Author Topic: Bullied by Istock?? (Read 11618 times)

Axel Lauer · « **on:** April 24, 2013, 14:57 »

Hi everybody,
i just experience a very interesting encounter with Misses K. N. from Istock.
It started with one of these weird rejections you normaly get only with little agencies (MR for a flower-bouquet or PR for a governmental building etc...).
I answered with a critique and suddenly Misses N. found some "Issues" in my profile and now it seems like she is searching desperate for a reason to get me kicked out .
And it seems like she tries that in a way that noboy can say its censorship against photographers who are not willing to shut up with every thing they do.

She digged very deep for a reason and now they suspect me that i upload images which are not mine.
Of course i only upload images which are made by myself.

They come across with the argument that with companys (i run a company - but that does not mean necessarily that i upload images as a company) it might be a bit tricky.
Quote Istock:
"Since iStockphoto is really set up to deal with single photographers, it
is a bit tricky to work with a company that may employ several
photographers or artists."

I answered:
"-All required fields in the profile-section of your backend are filled out.
-I dont hire other photographers.
-All images are made by myself. "

If i am right with my "feeling" its one of the most unserious behaviors i encountered in 35 years of businesslife.
I really hope that this is just a severe misunderstanding and to clearify that i invite Misses K.N to give her statement here.
regards axel Lauer.
www.axellauer.de

tickstock · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:05 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:06 »

They deal with plenty of image factories, groups, husband-wife teams etc.
Though I had a similar response when I asked about uploading photos or scans of some of my husband's analogue artwork, with PRs, even though he is totally pc-phobic and there's no way he would do any of the computer work.

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #3 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:09 »

Its very simple.
I have my account there since (its a rogh estimation) a year and i do not sell exclusive
I gave a critic by mail
Some Minutes later she asked me to clearify how many people are contributing to my account!!

It really looks like she is searching for a "hanger", a hook to get my account closed, to make me shup up.

Is that clear now?
regards axel

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #4 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:11 »

double post -- Sorry

tickstock · « **Reply #5 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:11 »

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #6 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:13 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2013, 15:11

I don't know what the rules are for contributing as a company with Istock but if you are claiming the copyright as Axel Lauer and have other photographers under you then I would guess you would need a contract or releases to do that.

Thats what i said above....
I do not upload images which are not shot by myself !!!

tickstock · « **Reply #7 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:14 »

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #8 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:15 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2013, 15:14

Then there shouldn't be an issue.

I know that there shouldnt be an issue but she makes up one.
Thats the scandal.

tickstock · « **Reply #9 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:18 »

gclk · « **Reply #10 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:19 »

Bizarre. Hope you manage to get it sorted out Axel.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:24 »

I think maybe you'll need to quote exactly what she said.
Just to clarify - you got a rejection for needing a release when none was needed, but instead of contacting Scout, you wrote to CR?

tickstock · « **Reply #12 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:25 »

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #13 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:26 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2013, 15:18

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 24, 2013, 15:15
Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2013, 15:14
Then there shouldn't be an issue.

I know that there shouldnt be an issue but she makes up one.
Thats the scandal.

What's the scandal? After you told her you created all the images did she make some threat or something, it looks like a misunderstanding. Maybe the language difference is causing problems her response doesn't sound threatening to me.

Do you know that you can kill with paper?
Same with documents!
If you upload as a single photographer for weeks and months, than you give a critic and suddenly you are suspected to upload images of other people and are "threatened" with crazy documents to fill out it really looks a bit "fishy", dont you think?

But i hope its a misunderstanding and thats why i sended this email to Misses N:

Quote

"Dear Misses N,
i am pretty sure that you are willing to get that - i hope it is a misunderstanding - cleared.
Therefore i just started a thread and i invite you heartedly to state your opinion and view there.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/bullied-by-istock/
Of course i will repeat there as well.
So other people, who maybe stumble into similar kind of misunderstandings, can see that Istock is doing its best to get these kind of trouble out of the way.
I wish you a nice evening and maybe i can read your statement tomorrow in the morning.
I wish you all the best
Regards
Axel Lauer"

tickstock · « **Reply #14 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:26 »

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #15 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:30 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2013, 15:25

Looking at your website: http://www.axellauer.de/infos/das-team/ you do have other people listed as employees like a photographer's assistant, not sure why this was brought into the discussion. Did you send them a link to your website?

Of course i write emails accordingly to german law - and it says that you must have a proper mail-signature with all your company-data in it.
So yes - it was visible in the mail but it was not brought into the discussion by me.
And thats what gives my and my employees the feeling that she was looking to find a "crack" to make up something

tickstock · « **Reply #16 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:33 »

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #17 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:37 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2013, 15:24

I think maybe you'll need to quote exactly what she said.
Just to clarify - you got a rejection for needing a release when none was needed, but instead of contacting Scout, you wrote to CR?

At this point i was not familiar with the scoutsystem.
I was in contact with Misses N before about other topics.
It happend like that but this is not the point.
The point is that you do something "bad" (critic) and right away there comes the "slight announcement of a sanction" or better..... they let you know hat they have the tools to give you a hard time.

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:38 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2013, 15:33

I added the bold but "photographers" stands out and suggests that there is more than one photographer.

That's not in question __ there are portraits of the full team of 7 on the website.

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #19 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:40 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2013, 15:33

I don't speak German and guess whomever you contacted doesn't either but on your homepage Google Translate has this:
We offer an extensive portfolio of individual, photographic services. Let the most beautiful moments of your life from professional photographers to hold or give a photo session for your loved one.

I added the bold but "photographers" stands out and suggests that there is more than one photographer.

True.
Does that imply that i upload images (of customers by the way!!!) i did not make myself to Istock??
Where is that written?

tickstock · « **Reply #20 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:43 »

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #21 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:44 »

And one thing more....
My istock-account is not a companyaccount.
It is the account of "private" A.Lauer

What for does istock accuses me?
For having a businesslife?
For not having chosen a companys name which is so different that nobody knows its me?

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #22 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:46 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2013, 15:43

It doesn't imply that but it does raise the question,

So why didnt they ask me??
Shoot first, ask later???

And why is there such a close relation between my critic and that suspected "issue"

tickstock · « **Reply #23 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:52 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:57 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 24, 2013, 15:37

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2013, 15:24
I think maybe you'll need to quote exactly what she said.
Just to clarify - you got a rejection for needing a release when none was needed, but instead of contacting Scout, you wrote to CR?

At this point i was not familiar with the scoutsystem.

It's in the rejection note:
"In order to have your image(s) re-evaluated or to get further information on the rejected file(s), please submit a support ticket to Scout and they will be more than happy to assist you or for immediate peer to peer feedback you may visit our Critique Request Forum.
To contact Scout please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket.php
To visit the critique forum please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_threads.php?forumid=26"
There's nothing to suggest it would be a good idea to contact CR about a rejection.

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #25 on:** April 24, 2013, 15:59 »

@tickstock
Thats not a question:

Quote

"First, the account needs to be set up under the company name, and an ID
file is needed from someone within the company with authority to make
company decisions (ie a CEO, Owner, Manager, etc)"

It really needs?
I am not free anymore to make the decision if i want to setup the account as a private person or for my company?
Istock decides what i have to do??
Do they pay my taxes then??

If they really want to help me avoiding copyright issues (like Misses N. said in her mail) , why then is she trying to push me into an companyaccount??
Specially when i decided to make up aprivate account to avoid copyright issues?

isnt that a bit "contrary"?

@shady Sue
This thread is not about an rejection issue.
The rejection was just the former conversation with Misses N.
So please leave your remarks to therejections and contribute to the actual topic.
thanx

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:04 »

You really need to quote to us exactly what she said, and maybe exactly what you said when you contacted CR.
It could be that what she said has got lost in translation, or maybe you're inferring something that wasn't implied.

tickstock · « **Reply #27 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:09 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:18 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 24, 2013, 15:59

@shady Sue
This thread is not about an rejection issue.
The rejection was just the former conversation with Misses N.
So please leave your remarks to therejections and contribute to the actual topic.
thanx

You said her response, digging into your identity, was a reply to a critique you'd written to her about a rejection you'd had.
From your OP: It started with one of these weird rejections you normaly get only with little agencies ... I answered with a critique and suddenly Misses N. found some "Issues" in my profile.
Now you are talking about another conversation which we know nothing about.

It's impossible to make any sense out of your complaint: you keep changing the goalposts, and you won't give us all the information we need to offer an informed opinion about your situation.

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #29 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:31 »

I wrote it down as much correct than i can and i did not twist any facts but i heard that Istock becomes very funny when you quote mails and i dont want to have contact with lawyers.

But if they really go further with their funny games I think about hiring an lawyer.
Not because i need these handfull of dollars (shutterstock sells ten times better and stockearnings are only to finance the journeys of my apprentices) - just because i am a fan of justice and i dont like it if people behave like "little-bonaparte".

ShadySue · « **Reply #30 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:34 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 24, 2013, 16:31

I wrote it down as much correct than i can and i did not twist any facts but i heard that Istock becomes very funny when you quote mails and i dont want to have contact with lawyers.

But if they really go further with their funny games I think about hiring an lawyer.
Not because i need these handfull of dollars (shutterstock sells ten times better and stockearnings are only to finance the journeys of my apprentices) - just because i am a fan of justice and i dont like it if people behave like "little-bonaparte".

Throw your money at a lawyer if you like.
I think you'll find, as Sean did

, that they can kick you out at will, without needing any legal reason or actual breach of contract.

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #31 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:42 »

@ Shady sue
What is so difficult to understand here?
I was in a conversation with her months ago about general technic topics (FTP/CSV/Video-Resolution etc) because i have to offer over 40.000 images and i asked about special agreements like i have with other major stockagencies too.

The last two days we had a conversation about some rejects but these rejects are not the topic.
At the end of that discussion i gave some critics she maybe did not like and then she react with digging out "issues" that might lead to closing my account. (See this whole thread!)

Thats soooooo simple to understand!!

tickstock · « **Reply #32 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:44 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:45 »

Quote

@ Shady sue
What is so difficult to understand here?
I was in a conversation with her months ago about general technic topics (FTP/CSV/Video-Resolution etc) because i have to offer over 40.000 images and i asked about special agreements like i have with other major stockagencies too.

The last two days we had a conversation about some rejects but these rejects are not the topic.
At the end of that discussion i gave some critics she maybe did not like and then she react with digging out "issues" that might lead to closing my account. (See this whole thread!)

Thats soooooo simple to understand!!

Maybe if I were clairvoyant, but I'm not; and for that reason, I'm out.

tickstock · « **Reply #34 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:47 »

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #35 on:** April 24, 2013, 16:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2013, 16:45

Maybe if I were clairvoyant, but I'm not; and for that reason, I'm out.

Reading words would be enough in that case.
But with the lawyers you are right.

There are better ways.
800 unique visist in our blog is better than throwing money at a lawyer.
And we are already thinking since a while about setting up a category called "Review the reviewers" in our blog where we "test" agencies and post the results.

Maybe we take this as a signal to start it.

Good night.

Poncke · « **Reply #36 on:** April 24, 2013, 17:20 »

tickstock · « **Reply #37 on:** April 24, 2013, 17:23 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** April 24, 2013, 17:24 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 24, 2013, 16:51

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2013, 16:45
Maybe if I were clairvoyant, but I'm not; and for that reason, I'm out.
Reading words would be enough in that case.
But with the lawyers you are right.

There are better ways.
800 unique visist in our blog is better than throwing money at a lawyer.
And we are already thinking since a while about setting up a category called "Review the reviewers" in our blog where we "test" agencies and post the results.

Maybe we take this as a signal to start it.

Good night.

shudderstok · « **Reply #39 on:** April 24, 2013, 17:48 »

alex, you need to man up and quit moaning like a little child. keep your business affairs private. do you think moaning on a forum will help you? whatever your differences at IS with this KN individual, only you two can sort it out. if you feel whatever has happened is wrong, then be a big boy and hire a lawyer, or at the very least calm down and quite acting like a little boy.

It's impossible to make any sense out of your complaint: you keep changing the goalposts, and you won't give us all the information we need to offer an informed opinion about your situation.

Yeah, you keep adding in new things. Try to remember that none of us have seen your email exchange and most likely none of us are mind readers.

tab62 · « **Reply #40 on:** April 24, 2013, 19:24 »

Another Thread gone bad

ShadySue · « **Reply #41 on:** April 24, 2013, 19:30 »

Quote from: tab62 on April 24, 2013, 19:24

Another Thread gone bad

Your suggestion for the OP is?

gillian vann · « **Reply #42 on:** April 24, 2013, 22:08 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 24, 2013, 16:51

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2013, 16:45
Maybe if I were clairvoyant, but I'm not; and for that reason, I'm out.
Reading words would be enough in that case.

I think Liz said a few times your post is impossible to understand - you've not given any real details. I agree, as do the others who have read and not commented here.
Getting shirty at members here won't help.
I've no idea what your issue is apart from 'something happened, and you said something to iS and they said something back that you think is a threat'. aargh, it's like having a conversation with my 8 year old!
i think you should do... something. can't be any clearer than that, can i?

suggest you have a cup of tea and write a calm, polite response to iS, stating the facts as you see them and asking for clarification, and hopefully this will be sorted.

JPSDK · « **Reply #43 on:** April 24, 2013, 22:28 »

It does not matter if you are group or a single contributor.
... as long as the internal paperwork is in order.
in this case it is not even relevant since, you only upload your own pictures.
But istock cannot know if or if not.
They can only see that there may be 2 legal entities involved.

and that would be a big problem, because then one entity could make claims on the other.

So you need a document specifying that you are the only owner of all content produced by your company, or the opposite.

And if you are being bullied? You can expect all kinds of sneaky, improfessional and emotionally influenced actions from istocks side. Especially when you argue with them.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #44 on:** April 25, 2013, 00:22 »

I agree with the others who stated before that you failed to clearly state what the actual problem is. You are describing things but then again leaving out lots of specific details. I don't know how many posts you have written but I still didn't understand what the actual issue is they are bringing up.

From your posts I also assume that there might be problems with translations back and forth, so you might have read things into whatever was told to you that are not really factual.

Instead you are claiming some kind of "censorship" which is just a very nonsensical statement. Censorship relates to the ability to state your personal opinions in public. An image agency is not a public platform, it's a business. What happens between you and an agency is a business relationship and any business is free to decide who to deal with and under which conditions. It's your freedom to quit that relationship anytime if they are not meeting your conditions. And it's their freedom to do the same.

I also think you have a bit of a misunderstanding about how most microstock agencies work. They are dealing with tens (or hundreds) of thousands contributors. They can't manage personal agreements or adapt their ways of doing business to cater someones needs. That might well be the case with most smaller macro agencies who are working with a few hundred photographers and have a more personal relationship. If there is something in your account that is not fitting iStock's procedures, you will have to adapt and supply answers. Simple as that. If you don't want to do that, it's you choice but then don't complain about it.

Microbius · « **Reply #45 on:** April 25, 2013, 01:49 »

Mountain: molehill. They checked out your site, thought you were a studio and asked for clarification. Move on.

humannet · « **Reply #46 on:** April 25, 2013, 06:05 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 24, 2013, 14:57

Hi everybody,
i just experience a very interesting encounter with Misses K. N. from Istock.
It started with one of these weird rejections you normaly get only with little agencies (MR for a flower-bouquet or PR for a governmental building etc...).
I answered with a critique and suddenly Misses N. found some "Issues" in my profile and now it seems like she is searching desperate for a reason to get me kicked out .
And it seems like she tries that in a way that noboy can say its censorship against photographers who are not willing to shut up with every thing they do.

She digged very deep for a reason and now they suspect me that i upload images which are not mine.
Of course i only upload images which are made by myself.

They come across with the argument that with companys (i run a company - but that does not mean necessarily that i upload images as a company) it might be a bit tricky.
Quote Istock:
"Since iStockphoto is really set up to deal with single photographers, it
is a bit tricky to work with a company that may employ several
photographers or artists."

I answered:
"-All required fields in the profile-section of your backend are filled out.
-I dont hire other photographers.
-All images are made by myself. "

If i am right with my "feeling" its one of the most unserious behaviors i encountered in 35 years of businesslife.
I really hope that this is just a severe misunderstanding and to clearify that i invite Misses K.N to give her statement here.
regards axel Lauer.
www.axellauer.de

I got one photo rejected for MR, however there is no people inside the image. werid.

dbvirago · « **Reply #47 on:** April 25, 2013, 06:38 »

As others have said, you keep adding things that weren't in the OP, which wasn't clear to begin with. In one your last posts, you added the fact that you offered 40,000 images to upload. Do you think that might have raised a few red flags? You have personally shot and processed over 40,000 images? I have been doing this since 06 and shoot and keep more than I should, and I am currently at about 17,000.

Also as others have said, if you want to quote the entire conversation, not leave out major details like the 40K images, then maybe we can offer some advice. Otherwise, it sounds like you overplayed your hand and she is calling your bluff.

click_click · « **Reply #48 on:** April 25, 2013, 10:55 »

I have to jump in and remind a few people here that iStock is not some cuddly toy that just loves everyone back either.

First, I don't encourage disrespectful treatment of agencies but most (!) of us have expressed clearly our dislike towards iStock in the past.

Axel, doing business from Germany, who IS most likely German, is nonetheless still dealing with a language and cultural barrier. How do I know? I'm German and I'm working in microstock for over 8 years now from the US.

Despite trying to understand different business practices it is sometimes unexplainable how some decisions by certain agencies are made. In any situation, misunderstandings can be the cause.

I get the feeling that Axel did not accurately state the issue at hand, which is not something he did intentionally in order to confuse anyone.

I can see how utterly frustrating it is to fight for image approvals that simply do not require MRs - ALTHOUGH this is at the discretion of the agency!

I believe Axel has had such issues in the past regarding MRs or PRs for images that are quite generic and I can see that it is aggravating, especially if these kinds of images are your bread and butter.

So here is what I see is happening (I hope this is correct and probably helpful for others to understand):

- Axel uploads an image to IS which gets rejected due to a missing MR/PR.

- Axel contacts the same person he has been dealing with at IS previously. That's something I do as well if I have a contact at an agency who helped me before - to speed things up.

- During the conversation between Axel and his contact at IS, apparently Axel argued why he requires a release for that specific image "providing" critique to IS, which we all know can be quite "unhealthy" in terms of continuing a working relationship with IS.

- Since the issue about the MR/PR was somewhat negligible, IS got ticked off and is now trying to find irregularities in his account in order to get him booted (Axel's words - NOT mine!).

- This lead to the communication about whether he is uploading content that may not be his as he is running a business in Germany employing other photographers.

- IS is inclined to assume that Axel is uploading content that is not only his work, which most likely can only be legally "contained" by having Axel fill out a PR that explicitly states it is all his work OR asking the photographers he is working with, if any of the content belongs to them (which is unfeasible).

- So in the end Axel feels discriminated against because, despite uploading as an individual to IS, IS now assumes he is uploading other people's work.

I hope that this is a rough run down of the issue. I may very well be missing points.

But still, as we all have signed contracts with our agents, I don't understand why some agents still treat us like garbage. If IS is sooooo concerned about the legal implications of Axel uploading other people's content why don't they just sue him then? No, instead, they give him the runaround.

It does go without saying however, that he is free to leave IS any given time.

I just want to point out that it happened to me as well in the past where I was treated like a criminal by several agencies and it took an awful lot (and lots of time) to sort things out.

It's a very uncomfortable feeling, knowing you haven't done anything wrong and being accused of something.

If I got facts wrong, please disregard this message.

Take it easy fellas.

cthoman · « **Reply #49 on:** April 25, 2013, 11:25 »

Thanks for the interpretation Click. That seems to make sense (if that is what happened). I know it is hard to explain some of these conversations we have with agencies. I had one recently with 123RF that read like an Abbott and Costello "Who's on first" routine.

ShadySue · « **Reply #50 on:** April 25, 2013, 11:35 »

It could all have been because he referred to himself as 'we' like the late Maggie T ("We are a grandmother").

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #51 on:** April 25, 2013, 16:21 »

Quote from: click_click on April 25, 2013, 10:55

I have to jump in and remind a few people here that iStock is not some cuddly toy that just loves everyone back either.

First, I don't encourage disrespectful treatment of agencies but most (!) of us have expressed clearly our dislike towards iStock in the past.

Axel, doing business from Germany, who IS most likely German, is nonetheless still dealing with a language and cultural barrier. How do I know? I'm German and I'm working in microstock for over 8 years now from the US.

Despite trying to understand different business practices it is sometimes unexplainable how some decisions by certain agencies are made. In any situation, misunderstandings can be the cause.

I get the feeling that Axel did not accurately state the issue at hand, which is not something he did intentionally in order to confuse anyone.

I can see how utterly frustrating it is to fight for image approvals that simply do not require MRs - ALTHOUGH this is at the discretion of the agency!

I believe Axel has had such issues in the past regarding MRs or PRs for images that are quite generic and I can see that it is aggravating, especially if these kinds of images are your bread and butter.

So here is what I see is happening (I hope this is correct and probably helpful for others to understand):

- Axel uploads an image to IS which gets rejected due to a missing MR/PR.

- Axel contacts the same person he has been dealing with at IS previously. That's something I do as well if I have a contact at an agency who helped me before - to speed things up.

- During the conversation between Axel and his contact at IS, apparently Axel argued why he requires a release for that specific image "providing" critique to IS, which we all know can be quite "unhealthy" in terms of continuing a working relationship with IS.

- Since the issue about the MR/PR was somewhat negligible, IS got ticked off and is now trying to find irregularities in his account in order to get him booted (Axel's words - NOT mine!).

- This lead to the communication about whether he is uploading content that may not be his as he is running a business in Germany employing other photographers.

- IS is inclined to assume that Axel is uploading content that is not only his work, which most likely can only be legally "contained" by having Axel fill out a PR that explicitly states it is all his work OR asking the photographers he is working with, if any of the content belongs to them (which is unfeasible).

- So in the end Axel feels discriminated against because, despite uploading as an individual to IS, IS now assumes he is uploading other people's work.

I hope that this is a rough run down of the issue. I may very well be missing points.

But still, as we all have signed contracts with our agents, I don't understand why some agents still treat us like garbage. If IS is sooooo concerned about the legal implications of Axel uploading other people's content why don't they just sue him then? No, instead, they give him the runaround.

It does go without saying however, that he is free to leave IS any given time.

I just want to point out that it happened to me as well in the past where I was treated like a criminal by several agencies and it took an awful lot (and lots of time) to sort things out.

It's a very uncomfortable feeling, knowing you haven't done anything wrong and being accused of something.

If I got facts wrong, please disregard this message.

Take it easy fellas.

@Click_Click
Thank you very much for you help.
You interpretation is pretty much what happened and i really thought that i wrote it down in an understandable way but probably i didnt.
Like i said very often - i really do not care about rejections!!
But i do care (and i become deeply desperate) if rejections are stupid, irrational and if "supporters" behave like napoleon when you complain

OK, in these cases i really become sarcastic and ironic which is not the best way to solve problems and that might have led to the topic we are talking about in this thread.
But i am to old to learn how to do the perfect kowtow.

regards axel

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #52 on:** April 25, 2013, 16:34 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 25, 2013, 11:35

It could all have been because he referred to himself as 'we' like the late Maggie T ("We are a grandmother").

is it possible that you have a bit of a fixation??
We......i have a secretary , a web-developer, a cleaning-woman, an IT-specialist and no one of theme is taking pictures.
Its we because my employees are (and thats what employees do, in case that you might not know) doing there jobs for me and this includes writing mails, supervise accounts and a lot of other stuff.
We are a team although its only me uploading pictures to IS.
And if my employees wouldnt do their job i would not be able to do my work!
Got it??

And yes - some of my other employees are taking pictures.
For clients!!!!
I write over my companys mailaccounts - so what?

?

So why do you nag constantly on a point which is so clear??
Have you never been on a job and is that the reason you have so hard difficulties to understand what that "we" means??

Aaaaahhhh...now i see....
"Never bite the hand that feeds you".
Do they the feed you good?

ShadySue · « **Reply #53 on:** April 25, 2013, 16:41 »

If you happened to write 'we' to iStock, it's hardly surprising that raised alarm bells. As mentioned above, 40,000 unique images is an enormous back-catalogue for one person, so that, combined with a loose use of 'we' probably sparked off suspicion.

You need to take a chill pill.

click_click · « **Reply #54 on:** April 25, 2013, 16:45 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 25, 2013, 16:21

@Click_Click
Thank you very much for you help.
You interpretation is pretty much what happened and i really thought that i wrote it down in an understandable way but probably i didnt.
Like i said very often - i really do not care about rejections!!
But i do care (and i become deeply desperate) if rejections are stupid, irrational and if "supporters" behave like napoleon when you complain

OK, in these cases i really become sarcastic and ironic which is not the best way to solve problems and that might have led to the topic we are talking about in this thread.
But i am to old to learn how to do the perfect kowtow.

regards axel

I'm trying to help everyone out here, both you and everyone responding to you to get things cleared out.

Since I've come to the US I learned the hard way that the "typical" German way of addressing issues is not going to get you very far as most of your conversation partners will just shut up instead of trying to carrying on a conversation where you are trying to make a point.

Sometimes it takes me quite a while to get my point across because of both the language barrier and also the culture shock effect.

Nobody should be offended by Axel. He doesn't mean to be offensive even if it appears on the first look.

In Germany issues can be discussed in quite a heated manner on both sides which does not mean that either party is mad at the other one.

Trying to make a point can become somewhat "emotional" at some point of the discussion.

We all might yank someone's leg every now and then but neither Shady Sue nor Axel meant to be mean to each other.

I've refrained from complaining about agencies here on the forum as it's always a matter of perspective that not always applies to the OP situation (not referring to the funky copyright infringement cases we had here - LOL).

Maybe we can all get along...?

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #55 on:** April 25, 2013, 16:46 »

@Shady Sue
If people dont want to understand the dont want to understand.
Or sometimes they are on the payroll of the company they are defending so hard.

Good Night

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #56 on:** April 25, 2013, 16:51 »

Quote

Or sometimes they are on the payroll of the company they are defending so hard

I had to laugh at the irony of that.

ShadySue · « **Reply #57 on:** April 25, 2013, 16:55 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 25, 2013, 16:51

Quote
Or sometimes they are on the payroll of the company they are defending so hard

I had to laugh at the irony of that.

The idea that I was trying to defend iStock?
That is ironic indeed! And the idea that I'm on their payroll is even more hysterical.

In the second top post on page 2, I said that something had probably been 'lost in translation'.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #58 on:** April 25, 2013, 18:17 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 25, 2013, 16:46

@Shady Sue
If people dont want to understand the dont want to understand.
Or sometimes they are on the payroll of the company they are defending so hard.

Good Night

Do you share cameras with your staff that is isnt uploading to IS. They can read that you have many cameras and names.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #59 on:** April 25, 2013, 18:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2013, 16:45

and for that reason, I'm out.

I love that show

luissantos84 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 25, 2013, 18:34 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 24, 2013, 14:57

Quote Istock:
"Since iStockphoto is really set up to deal with single photographers, it
is a bit tricky to work with a company that may employ several
photographers or artists."

oh man really? they had courage to tell you that? iStock is getting all the prizes for the last 4 years and for sure will get more if people keep uploading

Yuri has 24 photographers working for him LOL

gillian vann · « **Reply #61 on:** April 25, 2013, 18:50 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 25, 2013, 16:46

@Shady Sue
If people dont want to understand the dont want to understand.
Or sometimes they are on the payroll of the company they are defending so hard.

Good Night

you've had someone come in and try to explain away your ~~arrogance~~ ~~emotional outburts~~ way of communicating as being a "cultural difference". Sure, ok, I can swallow that (I am married to a Dutch Saffer so i get it).

But do you see others writing in bold all the time? nope, because it's to make a point, and in your case, it's a touch on the rude side, and is going to upset people.

Despite cultural differences you should be able to see how we behave in this forum, which has its own culture - regardless of where you are sitting now.

gostwyck · « **Reply #62 on:** April 25, 2013, 19:35 »

Am I to understand that the OP, a German bloke who apparently runs a business with several employees, is actually complaining about being 'bullied' by a Canadian girl in Istock's CR team? 'Bullied' how __ because she asked a few questions of you?

Why so keen to play the hand-wringing victim? Why don't you just grow a pair, answer the questions and stand up for yourself like any normal person would do?

'Bullied' __ my arse.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #63 on:** April 25, 2013, 21:19 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 25, 2013, 18:26

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2013, 16:45
and for that reason, I'm out.

I love that show

Me too. Makes my Friday nite.

JPSDK · « **Reply #64 on:** April 25, 2013, 21:27 »

We actually have a cultural conflict here, dont we?

The German guy vs the Canadian girl.

Come on guys, can you not see what it is all about. It is istock being inprofessional, and mixing things up.
As someone said, they can sue if they are conserned. Until then, if an artist claims the copyright, then he does, and it is his.

click_click · « **Reply #65 on:** April 25, 2013, 22:48 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 25, 2013, 19:35

Am I to understand that the OP, a German bloke who apparently runs a business with several employees, is actually complaining about being 'bullied' by a Canadian girl in Istock's CR team? 'Bullied' how __ because she asked a few questions of you?

Why so keen to play the hand-wringing victim? Why don't you just grow a pair, answer the questions and stand up for yourself like any normal person would do?

'Bullied' __ my arse.

I'm not taking sides here (although it probably appears so...) but the German bloke and Canadian girl thing isn't going to work here nor is it of any relevance.

Photographer A gets questioned by agency B for something that is out of the question.

If I boil this soup down, I get a situation like this:

Just because I own a faster car, I am more likely to get pulled over over for presumably "speeding" without actually measuring the speed I was going at.

To me it appears that Axel is trying to explain that the sole fact that he is running a business employing photographers is enough "evidence" for IS to question whether all of his content is coming from him personally.

I find this quite upsetting as:

1. long no other photographer claimed a copyright infringement at IS for content in Axel's portfolio
and
2. Axel signed a contract with IS (as we all did - or whoever is left on that ship anyway...) stating that all uploaded content comes from him (individual photographer).

While IS considers this behavior as "legitimate" research to ensure a proper copyright situation it is nonetheless a frustrating and time consuming matter over which I would be upset as well.

The world won't stop turning and as much as Axel is blowing steam all over the place he still has a business to run and is uploading images to other agencies - I dare to assume that he is well aware that the world won't end with this annoying issue at hand with IS.

I'm just trying to build a bridge between people who passionately try to break the language and cultural barrier.

Anywho, this is as far as I'm gonna go. I hope we still can all learn from each other and that everyone can respect other members here for constructive discussions.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #66 on:** April 26, 2013, 00:25 »

Quote from: click_click on April 25, 2013, 16:45

Since I've come to the US I learned the hard way that the "typical" German way of addressing issues is not going to get you very far as most of your conversation partners will just shut up instead of trying to carrying on a conversation where you are trying to make a point.

Sometimes it takes me quite a while to get my point across because of both the language barrier and also the culture shock effect.

Nobody should be offended by Axel. He doesn't mean to be offensive even if it appears on the first look.

In Germany issues can be discussed in quite a heated manner on both sides which does not mean that either party is mad at the other one.

Well, I live in Germany (though I am half Swiss) but I still don't argue this way nor will I be very helpful to people arguing with me this way. Though I know sometimes written communication on the internet tends to sound more aggressive than you might word it in direct communication, I think if you are trying to get to a solution for your problem, it is your responsibility to word it in a way that the other person understands and makes him/her feel treated with respect.

From your prior explanation I now understand that somehow an image was rejected for an invalid reason which can happen as the inspection process is human as well. However, raising the questions of MR/PR might have lead to inquire if the photographer mentioned in the MR/PR is the same as the claimed copyright holder. This might sound easy if both are the same (personal) name.

But it might get complicated if you have a company. At this point you have to be aware of the differences between the German Urheberrecht (which always lies with a natural person and can not be transferred) and the American copyright (which can be transferred and can also be owner by a company). So in American law it can be a different legal situation whether the copyright lies with "Axel Lauer" or with "Axel Lauer Inc."

I know from others (at least one German case) where a photographer was shooting in the name of his company. They had to provide additional documentation about the legal structure which took a while to make the Canadians understand the German legal situation but in the end was successful.

So my suggestion is to get the emotions (including the claims of bullying or someone searching for some reason to justify something) out of the equation and just deal with the business facts. Maybe get help from someone who understands both the English (legal) language and the corporate mentality a bit better.

In my experience, iStock has tolerated a lot of "artistic emotions" in the past without bullying people, so they are usually not actively searching for reasons to remove someone. The only question is if you want to get your problems sorted out or not.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #67 on:** April 26, 2013, 01:45 »

Quote

Come on guys, can you not see what it is all about. It is istock being inprofessional

Glad that's cleared things up then.

gillian vann · « **Reply #68 on:** April 26, 2013, 07:04 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 26, 2013, 01:45

Quote
Come on guys, can you not see what it is all about. It is istock being inprofessional

Glad that's cleared things up then.

inprofessional...
is that like "infamous"?

thesentinel · « **Reply #69 on:** April 26, 2013, 13:30 »

"Infamy infamy ! They've all got it in for me "

A cultural allusion that will be lost on most here!

ShadySue · « **Reply #70 on:** April 26, 2013, 13:44 »

Quote from: thesentinel on April 26, 2013, 13:30

"Infamy infamy ! They've all got it in for me "

A cultural allusion that will be lost on most here!

Not me, but I think that ages us.

fotografer · « **Reply #71 on:** April 26, 2013, 14:04 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 26, 2013, 13:44

Quote from: thesentinel on April 26, 2013, 13:30
"Infamy infamy ! They've all got it in for me "

A cultural allusion that will be lost on most here!
Not me, but I think that ages us.

LOL me too. Kenneth Williams if I remember correctly.

ShadySue · « **Reply #72 on:** April 26, 2013, 14:11 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 26, 2013, 14:04

Quote from: ShadySue on April 26, 2013, 13:44
Quote from: thesentinel on April 26, 2013, 13:30
"Infamy infamy ! They've all got it in for me "

A cultural allusion that will be lost on most here!
Not me, but I think that ages us.
LOL me too. Kenneth Williams if I remember correctly.

Ouch, you're right: I thought it was Frankie Howerd!
However, a quick Wikipedia shuftie says:
Re Frank Muir "Upon his return to civilian life, he began to write scripts for Jimmy Edwards. When Edwards teamed up with Dick Bentley on BBC Radio, Muir formed a partnership with Denis Norden, Bentley's writer, which was to last for most of his career. The vehicle created for Bentley and Edwards, Take It From Here, was written by Muir and Norden from 1948 until 1959; ... For TIFH, Muir and Norden wrote the phrase, "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me", later used by Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleo. In his autobiography A Kentish Lad ... Muir expressed disappointment that he and Norden were never credited for it."

gbalex · « **Reply #73 on:** April 26, 2013, 14:31 »

Quote from: click_click on April 25, 2013, 10:55

I have to jump in and remind a few people here that iStock is not some cuddly toy that just loves everyone back either.

First, I don't encourage disrespectful treatment of agencies but most (!) of us have expressed clearly our dislike towards iStock in the past.

Axel, doing business from Germany, who IS most likely German, is nonetheless still dealing with a language and cultural barrier. How do I know? I'm German and I'm working in microstock for over 8 years now from the US.

Despite trying to understand different business practices it is sometimes unexplainable how some decisions by certain agencies are made. In any situation, misunderstandings can be the cause.

I get the feeling that Axel did not accurately state the issue at hand, which is not something he did intentionally in order to confuse anyone.

I can see how utterly frustrating it is to fight for image approvals that simply do not require MRs - ALTHOUGH this is at the discretion of the agency!

I believe Axel has had such issues in the past regarding MRs or PRs for images that are quite generic and I can see that it is aggravating, especially if these kinds of images are your bread and butter.

So here is what I see is happening (I hope this is correct and probably helpful for others to understand):

- Axel uploads an image to IS which gets rejected due to a missing MR/PR.

- Axel contacts the same person he has been dealing with at IS previously. That's something I do as well if I have a contact at an agency who helped me before - to speed things up.

- During the conversation between Axel and his contact at IS, apparently Axel argued why he requires a release for that specific image "providing" critique to IS, which we all know can be quite "unhealthy" in terms of continuing a working relationship with IS.

- Since the issue about the MR/PR was somewhat negligible, IS got ticked off and is now trying to find irregularities in his account in order to get him booted (Axel's words - NOT mine!).

- This lead to the communication about whether he is uploading content that may not be his as he is running a business in Germany employing other photographers.

- IS is inclined to assume that Axel is uploading content that is not only his work, which most likely can only be legally "contained" by having Axel fill out a PR that explicitly states it is all his work OR asking the photographers he is working with, if any of the content belongs to them (which is unfeasible).

- So in the end Axel feels discriminated against because, despite uploading as an individual to IS, IS now assumes he is uploading other people's work.

I hope that this is a rough run down of the issue. I may very well be missing points.

But still, as we all have signed contracts with our agents, I don't understand why some agents still treat us like garbage. If IS is sooooo concerned about the legal implications of Axel uploading other people's content why don't they just sue him then? No, instead, they give him the runaround.

It does go without saying however, that he is free to leave IS any given time.

I just want to point out that it happened to me as well in the past where I was treated like a criminal by several agencies and it took an awful lot (and lots of time) to sort things out.

It's a very uncomfortable feeling, knowing you haven't done anything wrong and being accused of something.

If I got facts wrong, please disregard this message.

Take it easy fellas.

I am not sure what happened in this thread, I did not find it a struggle to read the OP's post and my understanding was similar to your synopsis.

Is the language barrier really this much trouble for some? The OP's post's are not that hard to understand, if you take the time to read them.

tickstock · « **Reply #74 on:** April 26, 2013, 15:09 »

lisafx · « **Reply #75 on:** April 26, 2013, 16:19 »

Quote from: dbvirago on April 25, 2013, 06:38

As others have said, you keep adding things that weren't in the OP, which wasn't clear to begin with. In one your last posts, you added the fact that you offered 40,000 images to upload. Do you think that might have raised a few red flags? You have personally shot and processed over 40,000 images? I have been doing this since 06 and shoot and keep more than I should, and I am currently at about 17,000.

Also as others have said, if you want to quote the entire conversation, not leave out major details like the 40K images, then maybe we can offer some advice. Otherwise, it sounds like you overplayed your hand and she is calling your bluff.

I very seldom see any reason to defend Istock these days, but I find myself very skeptical that one person could manage to shoot, select the best shots, process those, and wind up with 40k images ready to submit at once without having a bit of help. Add to that the discovery that this photographic dynamo owns a company which employs other shooters, and I don't see how Istock can be blamed for thinking you were a company and not an individual. After reading this thread I am tempted to come to the same conclusion.

In my experience, the people who shout loudest about how they were wronged in a given instance are quite often actually in the wrong, and the more wrong they are, the louder they shout to convince everyone otherwise. The (gentleman) doth protest too much, methinks.

FWIW, I was incorporated for a couple of years and when I incorporated I had to fill out different paperwork and convert my account to a company account on several agencies. When I closed the corporation and reverted back to an individual I had to fill out paperwork again. It wasn't a huge deal. I certainly wasn't outraged about it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Bullied by Istock?? (Read 11618 times)

Poncke

shudderstok

tab62

Microbius

dbvirago

vlad_the_imp

mlwinphoto

vlad_the_imp

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors