MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Sean Locke Photography on September 15, 2009, 15:49
-
iStockphoto.com announced today that they are warrantying that files purchased and used in accordance with the iStock license, will not breach any trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights or rights of privacy.
This is a direct hit on the only other micro to offer this, Vivozoom:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=5777.0 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=5777.0)
Personally, I am very excited about the new buyers this will bring, from the many posts, "My employer won't buy from iStock because there is no guarantee".
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=116351 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=116351)
-
Since they are keeping all of the revenue from the sale of this guarentee does that mean that they will change the artist supply agreement to no longer require that contributors foot the bill for all legal action concerning their images?
Section 10 of the Artist Agreement (non-exclusive) a and b
# You agree to indemnify, defend and hold iStockphoto and its affiliates, and their respective directors, officers, employees, shareholders, agents and licensees of Content (collectively, the “iStockphoto Parties”) harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal fees on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by any iStockphoto Party as a result of or in connection with: (i) any use or alleged use of the Site or provision of Content under your Member Name by any person, whether or not authorized by you; (ii) or resulting from any communication made or Content uploaded under your Member Name; (iii) any breach by you of this Agreement; or (iv) any claim threatened or asserted against any iStockphoto Party to the extent such claim is based upon a contention that any of the Content used within the scope of this Agreement infringes any copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, right of privacy or publicity, or other intellectual property rights of any third party.
# iStockphoto reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with iStockphoto's defense of such claim.
-
Good question. I've already queried that in the forum.
-
So istock might get the 3 buyers from Vivozoom :) Sales haven't taken off there, so I am not so sure that this is going to make much difference.
-
So istock might get the 3 buyers from Vivozoom :) Sales haven't taken off there, so I am not so sure that this is going to make much difference.
I think this is targeted at the traditional agency buyers who go there because the micros don't offer a warranty.
-
Ahh. This explains the spate of deactivations lately.
Sounds like a smart idea. Definitely gives them a marketing edge.
Looking forward to seeing how this plays out in (hopefully additional) sales.
-
yeah it sounds like a good thing. I will be interesting to hear iStock's response in regards to weather the photographer still has any onus to a legal claim made against iStock or the photograhper.
The blogs jumped on this one it seems :)
Microstock Diaries (http://www.microstockdiaries.com/istockphoto-guarantees-all-files.html)
MyStockPhoto (http://www.mystockphoto.org/istockphoto-legally-guarantees/)
and Sean's blog (http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/istockphoto-to-warranty-all-content/)
-
I thought all sites got this? Otherwise they would be like MostPhotos without reviewers. I thought all this reviewing effort is most to protect company from legal problems.
-
The reviewers are not copyright and trademark specialists, they can't be expected to catch every image that has an issue.
I remember a couple of years ago that SS removed all photos of the British currency, I presume SS were requested to remove those photos or one of their buyers had a problem. I checked it out at the time and thought it was right that we are not meant to sell any photos of the British currency as RF. They are still on istock, so how does that work with the content warranty?
-
I'd like to see them also offering to assist models in pursuing lawsuits against people who misuse images contrary to their permitted uses; e.g. that BNP abusage a couple of months badk.
-
The reviewers are not copyright and trademark specialists, they can't be expected to catch every image that has an issue.
I remember a couple of years ago that SS removed all photos of the British currency, I presume SS were requested to remove those photos or one of their buyers had a problem. I checked it out at the time and thought it was right that we are not meant to sell any photos of the British currency as RF. They are still on istock, so how does that work with the content warranty?
But now they have to be. IS is offering a guarentee which states that there will be no infringement issues.
-
I'd like to see them also offering to assist models in pursuing lawsuits against people who misuse images contrary to their permitted uses; e.g. that BNP abusage a couple of months badk.
I would like to see that too, particularly since I ended up spending $1100 in legal fees to pursue this type of thing myself.
However, I think it is unrealistic to expect Istock to foot the bill for models who are unhappy with usage. The models are really just working for/with us - the photographers. They have no direct contract with Istock, so the agency really isn't responsible for them.
When Istock has pursued misuse it was on it's own behalf in enforcing it's TOS.
-
I consider this to be more marketing than a real issue "dealing" with a "problem" on the industry.
-
I consider this to be more marketing than a real issue "dealing" with a "problem" on the industry.
I'd agree but nonetheless it is a brilliant move on IS's behalf (as indeed was Vetta). They had already cleverly manoeuvred themselves into position as the image supplier of choice for the less-price-concious corporate buyer and this is a further huge step forward. I can see this appealing strongly to the smaller independent designers too.
Standby for another significant hike in prices to be announced at year-end to pay for it.
-
I consider this to be more marketing than a real issue "dealing" with a "problem" on the industry.
Definitely, but it's a perceived issue with some larger buyers, as we've heard before.