Author Topic: Bullied by Istock?? (Read 13973 times)

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 »

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Bullied by Istock?? (Read 13973 times)

ShadySue

Axel Lauer

Axel Lauer

ShadySue

click_click

Axel Lauer

vlad_the_imp

ShadySue

YadaYadaYada

luissantos84

luissantos84

gillian vann

gostwyck

mlwinphoto

JPSDK

click_click

MichaelJayFoto

vlad_the_imp

gillian vann

thesentinel

ShadySue

fotografer

ShadySue

gbalex

tickstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors