Since they are keeping all of the revenue from the sale of this guarentee does that mean that they will change the artist supply agreement to no longer require that contributors foot the bill for all legal action concerning their images?

Section 10 of the Artist Agreement (non-exclusive) a and b

#  You agree to indemnify, defend and hold iStockphoto and its affiliates, and their respective directors, officers, employees, shareholders, agents and licensees of Content (collectively, the �iStockphoto Parties�) harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal fees on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by any iStockphoto Party as a result of or in connection with: (i) any use or alleged use of the Site or provision of Content under your Member Name by any person, whether or not authorized by you; (ii) or resulting from any communication made or Content uploaded under your Member Name; (iii) any breach by you of this Agreement; or (iv) any claim threatened or asserted against any iStockphoto Party to the extent such claim is based upon a contention that any of the Content used within the scope of this Agreement infringes any copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, right of privacy or publicity, or other intellectual property rights of any third party.
# iStockphoto reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with iStockphoto's defense of such claim.

So istock might get the 3 buyers from Vivozoom   Sales haven't taken off there, so I am not so sure that this is going to make much difference.

Ahh.  This explains the spate of deactivations lately. 

Sounds like a smart idea.  Definitely gives them a marketing edge. 

Looking forward to seeing how this plays out in (hopefully additional) sales. 

I thought all sites got this? Otherwise they would be like MostPhotos without reviewers. I thought all this reviewing effort is most to protect company from legal problems.

I'd like to see them also offering to assist models in pursuing lawsuits against people who misuse images contrary to their permitted uses; e.g. that BNP abusage a couple of months badk.

I'd like to see them also offering to assist models in pursuing lawsuits against people who misuse images contrary to their permitted uses; e.g. that BNP abusage a couple of months badk.

I would like to see that too, particularly since I ended up spending $1100 in legal fees to pursue this type of thing myself. 

However, I think it is unrealistic to expect Istock to foot the bill for models who are unhappy with usage.  The models are really just working for/with us - the photographers.  They have no direct contract with Istock, so the agency really isn't responsible for them.

When Istock has pursued misuse it was on it's own behalf in enforcing it's TOS.

I consider this to be more marketing than a real issue "dealing" with a "problem" on the industry.

I'd agree but nonetheless it is a brilliant move on IS's behalf (as indeed was Vetta). They had already cleverly manoeuvred themselves into position as the image supplier of choice for the less-price-concious corporate buyer and this is a further huge step forward. I can see this appealing strongly to the smaller independent designers too.

Standby for another significant hike in prices to be announced at year-end to pay for it.