MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Whiz on June 02, 2009, 14:16
-
Hi. For the new non-exclusive license agreement are we supposed to check off or write that we agree to the terms at the bottom of the document? Because I don't see where to write this. I tried four different browsers but nothing seems to show anything at the end of the page. I'm confused. I should add that I can see the non-exclusive text/document; I just don't see where I'm supposed to sign it because that part doesn't show up for me.
-
Hmmmm... not sure why you can't see the box, but here's a screengrab of the bottom of the page (where you type 'I Agree') using Safari on a Mac.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5576/picture10m.jpg (http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5576/picture10m.jpg)
-
I was able to see it on the exclusive one. It looked just like the screen grab.
As a side note, when I was reading over the agreement, I came to point 7b and remembered prior wonderings about what it could mean. I'm curious whether this will come into play with the new cheap sub site offering, given the vast differences in acceptance standards.
(from 7b of the Exclusive Provider Agreement, emphasis mine)
You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.
I am opted out for now, but if they start revisiting "not suitable as stock" rejections, I might be interested in opting in some of those.
-
Hmmmm... not sure why you can't see the box, but here's a screengrab of the bottom of the page (where you type 'I Agree') using Safari on a Mac.
[url]http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5576/picture10m.jpg[/url] ([url]http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5576/picture10m.jpg[/url])
Thanks. For some bizarre reason, it's showing up now. It's probably some security software that I disabled on my end or something.
-
I'm opted out too
-
I saw it just fine. Opted out, of course.
-
Me too, Opted out
-
It worked for me. Opted out.
-
opted out
-
IE8 don't see it!
Firefox works fine!
So ;-)
OPT-OUT is better for me because I already have over 850 files online on JUI and Photos.com...
;D
-
Guys, be aware that no matter we opted out there is still checked Opt In in our Control panel/contributor at Istock. Go there, uncheck Opt in and check Opt Out.
Istock admins are looking at this issue and they said they will fix it.
-
Guys, be aware that no matter we opted out there is still checked Opt In in our Control panel/contributor at Istock. Go there, uncheck Opt in and check Opt Out.
Istock admins are looking at this issue and they said they will fix it.
Woohooo!
Nice to be informed!
Thanks Whitechild - much appreciated!
-
Thanks Whitechild! Opt in was also checked for me even though I opted out. For some reason even extended license and Allow Prints options were not correct as well. It is probably a good idea to check it once more, when the issue is fixed.
-
At my side there was opt out checked - so all is fine :o
-
Thanks much Whitechild, good info!
-
Whohoho
In first task what you are talking about they say a lot of, eg cmon guys lets do it for our wealth (I mean they wealth with long an detailed description)
Second task something about getty I dont realise but is in words half shorter in description and tooooooo much colder than first.
Third - Extended licence??? what???
All time I was there I am wondering when the iStock will sell something from my port for some price like EL on Shutter, Dream, Fotolia, 123 even CanStock sell one for 20 bucks but iStock NEVER.
Maybe for this for me hidden feature on iStock. (in this case is mising -Read this first)
Fourth-Prints
The same as third
missing (Read this first???)
Anyhow this two questions like check marks are visible on every upload (normally without-Read this first)
Now I have doubt that in this hidden answers they are selling my images in other licences and paying me fix 20% of royalty of basic contract, not that 20% what they get from buyers???
PLS tell me that I was wrong and its just my bad dream...
When I sign up at end of the list of "big 6" last 2 has eg 5 od 10 different licences and most of the time I see that they sold the same image with different price like licence.
PLS dont tell me that on iStock this things are not same or simplified. On iStock I only see that same images are selling for same price???
PLS dont tell me that checking box Extendend licence means that they can sell my image for 20 bucks or more and I receive only 1 or maybe 2 or 3.
PLS dont tell me that allowing prints means nearly the same.......
-
opted in.
-
What a surprise! ::)
-
this type of post ^ is petty and unnecessary. this has been a tough and divisive issue. the least we can do is respect one another's decisions.
-
I'm glad someone here is opted in. Hopefully you'll keep us posted on how it's working out for you overall?
-
yes, i'll keep you posted. if it works out, I won't be saying I told you so. I'll simply be glad it worked out. if it doesn't work out, let's hope we're not worse off. I think opting out is a misguided decision, but an understandable one given the uncertainty and the as yet unproven differentiation of buyers between istock and photos.com
in any case, I'm not evangelizing my decision. it is a tough call for all of us. no one here wants to contribute to the end of iStock. so we all have to do what we think is best. I personally believe they know what they are doing and they have every interest in protecting iStock's business, so that being said, I want in on the ground floor of this program. hope I'm not wrong.
-
no offense , what are the implications on opting in?
-
I think opting out is a misguided decision, but an understandable one
It is also a different decision for exclusive and non-exclusive contributors. Non exclusives have more reasons to opt out, one of them being they can get more for the same image through StockXpert.
-
I'm glad someone here is opted in. Hopefully you'll keep us posted on how it's working out for you overall?
I'm opted in too!
-
When I first read the note last night I thought it was saying that opting in would automatically sweep all the eligible files into the other sites. When I realized that wasn't the case, I did go through and opt a few in. They are files that were reactivated from dollar bin, or that I had at one time deactivated myself because they were total crap and not up to par with the slightly less crappy work that's in my portfolio now. ;)
I did remove these particular images from istock though. I don't think I want them in both places at the same time. For those who opted in, did you leave your files on istock as well?
-
When I first read the note last night I thought it was saying that opting in would automatically sweep all the eligible files into the other sites. When I realized that wasn't the case, I did go through and opt a few in. They are files that were reactivated from dollar bin, or that I had at one time deactivated myself because they were total crap and not up to par with the slightly less crappy work that's in my portfolio now. ;)
I did remove these particular images from istock though. I don't think I want them in both places at the same time. For those who opted in, did you leave your files on istock as well?
At the moment, yes, I have opted to leave them on iStock too.
My opinion is that iStock shouldn't be offering that option - since they are though, I feel I'd be a fool not to take it.
It's an issue I may revisit later. There are two months yet before this thing goes live, and we can change this for individual files anytime before or after that.
-
yes, i'll keep you posted. if it works out, I won't be saying I told you so. I'll simply be glad it worked out. if it doesn't work out, let's hope we're not worse off. I think opting out is a misguided decision, but an understandable one given the uncertainty and the as yet unproven differentiation of buyers between istock and photos.com
in any case, I'm not evangelizing my decision. it is a tough call for all of us. no one here wants to contribute to the end of iStock. so we all have to do what we think is best. I personally believe they know what they are doing and they have every interest in protecting iStock's business, so that being said, I want in on the ground floor of this program. hope I'm not wrong.
How does this protect iStock's business?
-
this type of post ^ is petty and unnecessary. this has been a tough and divisive issue. the least we can do is respect one another's decisions.
stacey, my post was not based on criticism, but on the obvious, you're an IS exclusive correct?
-
I'm opted out because:
1. I'm here less than 18 months
2. Have no files in Dollar Bin
3. I have all my images on Photos.com already
-
Same here.
-
sorry m@m, I read your comment as sarcastic and personally aimed.
Sean - I don't know. I don't have any answers about how. I just can't logically believe they have made a decision that will result in the demise of a continuously growing and successful business. there is no common sense in that theory. so, again, I don't know, I just assume that they do know.
-
Stacey is this because business leaders always make the right choices?
-
what's the point of addressing "business leaders" in general terms? we're talking about iStockphoto specifically--reviewing iStock's history, as well as its track record in regards to implementing industry-leading changes--this leads me to a common sense-based assumption that they are once again forging a path forward for their contributors.
I'm an exclusive, and I was quite a reluctant exclusive for over a year until things settled a bit with the new search. if this plan fails miserably, my entire microstock career rests with iStock so I'm putting myself out there. that's about as much trust in their knowledge as I can demonstrate.
-
At the moment, yes, I have opted to leave them on iStock too.
My opinion is that iStock shouldn't be offering that option - since they are though, I feel I'd be a fool not to take it.
It's an issue I may revisit later. There are two months yet before this thing goes live, and we can change this for individual files anytime before or after that.
My decision to remove them from istock was based solely on the fact that these were images that I had already removed from my portfolio anyway... and there were reasons for that. Namely, they are crap. But, since I've seen plenty of worse images at photos.com, I think they might be right at home there.
I can't see myself ever uploading my best work to a site where i am guaranteed such a tiny commission. I also agree with you that them allowing the same "exclusive" files in both places is a big big mistake. Don't know what it will mean, but I'm doing my homework and getting my ducks in a row to weather the storm no matter what happens.
-
... reviewing iStock's history, as well as its track record in regards to implementing industry-leading changes--this leads me to a common sense-based assumption that they are once again forging a path forward for their contributors.
How many industry-leading changes would you actually attribute to Istock __ say in the last couple of years that you've been around?
-
you don't really have any interest in what I think. so why bother? ^ just say what your post implies, that my three years of experience gives me zero right to an opinion next to your career since the advent of microstock. there you go. your point is made. it is too bad you take this route. you're such an accomplished photographer, but with such a mean streak.
I don't plan on responding to any of your questions with real answers again. this is just bold-faced intimidation. take it out on someone else please.
-
Can you believe? I thick Opt-In?!?!
Why?
Unsolded or under 5 solded files in 18 months in my port are under 5% I think and that will not take any effect on any additional sales on photos dot com or Jupiter unlimited even they are almost there provided by StockXpert.
-
you don't really have any interest in what I think. so why bother? ^ just say what your post implies, that my three years of experience gives me zero right to an opinion next to your career since the advent of microstock. there you go. your point is made. it is too bad you take this route. you're such an accomplished photographer, but with such a mean streak.
I don't plan on responding to any of your questions with real answers again. this is just bold-faced intimidation. take it out on someone else please.
Stacey - I think its just because after a year of you squealing like a stuck pig because of your perceived poor sales it sounds disingenuous to hear you lavishing praise on IS.
Your opinion might be more well accepted if it didn't keep changing from one moment to the next ....
-
you don't really have any interest in what I think. so why bother? ^
Here we go again. You keep making statements of 'fact' that are so often completely wide of the mark. Honestly, most of the time I just bite my lip and ignore the innaccuracies of your posts. However on those occasions when I do ask you to qualify your statements then then invariably you refuse to do so and hide behind accusing me (and pretty much anyone else that disagrees with you) of bullying or being nasty to you. I see you tried the same tactic with m@m ^^^.
It is laughable that earlier in this thread you state "... I'm not evangelizing my decision ..." when you appear to be the self-appointed cheerleader for the opt-in brigade. You've already posted half a dozen times in this thread and God knows how many gushing responses on the IS thread too __ way more than anyone else. If that's not 'evangelizing' then I don't know what is. I see you are complaining of being bullied by everyone over there too.
"many of us opting in are getting pretty tired of feeling pressured and borderline bullied by the opt outters via sitemail, email, forum etc. opting in seems to be grounds for lynching right ow and I don't appreciate it."
It seems to me that you always deliberately choose to side with the minority view on any given subject. Of course in doing so it provides you the opportunity to write provocative (and often factually incorrect) posts and then complain bitterly and pretend you're hurt when others respond to them (in just the way you hoped they would).
Anyway, I think you're going to be extremely disappointed when you find out how little your images will actually earn at PC/JIU. Sales are relatively few and the royalties tiny even for StockXpert contributors that have opted-in but IS files are presumably going to be seriously disadvantaged by the CV. The IS CV must surely mean that your images will simply not appear in many relevant searches. For example if you try a search on 'lamb' on PC then you will get 3500 results __ however if you search for 'lambs' then you only get 390 results. Plurals are combined with singular terms within the CV but not at PC/JIU. Same with literally thousands of other terms too. Maybe some of the buyers will work this out and widen their search criteria accordingly but that will also generate less accurate results for them.
-
It seems to me that you always deliberately choose to side with the minority view on any given subject. Of course in doing so it provides you the opportunity to write provocative (and often factually incorrect) posts and then complain bitterly and pretend you're hurt when others respond to them (in just the way you hoped they would).
[/quote]
You're 100% correct gostwyck, that seems to be her specialty and trademark...and that's not counting, as michealo mention, her constant poor sale and IS brown nosing BS!!!
-
I don't even know what to say.
-
Amazing, is this what it's coming down to? Now we see that stacey newman has deleted her account. She cannot speak out without being gang-busted .
Is this mob mentality or what?