I start separate thread, concentrated on concrete actions we can take.
What happens with iStock/Getty/Microsoft/Google and probably others, for instant submerged deals, is unacceptable. I don�t think iStock and friends will stop because it is the right thing to do. We should stop them. If not swindlers will continue.
We need 2 organized actions. One legal, another social/communication.

I propose for social/communication action:
Try to collect here addresses of people, sites, magazines, associations, journalists etc. Then prepare a kind of an open collective letter (only one to avoid spams)which will be sent to concerned people.
Spread a word on social networks and blogs.

Legal action:
1) Create paypal account to collect money. We should keep it simple, at least in the beginning IMO, so no need to create legal entity. On this site there are many persons I trust and respect (LisaFx, Leaf, Sjlocke, Jsnover and many others). If one of these people agrees to open an account I�m ready to send few hundreds of $.
2) Contact a specialized lawyer. Present well prepared file with all iStock/Getty story, not only Google/Microsoft�s. At least we will have a precise idea what is legal
3) Based on lawyer�s opinion we decide next steps.

I think it is urgent to act. Not only iStock contributors are concerned. All copyright holders, if this still means something, are concerned. If Getty with impunity can do this others will follow. Floated marked with high quality free images from Getty will devaluate paid ones. Who will buy Shutterstock�s subscription if there is a free option?

The reasons why IMO we should charge them:
1)   It is simple immoral, not right. I know it not an argument in a court but this is what it is.
2)   Probably illegal: nothing to do with promotion
3)   Probably illegal: copyright holder cannot stop it
4)   Probably illegal: the way they change ASA
5)   Probably illegal: be paid for without paying suppliers
6)   Probably illegal: not inform about these kind of deal which are nothing to do with regular business
7)   Probably illegal: prevent us to become exclusive on competitors sites (impossible to remove our images)
   Financial. It could be a possibility to earn much more money than from selling our photos.. Compensations could be huge for images download thousand times.
9)   �

I just cannot stand that they think that they can do anything. There should be a punishment.

Is it iStock or Getty or both you propose to sue? With IStock you have the problem of class action being banned under the terms. Sending out negative letters about iStock to concerned people at the same time you are suing them might get you into hot water and damage the prospects for court action (I don't know, I'm just pointing out something to think about).
According to advice that I once had, the size of any compensation would be related to the personal loss suffered from selling the images that number of times, so Getty might be really deeply in the doo-doo if some vetta images have been downloaded millions of times for free.
My own feeling is that the deliberate removal of copyright information by either Getty or Google is indicative of fraudulent intent (as well as demonstrably removing any desire for the images to be used promotionally) but you might need to sue Google as well as Getty over that, which would be decidedly ambitious (and expensive).
On the positive side, according to what I was told, an agency would have to be careful not to discriminate against your portfolio and could not throw you out for taking out a suit against them.  Of course, you would need to check that, too.
If you are serious, you need to start off by getting a copyright lawyer's advice - which shouldn't be too expensive, if you can get 100 people or so to back you.  They would need to be people whose work had been affected by this, not just anyone.

No, he is not naive.
There could easily be good cases for each of the people who have their images downloaded many times from MS.

And the lawyer need not be so expensive. He might see a good chance to produce some money for himself.

That should give them a really good laugh, in between counting their profits, Jeffrey

Is it iStock or Getty or both you propose to sue?

Have no idea. Maybe Google or Rebecca. This is why I propose to hire a lawyer. Is his job to find the best (if any) solution.

With IStock you have the problem of class action being banned under the terms. Sending out negative letters about iStock to concerned people at the same time you are suing them might get you into hot water and damage the prospects for court action (I don't know, I'm just pointing out something to think about).

We have numbers. Some people can sent letters others go to court. Be banned from iStock is not scaring anymore. In few month iStock will not be here.

If you are serious, you need to start off by getting a copyright lawyer's advice - which shouldn't be too expensive, if you can get 100 people or so to back you.  They would need to be people whose work had been affected by this, not just anyone.

Yes, this is the idea.
Personally I'm not concerned, I haven't  found my images. But I think we cannot let them do it. I understand a contributor who is vulnerable facing merciless company with an army of lawyers. I understand that alone artist is hesitating to spend xxxxx$ with no guarantee of return. But if 100 people participate, at least we can have an idea what is feasible.
It's a David Goliath case.

@Oxman
Naive? Absolutely not.
I suppose that chances are small but I'm curious to check. Who knows?
What is your estimation of chances we have? Based on what?
Microstock - small gain but many times. Why not small contribution, many times for a noble cause?

you are well intended but very naive.

I tend to agree. Rather than 'naive'...probably a misunderstanding of the enormity and cost of such an action.

Firstly you need to spend an hour with a lawyer to see if their is any traction, and then post in the forums to raise the necessary funds and support.

Although I'm not into social media, I suspect a full blown social media campaign might have cheaper, quicker and more devastating consequences than a legal case, but it wouldn't get any compensation for people whose images have been abused in their 'schemes'.

Legally, we all (Istock contributors) signed a contract saying they could use our images for free in any promotions. Naively, I thought this was just mean-spirited of them. Why shouldn't they at least pay us our percentage at a minimum credit rate if they wanted to use our images in adverts? I didn't realise that they could give our images away for free commercial distribution and pocket all the money they negotiated for the deal without paying us anything, if they decided to call it a 'promotion', and no doubt iStocklawyer has been advising them on the jots and tittles of the Canadian Law on what consitutes a 'promotion'.

With the benefit of hindsight, it's obvious this was being planned all along. Why would they quibble about a few dollars a few times a year if they were just using them for magazine ad campaigns or web campaigns? Of course they were just clearing the way for massive shafts.

Isnt there a guy in England that can take istock to small claims court?

Isnt there a guy in England that can take istock to small claims court?

Everyone in England and Wales can. I'm not sure what the law is in Scotland, but I haven't found my pics in these scams yet, so I couldn't do it - I think you'd have to be directly involved. No idea about Northern Ireland.
Presumably the Small Claims Court system is UK-wide, but now that I think about it, it almost certainly won't cover claims under Canadian Law.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 11, 2013, 06:46

Legally, we all (Istock contributors) signed a contract saying they could use our images for free in any promotions. Naively, I thought this was just mean-spirited of them. Why shouldn't they at least pay us our percentage at a minimum credit rate if they wanted to use our images in adverts? I didn't realise that they could give our images away for free commercial distribution and pocket all the money they negotiated for the deal without paying us anything, if they decided to call it a 'promotion', and no doubt iStocklawyer has been advising them on the jots and tittles of the Canadian Law on what consitutes a 'promotion'.

I think it's obvious the ASA is too vague when it comes to terms like "promotion", and too intelligible when it comes to anything else.

Even way back, I was complaining about the ASA being just too obfuscatory and how it should be rewritten in Plain English, since 2007 at least.
There were lots of cases when there were disagreements in the forum about what certain clauses meant, and incidences where I myself had different answers from different CR people to the exact same question (about releasing 'flat light' rejections for RM).

I had very little support on the forums, and it was and is very clear that they had deliberately couched the terms of the ASA that way so that they could always interpret them to their benefit and our detriment.

Just like I'm sure most models don't stop and think what the MR is really allowing, or most would never sign.

Quote from: JPSDK on January 11, 2013, 07:08

But doesnt istock have an office in the UK?
And UK suing Canadians is still within the commonwealth, it should be possible.
It only takes one won lawsuit to open the floodgates.

The ASA clearly says its subject only to Alberta/Canadian Law.
An office in the UK is irrelevant.

Googling Small Claims Court shows that many US states have them too, eg NY:

http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/smallclaims/startingcase.shtml

The top download in this give you all the skinny on the Small Claims Court in Scotland:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/guidance-notes/small-claim-guidance-notes

and here it is for England (and presumably in Wales):
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/making-a-complaint/taking-a-dispute-to-the-small-claims-court/your-rights

That is not correct. It is not irrelevant. If you operate in a country you have to follow the rules of the country, and you can be taken to court there. It is not so that you can write something in a contract and claim innocence because of that.
Fx you cannot claim you obey Saudi Arabian laws and therefore chop of the hands of a thief with an axe. In England. Isocks ATA is just a piece of paper, a piece of paper they have made you sign, and you should know what you sign. But it should still be legal, which I doubt it is.
So therefore it is not at all irrelevant if istock has an office in England.
Its a shame they closed down the office in Germany, the Germans are good with laws.
 

Quote from: ShadySue on January 11, 2013, 07:10

Quote from: JPSDK on January 11, 2013, 07:08

But doesnt istock have an office in the UK?
And UK suing Canadians is still within the commonwealth, it should be possible.
It only takes one won lawsuit to open the floodgates.

The ASA clearly says its subject only to Alberta/Canadian Law.
An office in the UK is irrelevant.

Googling Small Claims Court shows that many US states have them too, eg NY:

http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/smallclaims/startingcase.shtml

The top download in this give you all the skinny on the Small Claims Court in Scotland:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/guidance-notes/small-claim-guidance-notes

and here it is for England (and presumably in Wales):
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/making-a-complaint/taking-a-dispute-to-the-small-claims-court/your-rights

That is not correct. It is not irrelevant. If you operate in a country you have to follow the rules of the country, and you can be taken to court there. It is not so that you can write something in a contract and claim innocence because of that.
Fx you cannot claim you obey Saudi Arabian laws and therefore chop of the hands of a thief with an axe. In England. Isocks ATA is just a piece of paper, a piece of paper they have med you sign, and you should know what you sign. But it should still be legal, which I doubt it is.
So therefore it is not at all irrelevant if istock has an office in England.

I'm pretty sure that iStock's ASA would be an 'unfair contract' in Scotland. Certainly before the iScotalypse we had to sign a disclaimer which would certainly be invalid under Scottish Law. However, specialists in international law are extremely expensive in Scotland.

However, there's nothing I can do about the Small Claims Court until I find one of my files in one of the schemes. A quick shifty at the guidelines in the links above suggests that this is not the sort of case admissable under the Small Claims scheme. If I find one of my images there, I'll take a closer look.

Meanwhile the links are there for any UK contributor who is affected.

Here is the link for Northern Ireland:
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/AboutUs/UsefulForms/SmallClaims/Pages/SmallClaims.aspx
Interesting they have the very first link for EU cross-border claims (maybe because NI residents to a lot of business with the RoI?)

Here's the link for Alberta, Ca:
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/provincialcourt/civilsmallclaimscourt/tabid/96/default.aspx

and a more Canada-wide resource:
http://www.canlaw.com/scc/smallclaims.htm