Loved this post on Istock forum:

bmcent1

Posted 13 mins ago
Quote

$10,000.

Ten thousand dollars, USD, is what I expect to be compensated per image. That is a number I have quoted out before to inquiries to purchase the copyright to an image of mine. Transferring the copyright is what you needed to do before making representations to Google about usage of my image beyond the bounds of the RF license. You did not and do not have the right to license my image to a 3rd party to sub license (aka give away for free) to an unlimited number of users.

I'll accept a deposit to my Istock account or to my checking account (which you also have for direct Getty Images royalty payments.) If you have any questions or would like to discuss it, you have my phone number.

Oh that's excellent.  It hits the nail right on the head. Thanks for posting it.

I can't help feeling that posts by 'istocklawyer' (or whatever they're called) can only properly be responded to by 'contributorlawyer'.  I just wish we had a willing copyright lawyer among us who would engage in this battle for the sake of principle.  Surely those contracts we signed are too one-sided to hold water if properly tested in the world outside of their imagined empire.

.... If I give up Istock and PP I will lose a third of my income, but I am afraid if I don't get my content out of there I will lose ALL my income.  Worse yet, as Somethingpretentious suggested, this could destroy the entire industry by ruining the market for paid images.

I'm not sure you would lose a third of your income because I think a lot of buyers purchase images from more than one site.  It might make more istock buyers look for your images elsewhere.  I've seen some people that have left istock mention that they have managed to make up the loss, I'm sure it's not easy but that's encouraging.

I'm going to see who else is willing to dump istock and make my decision on February 1st.  I think a lot of us leaving is the only way to make the other sites see that we can only be pushed so far, otherwise all the big sites will carry on bleeding us dry.

So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all  7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.

My response to iStock. Wow.. just wow.
I totally agree with you Elena.  This is the first time I'm really considering deleting my portfolio from a site.  Something like that really needs to be considered and it is worth while to give iStock some time to reconsider, but as it loos now, they are happy with their deal and are going to stick to it.

The question we have to ask ourselves is... If a new site came on the scene, people were reporting great sales but the site only offered between 15-20% and negotiated deals where they gave our images away for free through Google and Microsoft as they pleased.. would you upload there?  I wouldn't.

In my mind I see someone on the sales team making this deal and punching the air with the thrill of the extra commission they'll make and how proud the bosses will be.  No other consideration than that. 

I had hoped that a period of introspection after the fall-out from this would lead them to question whether the sales team should be reprimanded for making decisions that seem to fly in the face of the whole concept of copyright and artist ownership... but sadly not. 

If Microbius is right, then surely those other agencies who could have their business wrecked by such behaviours will have a case against Getty/iStock.

I'm sure none of us could give a toss what Getty do with their wholly-owned content, but they have to have some conscience and sense of ethics when it comes to risking the livelihoods of their contributors.  I'd like to know which planet you have to live on to think for one second that this action can possible be 'a good thing'.

 They are strongly implying that this is also about building a relationship. If so then they have leveraged user content in order to bring something to that relationship. They would say that this is about building the business. We would have assumed until now that the business would be funded out of the 80% + cut which they already take.

So we can now see that they can use the content in other ways apart from just selling it. They can offer it up cheap as a part payment for the cost of doing business. I wonder what other ways they will find of leveraging content almost as if it were intellectual capital. Clever bankers. You could fund all sorts in this manner.

The fee seems almost nominal.

Useful info for those affected...

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement

Quote from: mattdixon on January 12, 2013, 06:44

Useful info for those affected...

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement

Its useful but what I read there has me thinking.

Quote

The same provision of copyright law that allows for the takedown notice also allows the alleged infringer to file a counter notice. After sending your takedown notice to the ISP, the ISP will notify the alleged infringer of the notice. The infringer then can send a counter notice to the ISP declaring that the infringer �has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled� and other requirements of Section 512 (g). At that point, the ISP is caught in the middle. By law, the ISP must repost the infringing material to its original location.

Unfortunately, the only option then to stop the infringement is to file a lawsuit asking the court to enter an injunction stopping the use of the copyright material. Since the infringer can easily move the use of the copyrighted material to another ISP, it�s best to include a copyright infringement claim in the lawsuit. Such lawsuits are expensive and significant damages usually can only be recovered if your image is registered. Fortunately, most infringers don�t take the time to file a counter notice. But be sure to register the copyrights to your photos so that you have all of the tools necessary to fight copyright infringement.

That will give all power to Google, and they will probably put a team of agents on the case and send out counter notifications to the ISPs in a much faster rate and larger scale then all the affected photographers can do.

Also, I do not get why an image needs to be registered. Copyright is copyright in my opinion, registered or not.

Google is not infringing anybody's copyright in this, so the whole idea is nonsense. You authorised iStock to license it and iStock licensed it via Getty to Google, which is - apparently - complying with whatever terms there were in the special unrevealed license.  So any dispute would be with the distributors - iStock and Getty - over whether they have violated the terms of the distrubution agreement you have with them. Until you prove that they have violated the terms, Google is in the clear.

At least, that is how I see it.

Quote from: Poncke on January 12, 2013, 07:01

Quote from: mattdixon on January 12, 2013, 06:44

Useful info for those affected...

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement

Its useful but what I read there has me thinking.

Quote

The same provision of copyright law that allows for the takedown notice also allows the alleged infringer to file a counter notice. After sending your takedown notice to the ISP, the ISP will notify the alleged infringer of the notice. The infringer then can send a counter notice to the ISP declaring that the infringer �has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled� and other requirements of Section 512 (g). At that point, the ISP is caught in the middle. By law, the ISP must repost the infringing material to its original location.

Unfortunately, the only option then to stop the infringement is to file a lawsuit asking the court to enter an injunction stopping the use of the copyright material. Since the infringer can easily move the use of the copyrighted material to another ISP, it�s best to include a copyright infringement claim in the lawsuit. Such lawsuits are expensive and significant damages usually can only be recovered if your image is registered. Fortunately, most infringers don�t take the time to file a counter notice. But be sure to register the copyrights to your photos so that you have all of the tools necessary to fight copyright infringement.

That will give all power to Google, and they will probably put a team of agents on the case and send out counter notifications to the ISPs in a much faster rate and larger scale then all the affected photographers can do.

Also, I do not get why an image needs to be registered. Copyright is copyright in my opinion, registered or not.

Google is not infringing anybody's copyright in this, so the whole idea is nonsense. You authorised iStock to license it and iStock licensed it via Getty to Google, which is - apparently - complying with whatever terms there were in the special unrevealed license.  So any dispute would be with the distributors - iStock and Getty - over whether they have violated the terms of the distrubution agreement you have with them. Until you prove that they have violated the terms, Google is in the clear.

At least, that is how I see it.

I am afraid you are correct.

Google may-be is in the clear for the redistribution of the images, but were they allowed to strip all copyright info/metadata, so that the images' artists cannot be traced anymore?

Echoing above. People are going to get themselves into a stupid mess if they start pretending to be lawyers and firing off half-cocked. All talk of legal action is also silly. Take a deep breath and let the dust settle.

All talk of legal action is also silly.

I'd say it is silly for it to be ruled out of consideration without examining the possibility.

The idea that distributors are so big and powerful that they can do anything they like with whatever we upload, with complete disregard for the wishes of the copyright owners is atrocious. It would be very positive for the industry if the relationship between contributor and distributor was rebalanced - and it's pretty clear that only a successful legal action will achieve that.

At the very least there are issues surrounding this latest move that might reward an initial investigation.

I'm not sure if Getty's lawyers are still absolutely sure that they are right.
But iS is pretty sure that after few days or weeks of screaming and shouting on forums contributors will calm down again and nothing will happen. Few contributors will leave, few will stop uploading and show goes on�

Last night I noticed that the queue was down about 4000 on the previous night. I've noticed some new inspector badges recently, but I don't know whether any older-established ones have left - so I didn't know if the decrease was 'real' or the result of new inspectors.
However, this morning I see the queue has gone up by 1000. Again, have no idea how the flow of inspections is over the last few days, but people are still uploading.

The ONLY thing that might give them pause is if the biggest contributors totally pulled their ports. But they have the most to lose, so who could blame them if they didn't.

How will the customers, the designers react?

Imagine designing a brochure, giving it to your client who then looks at you in disbelief and says - but why did you use Google Clip Art?

Wouldn�t�the customers need a clear labeling of the content that has been included in redistribution deals?

I mean, it somehow negates the whole reason for exclusive content if hundreds of millions of people are using it.

In the istock forums is a new thread about the risk to models and our liability as photographers. I usually don�t work with models but have an interesting shot coming up with a friend in 2 weeks. I am very unsure how to proceed. people images and localized content is what the agency has been asking for. And I still have huge amount of files from my last trip to Switzerland (lenklypse) that need processing and uploading.

But I would really appreciate if someone with better legal background could explain to me my risk if models find themselves in a sensitive use situation and the file came from google docs.

My 24 images in the MS Deal have over 1.3 Million downloads by unregistered users. To me it feels like they have been transferred into the public domain.

So I have good personal reason to be scared of the new google deal.