pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Didn't get paid for iStock's Google Drive deal EL!!! Now what?  (Read 5982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 15, 2013, 22:00 »
0
Well with my luck I might have overlooked something but I need to know how and when exactly were we supposed to get the $12 license paid out if one of our images was picked for Google Drive usage?

I thought I read something somewhere that the EL price of $12 was credited to the contributors sometime last October/November (2012). No idea if this is correct or what.

I found one of my images on Google Drive free to use and the one and only EL I ever sold on IS was in April 2011.  :o

There are no other credits anywhere in the list of this image.

Now, as bad as everything already is with IS's and our situation what the heck am I supposed to do? Get an attorney? Just write contributor support? PM some hot shot at HQ and hope for the best?

Some serious ideas would be appreciated.

Are others affected by this phenomenon as well? Did anyone find their photos on Google Drive and did not get paid for it/them?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2013, 22:05 »
0
It wasn't a standard istock EL. Maybe yours was included via TS?



« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2013, 22:06 »
0
Well...If you are willing to accept that getting 12$ for unlimited use of your work is OK, talk to their contributor support before you call your attorney.

« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2013, 22:13 »
0
It wasn't a standard istock EL. Maybe yours was included via TS?
See, I made myself look like an idiot again.

Sorry for going nutty again.

The sale was listed as a Partner Program sale through Getty Images for a total of $12.

Thanks ladies and gentlemen, namely ShadySue, nothing to see here, please move along.

 ::)

« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2013, 05:12 »
+2
Did non-exclusive get the same amount as exclusives?  I would of thought non-exclusives would get less but perhaps they thought anything lower than $12 was an insult :)

« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2013, 06:00 »
0
Did non-exclusive get the same amount as exclusives?  I would of thought non-exclusives would get less but perhaps they thought anything lower than $12 was an insult :)

You didn't understand it. This was no iStock deal, this was a Getty deal. It just happens that some images on Getty are sourced from iStock but for those image sold through Getty iStockers are paid the same as any other Getty RF photographer (20%). There is no contributor exclusivity on Getty.

« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2013, 07:09 »
0
Did non-exclusive get the same amount as exclusives?  I would of thought non-exclusives would get less but perhaps they thought anything lower than $12 was an insult :)

You didn't understand it. This was no iStock deal, this was a Getty deal. It just happens that some images on Getty are sourced from iStock but for those image sold through Getty iStockers are paid the same as any other Getty RF photographer (20%). There is no contributor exclusivity on Getty.
I understand that but haven't the non-exclusive images come from Thinkstock via istock?  I thought non-exclusives were paid the same percentages they get with istock for images sold via Thinkstock.

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2013, 09:11 »
0
Did non-exclusive get the same amount as exclusives?  I would of thought non-exclusives would get less but perhaps they thought anything lower than $12 was an insult :)

You didn't understand it. This was no iStock deal, this was a Getty deal. It just happens that some images on Getty are sourced from iStock but for those image sold through Getty iStockers are paid the same as any other Getty RF photographer (20%). There is no contributor exclusivity on Getty.
I understand that but haven't the non-exclusive images come from Thinkstock via istock?  I thought non-exclusives were paid the same percentages they get with istock for images sold via Thinkstock.

No, even though our TS images come from Istock, it is treated as a completely different site with different rules and pay schedules.  That's also why TS sales don't affect our RC credits, for example. 


Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2013, 14:20 »
+9
Any deal that Getty is getting money in their pocket for, made possible by my (and your images), but that we do not collect a royalty on, is a scandal and deserves attention.
My legal team and I do not quite know what to do here. Is the current situation as follows: The photographers will not get any royalty from the Google deal, images are licensed for free? Are there any news out there that we have not heard off? Is this license not basically a very liberal "extended" license for which we should receive normal pay? How is it possible for Getty to avoid this?
I am meeting with Getty Executives Monday the 28 in London to discus this among other things. Are there updates on the matter of significant character.


« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2013, 14:29 »
0
From what I understand (your lawyer will explain it better) it all hangs on what kind of right to negotiate licenses in our name did we transfer to istock and getty.

istock and getty claim, they can more or less do what they want, wether it is endless "promotional deals" where I discover by accident that Microsoft is giving away 25 files of mine for free for endless re-distributio to unregistred buyers or the google docs deal where we got paid 12 dollars for a special extended license to endless free redistribution via google docs, with all metadata stripped. Please direct your lawyer also to the Microsoft thread in the istock forums. In there the gettylawyer goes out and claims it was a promotional deal and they wouldnt anything like this today. And just the next day...the community finds the google deal. Particalyrly bad is that google promotes it as "crowd sourced "donations" from thinkstock, never mentioning that these are regular commercial stock images.

I am so glad your lawyers are looking into this. Please get back to us and let us know what happened.

In the meantime, many are just choosing to show their distrust of getty by voting with their feet and leaving.

When are you accepting video or other artists, Yuri? ;)

« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2013, 14:30 »
+3
Is the current situation as follows: The photographers will not get any royalty from the Google deal, images are licensed for free?
You get 12 bucks one time and then you're not quite the owner of your image. You kind of donated it to Getty.

« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2013, 14:31 »
+6
The info is all in the threads, as stated from iStock admins.  Your lawyers should be able to find it there.

« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2013, 16:06 »
+1
Any deal that Getty is getting money in their pocket for, made possible by my (and your images), but that we do not collect a royalty on, is a scandal and deserves attention.
My legal team and I do not quite know what to do here. Is the current situation as follows: The photographers will not get any royalty from the Google deal, images are licensed for free? Are there any news out there that we have not heard off? Is this license not basically a very liberal "extended" license for which we should receive normal pay? How is it possible for Getty to avoid this?
I am meeting with Getty Executives Monday the 28 in London to discus this among other things. Are there updates on the matter of significant character.
Don't forget to join deactivation day on February 2end.  It would mean much more if it wasn't just us small contributors making a stand.

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2013, 16:47 »
+1
Yuri, great to hear your lawyers are on this, and that you have a meeting set with Getty execs.  You are in a unique position to squash this abuse of your and our copyrights. 

To answer your questions, the copyright owner gets a nominal, one time fee of $12 to have their image included in google drive, where it will then be available for free unlimited download to anyone and everyone who uses google docs.  It is not limited to personal use, but also encourages commercial use.  With NO further payment to, or permission from the artist. 

I am sure you can see how this broad of a use of many thousands of free images, covering a wide variety of topics, would cut into the base of customers who currently license and pay for our work.  It risks damaging the entire industry. 

I hope you will be able to report something back, but if we don't hear back from you I will be fairly certain it is on advice of counsel, and a lawsuit may be in the works...

« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2013, 18:58 »
+1
Any deal that Getty is getting money in their pocket for, made possible by my (and your images), but that we do not collect a royalty on, is a scandal and deserves attention.
My legal team and I do not quite know what to do here. Is the current situation as follows: The photographers will not get any royalty from the Google deal, images are licensed for free? Are there any news out there that we have not heard off? Is this license not basically a very liberal "extended" license for which we should receive normal pay? How is it possible for Getty to avoid this?
I am meeting with Getty Executives Monday the 28 in London to discus this among other things. Are there updates on the matter of significant character.

If I am in you place
Just in case, I would take a baseball bat with me for easier negotiation.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2013, 02:27 »
0
... but if we don't hear back from you I will be fairly certain it is on advice of counsel, and a lawsuit may be in the works...

I was hoping that Yuri's silence to date meant exactly this.

« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2013, 03:00 »
0
Any deal that Getty is getting money in their pocket for, made possible by my (and your images), but that we do not collect a royalty on, is a scandal and deserves attention.
My legal team and I do not quite know what to do here. Is the current situation as follows: The photographers will not get any royalty from the Google deal, images are licensed for free? Are there any news out there that we have not heard off? Is this license not basically a very liberal "extended" license for which we should receive normal pay? How is it possible for Getty to avoid this?
I am meeting with Getty Executives Monday the 28 in London to discus this among other things. Are there updates on the matter of significant character.

Basically Getty's view about the deal is what formally would be covered by an "Extended License - Electronic Items For Resale" in iStock terms. Someone wants to include images in an application to be used. Someone could come up, buy this license on iStock for 125 credits plus the size - so maybe 135-150 credits per image. Having a steep discount for large volume customers is not unusual, so selling credits at maybe $0.50 per credit would make it $67-76 per image, from which the photographer could get anything between 15-45%. In the worst case it would be $67 * 15% = $10.

I guess this is about the lines that you will here from Getty, though they will express it in Getty license terms, not iStock.

Obviously these were terms when most applications would run on the user's computer, so there was no simple way to get the images out of there. With Google Drive, it is quite easy to use the images outside of Google Drive - but this again would be the fault of the user because he didn't carefully read through all the Terms of Use which would probably prohibit using the images outside.

In addition, all metadata was stripped from the files, so there is not even an indication that these images are copyright protected. While using images without credit to the author is common for commercial uses, having images show up as not copyrighted is a doubtful practice.

Good luck for your talks.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2013, 06:09 »
0

Obviously these were terms when most applications would run on the user's computer, so there was no simple way to get the images out of there. With Google Drive, it is quite easy to use the images outside of Google Drive - but this again would be the fault of the user because he didn't carefully read through all the Terms of Use which would probably prohibit using the images outside.

In addition, all metadata was stripped from the files, so there is not even an indication that these images are copyright protected. While using images without credit to the author is common for commercial uses, having images show up as not copyrighted is a doubtful practice.


I wonder how relevant it is that the terms about using the images out of Google Drive is almost impossible to police. If we see an end product, how would we know how it had been produced?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2582 Views
Last post January 17, 2013, 10:42
by Elenathewise
34 Replies
7514 Views
Last post January 30, 2013, 02:21
by skubai
28 Replies
7630 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 14:32
by polar
3 Replies
1984 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 12:36
by Jo Ann Snover
22 Replies
5142 Views
Last post February 24, 2013, 22:06
by klsbear

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle