pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 203301 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2013, 17:20 »
0
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.

If I were to terminate my account, I would be sure that my content would not be available anywhere for another year.

I think she was referring to this in the ASA:
"notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or Distribution Partner marketing programs"


« Reply #51 on: January 10, 2013, 17:25 »
+1
If there were to be a class action, wouldn't it be against Getty for giving away content that it had privileged access to, rather than against iStock.
Nothing in the istock agreement says you can't sue getty.
It sounds to me as if they are running scared now they are talking about it being paid for through Getty. As I understand it, there isn't any stock license that covers free eternal giveaways of our work

« Reply #52 on: January 10, 2013, 17:28 »
0
When I looked at the Google Drive site I saw a bit of vague, puny ass-covering written at the bottom of the page that said something like 'make sure you have the right licence to use the image you select'.  Which does nothing of course - there are no contact details in the stripped-out exif - the images are unwatermarked, at a decent size and have the appearance of being free clip art or something.

« Reply #53 on: January 10, 2013, 17:30 »
0
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.

If I were to terminate my account, I would be sure that my content would not be available anywhere for another year.

I think she was referring to this in the ASA:
"notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or Distribution Partner marketing programs"

Do I read that aright? That they can continue to sell it for a year and keep all the cash for themselves?  That's not talking about licenses continuning to be active because they were RF and can't be revoked, it is talking about selling new licenses for a year after your account is closed.
As it doesn't specify that they WON'T pay commission, I assume they would have to part with it if you asked them to. But where would the record of your sales be if your account was frozen/deleted?
All this is utterly outrageous.

« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2013, 17:33 »
0
As they are talking about Getty licensing it, does this mean it is only exclusive Vettas that are there, or have they shoved independents' images up there, too, maybe via TS? Has anybody noticed inde stuff there?

« Reply #55 on: January 10, 2013, 17:34 »
0
I don't really know - I am not a lawyer.  I was hoping Sean could tell us.
If I had read that when signing up I imagine I would have thought that it meant they did not have to pull images that were used to promote iStock if the photog suddenly dropped the crown.  ie if there was an ad campaign ongoing with one of your images.  But in the current climate it reads in a far more sinister light.

« Reply #56 on: January 10, 2013, 17:39 »
0
no it's not saying quite what I thought, it only applies to exclusive material that has previously been used in so-called promotional arrangements
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 17:42 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #57 on: January 10, 2013, 17:54 »
0
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.

If I were to terminate my account, I would be sure that my content would not be available anywhere for another year.

I think she was referring to this in the ASA:
"notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or Distribution Partner marketing programs"

I know what she was referring to.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2013, 18:14 »
+5
CMicare:
"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting."

="we forgot to hire a new spin doctor, and iStockLawyer is still busy with the other questions, so it'll take some time to get the weasel words together."

« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2013, 18:15 »
+1
great great great stuff, anything else left iStock?

you guys will win all the prizes :o

« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2013, 18:19 »
+4
It's funny how they try to "gather information" on a deal they did with the second biggest company in the world. "Did you saw that contract... you know the one with google ... the one we give away thousands of files for free"

Pure comedy. I would laugh my ass off if I weren't involved in their business disaster.

« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2013, 18:20 »
0
Sean sure did stump them with this one

« Reply #62 on: January 10, 2013, 18:22 »
+1
CMicare

"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting.

I honestly understand why we see so many of those reminders in this string, I am aware that you have been patient about a good number of things for quite some time. For that I am sorry.  We are working on this--see you tomorrow."

= It's going to take a while for me to heat up this red hot poker.

« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2013, 18:28 »
+2
Anyone here considering legal action? I am willing to give $$ towards it even though I don't have any images there. This is not a joke so lets stop winning and start doing something about it!

« Reply #64 on: January 10, 2013, 18:29 »
+1
Sean sure did stump them with this one

I didn't even find it - someone else gave me a hint...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #65 on: January 10, 2013, 18:34 »
+1
Anyone here considering legal action? I am willing to give $$ towards it even though I don't have any images there. This is not a joke so lets stop winning and start doing something about it!

You think we're winning and want to stop?  ;) (I know you meant wheenging!)
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 20:41 by ShadySue »

Poncke

« Reply #66 on: January 10, 2013, 18:36 »
0
Sean sure did stump them with this one

I didn't even find it - someone else gave me a hint...

Sean, would legal action be an option for you?

« Reply #67 on: January 10, 2013, 18:40 »
+6
CMicare
"I honestly understand why we see so many of those reminders in this string, I am aware that you have been patient about a good number of things for quite some time. For that I am sorry.  We are working on this--see you tomorrow."

I already know how this will go... 
Tomorrow is Friday.  Nothing will be said all day long.  About 5 or 6pm eastern time Friday, there will some sort of a mind screw of a statement that buys more time. Then nothing else will be said again until late Tuesday.  That statement will say that these agreements are will within the parameters of the artists agreement that we agreed to.  = This will make no sense, it will not be fair, but that won't matter.  That will be the end of it as far as iStock is concerned.

I feel certain this is what will occur.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 19:07 by dhanford »

« Reply #68 on: January 10, 2013, 18:50 »
+1
Sean sure did stump them with this one

I didn't even find it - someone else gave me a hint...
Yeah, but you brought it up to the attention of other contributors and HQ, who seem to be in the dark about this at IS.

« Reply #69 on: January 10, 2013, 19:02 »
0
CMicare:
"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting."

="we forgot to hire a new spin doctor, and iStockLawyer is still busy with the other questions, so it'll take some time to get the weasel words together."

I just though it meant "it's 3:15 on the west coast and I'm tired of playing now so I'm heading out early for Happy Hour and a nice dinner."

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #70 on: January 10, 2013, 19:11 »
0
CMicare:
"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting."

="we forgot to hire a new spin doctor, and iStockLawyer is still busy with the other questions, so it'll take some time to get the weasel words together."

I just though it meant "it's 3:15 on the west coast and I'm tired of playing now so I'm heading out early for Happy Hour and a nice dinner."

That too.  >:(

« Reply #71 on: January 10, 2013, 19:29 »
+3
The only way iStock and Getty will change is if you hit their bottom line. Period. No amount of swearing and yelling in any forum, the official one or this one, is going to change their tune.

The only way to get their attention is if people stop contributing and pulling their work and denying them the exorbitant share of income that they clearly do not deserve.

Between this, Microsoft, and all the other crap that's gone on, I've just about had enough. 

lisafx

« Reply #72 on: January 10, 2013, 19:32 »
+1
CMicare

"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting.

I honestly understand why we see so many of those reminders in this string, I am aware that you have been patient about a good number of things for quite some time. For that I am sorry.  We are working on this--see you tomorrow."

= It's going to take a while for me to heat up this red hot poker.

Thanks very much, Debbie, for posting these replies here so we don't have to wade through the Istock thread to find them. 

And LOVING your extra commentaries at the bottom ;D

tab62

« Reply #73 on: January 10, 2013, 19:33 »
0
Could this spread to the other agencies as well?  :-\

lisafx

« Reply #74 on: January 10, 2013, 19:35 »
0

The only way to get their attention is if people stop contributing and pulling their work and denying them the exorbitant share of income that they clearly do not deserve.


That's one way, but I think the legal option would be more effective. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
20019 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
9736 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
17481 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
5815 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
5 Replies
4782 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 02:10
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle