Hello,
I'm currently looking into developing an iPad/iPhone-app (App store) where the user can see rendered 3D-images made by me. These images are not for sale on iStock, nor can the user of the App buy them through my app, it's purely for the informative aspect that the viewer can consult these images. I'm still condiering if it is a free app with ads, or a buying app without ads.

I've asked Istockphoto's Artist relations and they told me my exclusivity agreement prohibits me from offering this app on the App Store (would be a breach of the Exclusivity agreement). I was astonished to hear this!
Has anybody experienced this before or does anybody have a similar app (in production). I don't know if it matters if the app is free or not.

Some of my arguments:
-I'm not selling RF images through this app.
-It is an app that I'm selling not an image(s) (you can NOT buy the images in any way in the app).
-The images are purely informative/educational.
-The app has a one time fixed price or is free (with ads). There is no kind of licensing involved.
-The disclaimer of the app states that it is prohibited to use any content for commercial purposes.

If I terminate my exclusivity, is the use of the images in my app allowed?

All feedback is greatly appreciated!
David

I've asked Istockphoto's Artist relations and they told me my exclusivity agreement prohibits me from offering this app on the App Store (would be a breach of the Exclusivity agreement). I was astonished to hear this!

You can expect anything from iSuck. Why are you staying there anyways? That site is doomed. As to Apple apps, that's indeed a promising source for great revenue, if your apps are good. I'm actually moving into apps (and software) again after all those years since images microstock is dead. Apple has the right business model for contributors. They make it worthwhile.

As Leaf said, there are numerous ways around this ridiculous requirement.

Thank you all for the replies. I've just contacted Contributor relations with additional clarifications and questions. Hopefully this was a misunderstanding. I'll keep you posted.

I think you'll find quite often Contributor Relations are woefully ill informed.
Many a time I have heard of them giving out contradictory information.

You're allowed to sell prints if you're exclusive, you're allowed to sell Rights Managed if you're exclusive.
What your considering sounds like a multiseat extended license for software, which if someone bought your images they could do, there should be no reason you couldn't...

After a lot of mailing with istock support and a lot of answers which can be read in numerous ways. I decided to drop my exclusivity. Basically they tell me that I should license my own files (extended licenses). And for images that are not available on istock, I should upload them, if they're not approved I can ask CE to grant me a license anyway (this would be free,-not clear to me). Support also sent me a part of the exclusivity-ASA which describes that istock reserves itself the rights to sell not-approved images through other channels, something I wasn't aware of. The difference between apps that include images which can not be downloaded through the app and apps in which the images can be downloaded, is a big difference but reading the answers from support don't indicate clearly they see it that way.

Well, to make a long story short: I'm sick and tired of vague responses to detailed questions + answers that also indicate a bad knowledge of people at istock-support. Furthermore istock is really going down the drain with the many screw-ups of the last year(s), that I decided to cancel my exclusivity. So I can upload my files on other sites. And most important I'm free to do with my images as I see fit and not be hampered by misleading/bad- support and a company that's really NOT taking its contributors seriously anymore.

That is ludicrous. They have no control over your images - they are yours.

Good move I say, of course now they're getting a bigger slice of your royalties, which makes them more profitable - but I guess that's the catch 22...

That is ludicrous. They have no control over your images - they are yours.

Good move I say, of course now they're getting a bigger slice of your royalties, which makes them more profitable - but I guess that's the catch 22...

The problem is they are not reasonable anymore. Misplaced greed is the keyword at istock. They don't encourage exclusives anymore because they only want to pay the standard percentage (of not-exclusives) so they can have more money of our backs. Well let them have a bigger slice of my files. I think they'll need it if you look at this
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/ [nofollow]

They seriously suggested you license your own files with an extended license?

I never knew the ASA had a passage like that.

You have a killer portfolio with 596 files and 84 000 Downloads. What a loss for istock! This is not funny.

Did they move or remove your thread on iStock? I can't seem to find it, maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
They really need to get away from the skim reading thing with support, also if they would compose their communications in Plain English, support wouldn't have to try to fathom how to interpret it.
They're clearly wrong about expecting you to buy ELs for your own files.

The thread is in the exclusive forum.

Thanks, I was looking in Help.