MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: bunhill on June 02, 2014, 11:48
-
iStock has introduced new guidelines with respect to the need for releases for multiple logos and crowds scenes. Quite interesting.
Article here: http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1736 (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1736)
-
That's a good change. Scrubbing all the logos out of a skyline hurts the character of the image.
-
I'm a cityscape photographer so this could be a huge change. On the surface it's an opportunity to submit more images and cut way back on post processing time. Editing out logos can take an hour or more per image. This drops it to probably 15 minutes.
But, I think this is the most interesting part.
"Legally they are your photos and you are still responsible for them. If you’re not comfortable with a small amount of extra risk then do not shoot this type of content."
Recently there was a discussion here that people seemed to think agencies would protect them from legal issues. Seems like the only change here is that Getty is looking to sell a wider variety of imagery by passing greater liability and risk on to the contributor.
-
Smart policy. Really helps street photographers out. But Pauly is right about the language making the photographer responsible instead of the agency.
Good news is most of us are starving artists so not much point in a big company suing us over some random skyline image. ;D
-
That's not what the "legal guarantee" guarantees:
"Every royalty-free file licensed on iStock includes a free Legal Guarantee. This is our promise that content, used within the terms of the license agreement, will not infringe any copyright, moral right, trademark or other intellectual property right or violate any right of privacy or publicity."
That tells me that every file on the site has been vetted properly and can used used under the license it is sold. As a photographer, it would tell me that if my image is accepted into the collection that they are saying there is no risk involved.
"iStock warrants that, except in respect of Content identified as “Editorial Use Only”: (i) your use of the Content in accordance with this Agreement and in the form delivered by iStock will not infringe on any copyright, moral right, trademark or other intellectual property right and will not violate any right of privacy or right of publicity; and (ii) all necessary model and/or property releases for use of the Content in the manner authorized under this Agreement have been obtained"
-
Thanks Sean for putting it in simple, understandable terms 8)
-
Pauly is right about the language making the photographer responsible instead of the agency.
A photographer is always potentially responsible. Has anything changed or has it just been stated more clearly? Ultimately responsibility falls where a court in any particular jurisdiction decides that responsibility falls. The law is different everywhere anyhow and you can never know what a court will decide on any particular day. The agent, the owners, the photographers (and even the co-op members) are potentially responsible.
I do not know anything about the iStock legal guarantee or how it relates to end users. But typically end user indemnification is just that. Most photographers would have their own liability insurance anyhow.
-
Recently there was a discussion here that people seemed to think agencies would protect them from legal issues.
If you check the terms of the agreements I'm pretty sure you will find that the agencies do not protect us, we protect the agencies by indemnifying them against loss if they are sued over our images. In addition, we empower them to hire lawyers at our expense to protect themselves and to allow them to handle all aspects of the case and we agree to accept any settlement they reach (that we have indemnified them for). At least, that's how I remember the terms, I don't regularly re-read them.
The protection they offer is pretty much restricted to being cautious over what images they accept into the collection.
Fortunately, these feared court cases never seem to happen.
-
My interpretation of the agreement is that contributors assume all responsibility and risk and GI has the right to defend themselves legally at our expense.
-
I wonder how the balance of responsibility would tilt in the event you submitted an image as editorial and they asked you to submit it as creative. (It happened to me re an object, but I was uncomfortable about possible commercial uses, so I didn't resubmit.)
Another example of the need to 'Keep the email'.