Author Topic: Agency collection? oh! boy! (Read 38335 times)

briciola · « **Reply #100 on:** December 03, 2010, 12:39 »

I've removed the posts (naming you), don't want to get off on the wrong foot

Best.

nruboc · « **Reply #101 on:** December 03, 2010, 12:49 »

Quote from: SNP on December 03, 2010, 12:31

since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....

Speak for yourself, I don't respect others' anonymity if they're going to use it to attack someone else.

SNP · « **Reply #102 on:** December 03, 2010, 13:58 »

I guess you have to have your principles.

so...any insights on what is going to happen with regard to Agency contributors brought in via Getty channels who don't have the same exclusivity requirements that the rest of us have? of all the issues surrounding the Agency Collection, this seems the most pressing and so far pretty much no word from admin about it. I would like the opportunity to sell my images elsewhere too. I adhere very strictly to my exclusivity agreement, which means I basically can sell my prints and custom work only in addition to selling through iStock.

I can't sell any files that are on iStock or resemble files on iStock as RM anywhere. but these new Agency contributors seem to be allowed to do all of that. I initially thought they'd be bound by image exclusivity requirements at least, but that doesn't even seem to be the case.

donding · « **Reply #103 on:** December 03, 2010, 14:43 »

Quote from: SNP on December 03, 2010, 13:58

I can't sell any files that are on iStock or resemble files on iStock as RM anywhere. but these new Agency contributors seem to be allowed to do all of that. I initially thought they'd be bound by image exclusivity requirements at least, but that doesn't even seem to be the case.

I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.

lisafx · « **Reply #104 on:** December 03, 2010, 15:11 »

Quote from: donding on December 03, 2010, 14:43

I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.

As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.

donding · « **Reply #105 on:** December 03, 2010, 15:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 03, 2010, 15:11

Quote from: donding on December 03, 2010, 14:43

I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.

As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.

Ok...that's where I got it from. It kinds sucks they can't sale rejects as RM. I could see that would be the case where they were similar, but a totally different subject, I wouldn't understand. A lot of times those will sale elsewhere. Just glad I ain't exclusive and never will be...

ShadySue · « **Reply #106 on:** December 03, 2010, 16:07 »

Quote from: donding on December 03, 2010, 15:36

Quote from: lisafx on December 03, 2010, 15:11
Quote from: donding on December 03, 2010, 14:43

I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.

As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.

Ok...that's where I got it from. It kinds sucks they can't sale rejects as RM. I could see that would be the case where they were similar, but a totally different subject, I wouldn't understand. A lot of times those will sale elsewhere. Just glad I ain't exclusive and never will be...

In practice, you can ask CR to release a rejected photo to be sold as RM. The strict rules about 'completely different and dissimilar' is for iStockers selling on Getty, though it could be considered 'doubtful practice' to sell 'very similar' shots elsewhere.

cathyslife · « **Reply #107 on:** December 03, 2010, 16:45 »

Quote from: SNP on December 03, 2010, 12:31

since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....

Quote

from nruboc
Speak for yourself, I don't respect others' anonymity if they're going to use it to attack someone else.

Me neither. And by the way, check some of the other posts and threads. Many of us know who you are and have outed you, SNP. You only think you are anonymous.

SNP · « **Reply #108 on:** December 03, 2010, 16:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 03, 2010, 16:07

Quote from: donding on December 03, 2010, 15:36
Quote from: lisafx on December 03, 2010, 15:11
Quote from: donding on December 03, 2010, 14:43

I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.

As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.

Ok...that's where I got it from. It kinds sucks they can't sale rejects as RM. I could see that would be the case where they were similar, but a totally different subject, I wouldn't understand. A lot of times those will sale elsewhere. Just glad I ain't exclusive and never will be...
In practice, you can ask CR to release a rejected photo to be sold as RM. The strict rules about 'completely different and dissimilar' is for iStockers selling on Getty, though it could be considered 'doubtful practice' to sell 'very similar' shots elsewhere.

yes exactly. and to be honest, it's such a convoluted process that I don't bother because I don't want to take the chance of infringing on my exclusivity. when I first read the ASA, I read it that anything we didn't have on iStock, we could sell as RM. but I contacted CR to be certain, and sure enough, as Sue says, you can't even sell similars. similar is such a subjective term that I just don't take the chance.

the only thing I sell outside of iStock is editorial and prints.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #109 on:** December 03, 2010, 17:01 »

Quote from: SNP on December 03, 2010, 16:57

yes exactly. and to be honest, it's such a convoluted process that I don't bother because I don't want to take the chance of infringing on my exclusivity. when I first read the ASA, I read it that anything we didn't have on iStock, we could sell as RM. but I contacted CR to be certain, and sure enough, as Sue says, you can't even sell similars. similar is such a subjective term that I just don't take the chance.

That certainly isn't true.

SNP · « **Reply #110 on:** December 03, 2010, 17:05 »

is it true now? I spoke to CR two weeks ago about this very issue...I'll find my response and post it for everyone. I'd be very pleased if I was misreading it, would make life easier.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #111 on:** December 03, 2010, 17:08 »

CR has been incorrect in the past. There is nothing in the definition of "exclusive content" that would include similars.

Whether or not the RM agency is interested in having uncontrollable similars in an RF collection is another story.

SNP · « **Reply #112 on:** December 03, 2010, 17:13 »

well I hope she was wrong. I spoke to CR, and then she sent me a follow up email which explicitly states I can't sell any photo I already have on iStock as RM anywhere, nor similars to that photo. I had asked in the context of researching avenues through which I can sell my editorial images. I was thinking of applying to Alamy to sell Editorial RM and wanted to be sure not to infringe on my exclusivity contract.

so I hope you're right Sean. because what you're saying is how I've always read the ASA.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #113 on:** December 03, 2010, 17:19 »

@SNP, as I understand it if you take the image down from istock you can sell it as RM.

SNP · « **Reply #114 on:** December 03, 2010, 17:22 »

that's what she told me and that all similars could not be sold either as RM unless they too were deactivated. same for images from the same series etc. which is what I said above, but Sean you disagree?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #115 on:** December 03, 2010, 17:33 »

Quote from: SNP on December 03, 2010, 17:22

that's what she told me and that all similars could not be sold either as RM unless they too were deactivated. same for images from the same series etc. which is what I said above, but Sean you disagree?

Absolutively. Nothing in the ASA about restricting usage of similars. I don't know where they're coming up with that.

SNP · « **Reply #116 on:** December 03, 2010, 17:38 »

well, even though I usually think you know more about iStock than iStock....in this case I'm going to err on the side of caution. don't want them to take away my poms poms you know. but further clarification would be good.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #117 on:** December 03, 2010, 18:45 »

Quote from: SNP on December 03, 2010, 12:31

since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....

I find Cathy's posts to be interesting and informative. If I wanted to read happy talk from cheerleading muffin tossers, I'd be over at the istock forum.

lisafx · « **Reply #118 on:** December 03, 2010, 19:55 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 03, 2010, 18:45

I find Cathy's posts to be interesting and informative.

+1

Although I sympathize with wanting to be anonymous here, most of the regular posters are easy to identify by their personalities, opinions, syntax, etc.

I tried having an alias for awhile and it didn't take long for several people to figure out who I was. Haven't bothered with another one, because in order to protect my anonymity I would have to hide my personality and opinions, which seems like a lot of trouble...

caspixel · « **Reply #119 on:** December 03, 2010, 21:18 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 03, 2010, 18:45

Quote from: SNP on December 03, 2010, 12:31
since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....

I find Cathy's posts to be interesting and informative. If I wanted to read happy talk from cheerleading muffin tossers, I'd be over at the istock forum.

I like Cathy's posts too.

gostwyck · « **Reply #120 on:** December 03, 2010, 23:11 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 03, 2010, 21:18

I like Cathy's posts too.

So do I. Very much so. Much better than SNP's worthless, unpunctuated drivel.

suemack · « **Reply #121 on:** December 04, 2010, 01:40 »

I like the diversity of opinions you get here, I think there's room for us all ..... exclusive, independant, pompoms or pitchforks.

RT · « **Reply #122 on:** December 04, 2010, 06:34 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 03, 2010, 18:45

If I wanted to read happy talk from cheerleading muffin tossers, I'd be over at the istock forum.

Well said, most people here haven't had a lobotomy

lagereek · « **Reply #123 on:** December 04, 2010, 09:52 »

Quote from: RT on December 04, 2010, 06:34

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 03, 2010, 18:45
If I wanted to read happy talk from cheerleading muffin tossers, I'd be over at the istock forum.

Well said, most people here haven't had a lobotomy

Not yet anyway.

SNP · « **Reply #124 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:16 »

Quote from: suemack on December 04, 2010, 01:40

I like the diversity of opinions you get here, I think there's room for us all ..... exclusive, independant, pompoms or pitchforks.

lol. if we were playing some version of rock paper scissors...I think I'd prefer to have a pitchfork rather than poms poms. to be honest, the poms poms have been thrust on me each time I say anything positive about istock. in reality, there's much about iStock I've not been on board with. Yes, overall I'm really happy there. some of the smartest, nicest people I know have come out of meeting my peers through iStock. not to mention the spirit of mentoring and the income.

I think they just like their villains over here. enjoy the drama ;-)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Agency collection? oh! boy! (Read 38335 times)

briciola

nruboc

SNP

donding

lisafx

donding

ShadySue

cathyslife

SNP

Sean Locke Photography

SNP

Sean Locke Photography

SNP

Eyedesign

SNP

Sean Locke Photography

SNP

jbarber873

lisafx

caspixel

gostwyck

suemack

RT

lagereek

SNP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors