens, istock will not be able to dominate the market and I see that as being a good thing.

RT


« Reply #82 on: June 02, 2008, 03:53 »
0
I am not married and have just one account with them but if I was it would be tempting to do this.  Surely this goes on and is legal.

I wouldn't suggest using this idea in any future proposals you may want to make, women are quite fussy about these moments and I'm not sure that "I want to marry you so I can have two accounts at iStock" would go down to well!  :D

« Reply #83 on: June 02, 2008, 06:33 »
0
I can't see a good reason why we are not allowed to have exclusive images, like lots of other sites do.  Until that happens, istock will not be able to dominate the market and I see that as being a good thing.

Because you'd shoot one image, and then another vertical for another site, and say "Well, that first image is only on iStock, the second one is different".

As for the wife thing, they're not stupid.  That's just avoiding the spirit of the rule, and iStock isn't the police.  If they figured out your game, they'd probably cut you off.

« Reply #84 on: June 02, 2008, 06:49 »
0


Because you'd shoot one image, and then another vertical for another site, and say "Well, that first image is only on iStock, the second one is different".


Well i agree it could create problems like this, but the same problem currently exists in that you could upload the horizontal as RF to istock and the vertical as RM to alamy.. so having total RF exclusivity doesn't solve this problem.

The only way to solve this problem is to say that such things are not allowed and that is what sites do that require image exclusivity.  Many macro sites require image exclusivity which includes similars to the uploaded image.

« Reply #85 on: June 02, 2008, 07:50 »
0
I can't see a good reason why we are not allowed to have exclusive images, like lots of other sites do.  Until that happens, istock will not be able to dominate the market and I see that as being a good thing.

Because you'd shoot one image, and then another vertical for another site, and say "Well, that first image is only on iStock, the second one is different".

As for the wife thing, they're not stupid.  That's just avoiding the spirit of the rule, and iStock isn't the police.  If they figured out your game, they'd probably cut you off.

I don't get it.  If they can stop people bending the exclusivity rules they should be able to stop them bending image exclusivity rules.  How can it work for one but not the other?  Why can DT and FT have individual exclusive images but istock can't?

« Reply #86 on: June 02, 2008, 08:44 »
0
Wouldnt image exclusivity rather kill the agreement for those that are already exclusive? If I could have image exclusivity over straight forward exclusivity then Id choose the former, and do slightly different versions (different enough to abide by whatever rules they have) of my most successful images. Itd be more sensible for me to do that- I wouldnt have all my eggs in one basket. Id probably dedicate a fair amount of my time to other sites. This would lower the istock brand. The only reason the other sites offer image exclusivity is because no one would go exclusive with them. Yup, I have a feeling istock knows better.

« Reply #87 on: June 02, 2008, 09:00 »
0
Wouldnt image exclusivity rather kill the agreement for those that are already exclusive? If I could have image exclusivity over straight forward exclusivity then Id choose the former, and do slightly different versions (different enough to abide by whatever rules they have) of my most successful images. Itd be more sensible for me to do that- I wouldnt have all my eggs in one basket. Id probably dedicate a fair amount of my time to other sites. This would lower the istock brand. The only reason the other sites offer image exclusivity is because no one would go exclusive with them. Yup, I have a feeling istock knows better.


They could offer less % for image exclusivity only (compared to full exclusivity). But I agree with you on the other points and I don't think image-only exclusivity will happen at iStock.

« Reply #88 on: June 02, 2008, 10:43 »
0


Because you'd shoot one image, and then another vertical for another site, and say "Well, that first image is only on iStock, the second one is different".


Well i agree it could create problems like this, but the same problem currently exists in that you could upload the horizontal as RF to istock and the vertical as RM to alamy.. so having total RF exclusivity doesn't solve this problem.

The only way to solve this problem is to say that such things are not allowed and that is what sites do that require image exclusivity.  Many macro sites require image exclusivity which includes similars to the uploaded image.

The thing is traditional agencies allow image only exclusivity. It's not really an excuse; it does mean that photographers need to be educated as to what image can or cannot be used elsewhere if it is similar to one already on exclusive file. Getty, who as you know, owns iStock and does this very successfully. Unless you think micro photographers can't handle making such distinctions.

« Reply #89 on: June 02, 2008, 10:49 »
0
Do traditional agencies have 40,000 contributors, many of which may not care to follow the letter of the law since it is just a hobby?

helix7

« Reply #90 on: June 02, 2008, 10:52 »
0
...As for the wife thing, they're not stupid.  That's just avoiding the spirit of the rule, and iStock isn't the police.  If they figured out your game, they'd probably cut you off.

I don't know why anyone would even try this. Too risky. If they really value their microstock income, why would they gamble it on a quick-buck scheme like this? Seems like an awful lot to throw away in an effort to get a few extra downloads each day.



« Reply #91 on: June 02, 2008, 11:07 »
0
...As for the wife thing, they're not stupid.  That's just avoiding the spirit of the rule, and iStock isn't the police.  If they figured out your game, they'd probably cut you off.

I don't know why anyone would even try this. Too risky. If they really value their microstock income, why would they gamble it on a quick-buck scheme like this? Seems like an awful lot to throw away in an effort to get a few extra downloads each day.




Technically, it is legal to re-assign a copyright to another individual or entity. Anyone who has done a work-for-hire job has done just that. sjlocke answered my question on the previous post in that most amateurs don't know how to handle image exclusivity issues and I doubt most amateurs would know how to handle multiple account issues as well. Most would expose themselves.


« Reply #92 on: June 02, 2008, 11:09 »
0
It isn't something I would do but I don't see how it would break the rules, as we are uploading our own copyrighted material and we can transfer that if we want.  When I upload they ask "Are you the principal copyright holder of this image? ", not did I create the image.  Is it bending the rules any more than all the nasa photos that are being sold?  How can they be exclusive?

bittersweet

« Reply #93 on: June 02, 2008, 11:19 »
0
It isn't something I would do but I don't see how it would break the rules, as we are uploading our own copyrighted material and we can transfer that if we want.  When I upload they ask "Are you the principal copyright holder of this image? ", not did I create the image.  Is it bending the rules any more than all the nasa photos that are being sold?  How can they be exclusive?

I can't count the number of times I've seen it suggested that "all you have to do is transfer the copyright of your images to xxx" in order to get around the lock-ins at certain agencies.

The NASA photos are no longer accepted unless there have been significant modifications in order to create a new derivative work. If you see existing images that look the same as they did on the NASA website, you should point them out to support, because they are definitely no longer allowed.

helix7

« Reply #94 on: June 02, 2008, 12:34 »
0
Technically, it is legal to re-assign a copyright to another individual or entity. Anyone who has done a work-for-hire job has done just that. sjlocke answered my question on the previous post in that most amateurs don't know how to handle image exclusivity issues and I doubt most amateurs would know how to handle multiple account issues as well. Most would expose themselves.

But we're talking about selling images at multiple sites, using two different names. Same last name, but different people, so how can both people hold the copyright on one image, and both upload it at different sites?



« Reply #95 on: June 02, 2008, 13:52 »
0
Technically, it is legal to re-assign a copyright to another individual or entity. Anyone who has done a work-for-hire job has done just that. sjlocke answered my question on the previous post in that most amateurs don't know how to handle image exclusivity issues and I doubt most amateurs would know how to handle multiple account issues as well. Most would expose themselves.

But we're talking about selling images at multiple sites, using two different names. Same last name, but different people, so how can both people hold the copyright on one image, and both upload it at different sites?




What you say above should not occur and plainly would be stupid if it did. I see no real reason to have two accounts at one site. My only reason for such a thing is if you clearly shot something that is obviously not Istock-centric but still felt it best to be marketed in the RF segment then you would re-assign the images to be placed elsewhere on a non exclusive basis. Never ever the same images or even images from the same shoot. Also there are some images that would be better suited for traditional RF than micro i.e. they would make you more money, then it would be nice to be able to choose. It's not straight forward the concept of exclusive representation.



« Reply #96 on: June 02, 2008, 14:04 »
0
... would be better suited for traditional RF than micro ...



Even traditional/macro RF is not allowed under IS exclusivity deal only RM.

« Reply #97 on: June 02, 2008, 14:12 »
0
... would be better suited for traditional RF than micro ...



Even traditional/macro RF is not allowed under IS exclusivity deal only RM.

Exactly, hence the need to re-assign the images to another entity. I'm not condoning this; I'm merely trying to work through the legalities of such an endeavor.  Transferring a copyright is perfectly legal; if a micro says you can't take a picture, transfer the copyright to someone else and then have it sell as RF then it's against the contract.

lisafx

« Reply #98 on: June 02, 2008, 16:16 »
0
I would think an istock exclusive would be crazy to play games to try and get around the exclusivity agreement and sell images elsewhere.  You risk being booted from the most lucrative microstock site in the industry and forfeiting earnings. 

Bottom line is nobody holds a gun to anyone's head to force exclusivity on them.  But if you choose istock's "artist exclusivity" you need to be prepared to honor it, rather than thinking of ways to cheat the system.

BTW, my comments are directed at the proposed hypothetical, not at any members commenting in the thread :)

« Reply #99 on: June 02, 2008, 16:22 »
0
I would think an istock exclusive would be crazy to play games to try and get around the exclusivity agreement and sell images elsewhere.  You risk being booted from the most lucrative microstock site in the industry and forfeiting earnings. 

Bottom line is nobody holds a gun to anyone's head to force exclusivity on them.  But if you choose istock's "artist exclusivity" you need to be prepared to honor it, rather than thinking of ways to cheat the system.

BTW, my comments are directed at the proposed hypothetical, not at any members commenting in the thread :)
Well said I totally  agree.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
96 Replies
31334 Views
Last post July 12, 2008, 11:31
by Pixel-Pizzazz
6 Replies
4726 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 04:51
by StockCube
"Confidential" email from Dreamstime

Started by Beppe Grillo « 1 2 ... 14 15 » Dreamstime.com

372 Replies
49108 Views
Last post August 16, 2014, 09:21
by Beppe Grillo
13 Replies
3103 Views
Last post July 14, 2016, 04:18
by SpaceStockFootage
2 Replies
6299 Views
Last post July 14, 2016, 00:42
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle