MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock zero respect policy for the photographers  (Read 9940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gio

« on: May 27, 2015, 02:33 »
+26
Few days ago iStock published on Twitter one of my images, but they did not write the name of the photographer.

So I wrote a publish tweet telling them they forgot to name the photographer.

What I got as answer is a private message where they say that their policy is not to publish the name of the photographer on the social.

Once upon a time iStock was a nice place, now they have no respect for the photographers.


« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2015, 03:05 »
+4
That is shameful Gio, I am so sorry.


fotorob

  • Professional stock content producer
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2015, 04:15 »
+1
Can you please provide the links to the public Twitter posts?

« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2015, 05:36 »
+8
Few days ago iStock published on Twitter one of my images, but they did not write the name of the photographer.

So I wrote a publish tweet telling them they forgot to name the photographer.

What I got as answer is a private message where they say that their policy is not to publish the name of the photographer on the social.

Once upon a time iStock was a nice place, now they have no respect for the photographers.

That's really, really annoying.

And it's also notable that back then (even in the "good old days") we were just fine with iStock using our images for free when they did anything to promote their agency, wasn't it? I never really bothered thinking about it until I found out that Shutterstock actually bought themselves a usage license when they used one of my images in their blog: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelJayFotograf/posts/642770009160630 - that is in addition to crediting my and linking back to my image.

I sometimes wonder when exactly we started blinding ourselves by the success...

« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2015, 07:41 »
+6
It has been increasingly common that only istock was credited and not contributors. If we don't do anything about it, our "assets" will depreciate even more as the time goes.

It's long overdue that we set up a trust fund to defend our intellectual property rights to fight any abuse from any agencies.

« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2015, 07:44 »
+1
Isn't that part of the agreement you signed? That they can use your images for promotional purposes without crediting you or paying you royalties?

« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2015, 07:48 »
0
Isn't that part of the agreement you signed? That they can use your images for promotional purposes without crediting you or paying you royalties?
That is part of the agreement I thought, although there are lots of credited tweets and tweets promoting artists.

« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2015, 07:52 »
+5
Isn't that part of the agreement you signed? That they can use your images for promotional purposes without crediting you or paying you royalties?

I was browsing some books in a bookstore a couple of days ago and saw only istock was credited and not contributors. I would not have minded promotional uses but we are increasingly not credited in any use.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2015, 08:09 »
+4
Isn't that part of the agreement you signed? That they can use your images for promotional purposes without crediting you or paying you royalties?

I was browsing some books in a bookstore a couple of days ago and saw only istock was credited and not contributors. I would not have minded promotional uses but we are increasingly not credited in any use.
The licence requirements for editorial usage (not only editorial files) are "You must give credit as follows:"iStock.com/membername", but I see uncredited found editorial in-uses far more than credited ones. And far too many designated editorial files being used commercially  >:( :(. It just shows how many people don't read the licensing agreement, or just ignore the restrictions. And with iStock, the licence agreement link is right under the download button. In most other sites, it's actually quite tricky to find the licence agreement at all.
Still, it's interesting and very disappointing that iStock choose to ignore their own licensing agreement (apart from anything else, it would set a good example), although I guess they could argue that that's a commercial use. Still, as the OP says, it's about respect, or lack of it.
I remember seeing old print magazine ads where they had the number of the file and the member name (usually LiseGagne) on images used, but that was before Getty was 100% all over iStock.

« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2015, 08:15 »
0
The photos I saw in that book were not editorial use. It was a travel guide with landscape shots. Contributors from some agencies were given credit while others definitely including istock did not get any mention, but istock was credited.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2015, 08:26 »
+2
The photos I saw in that book were not editorial use. It was a travel guide with landscape shots. Contributors from some agencies were given credit while others definitely including istock did not get any mention, but istock was credited.
A travel book with landscape shots is editorial.
"Non-commercial uses relating to events that are newsworthy or of general interest"
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 08:33 by ShadySue »

« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2015, 08:29 »
+2
The photos I saw in that book were not editorial use. It was a travel guide with landscape shots. Contributors from some agencies were given credit while others definitely including istock did not get any mention, but istock was credited.
A travel book with landscape shots is editorial.

Yes, you are right. However, I remember Dreamstime contributors got credited and istock not.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2015, 08:39 »
0
The photos I saw in that book were not editorial use. It was a travel guide with landscape shots. Contributors from some agencies were given credit while others definitely including istock did not get any mention, but istock was credited.
A travel book with landscape shots is editorial.

Yes, you are right. However, I remember Dreamstime contributors got credited and istock not.
That is the fault of the publisher.

BTW (irrelevant to your example DT via iS) when googling my name +iStockphoto, I often find myself in a list of credits, the credit isn't always near the photo (which usually means I can't actually find which image was used).

« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2015, 16:34 »
0
Few days ago iStock published on Twitter one of my images, but they did not write the name of the photographer.

So I wrote a publish tweet telling them they forgot to name the photographer.

What I got as answer is a private message where they say that their policy is not to publish the name of the photographer on the social.

Once upon a time iStock was a nice place, now they have no respect for the photographers.


Duh!

« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2015, 16:49 »
0
Some publishers credit the agency and the photographer and some just credit the agency and most agencies - both traditional and micro - seem to not bother enforcing the requirement that the credits include the photographer's name when the use is editorial. It's really frustrating. Dreamstime seems better than most about enforcing the requirement that the photographer be named.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 16:54 by wordplanet »

« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2015, 16:52 »
0
The photos I saw in that book were not editorial use. It was a travel guide with landscape shots. Contributors from some agencies were given credit while others definitely including istock did not get any mention, but istock was credited.
A travel book with landscape shots is editorial.

Yes, you are right. However, I remember Dreamstime contributors got credited and istock not.
That is the fault of the publisher.

Agreed, though Dreamstime does seem better about this than the others in my experience.

BTW (irrelevant to your example DT via iS) when googling my name +iStockphoto, I often find myself in a list of credits, the credit isn't always near the photo (which usually means I can't actually find which image was used).

Most travel guides have a few pages at the end with the credits and with a notation as to the page the image is on. This seems to be standard for both US and UK publishers, in my experience. Did you just see a list without the pages?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2015, 17:36 »
0
The photos I saw in that book were not editorial use. It was a travel guide with landscape shots. Contributors from some agencies were given credit while others definitely including istock did not get any mention, but istock was credited.
A travel book with landscape shots is editorial.

Yes, you are right. However, I remember Dreamstime contributors got credited and istock not.
That is the fault of the publisher.

Agreed, though Dreamstime does seem better about this than the others in my experience.

BTW (irrelevant to your example DT via iS) when googling my name +iStockphoto, I often find myself in a list of credits, the credit isn't always near the photo (which usually means I can't actually find which image was used).

Most travel guides have a few pages at the end with the credits and with a notation as to the page the image is on. This seems to be standard for both US and UK publishers, in my experience. Did you just see a list without the pages?

I think we've got lines crossed.
I didn't say anything about Dreamstime, I have no experience of DT.
Most books online have only a few pages, as a sample, that's fair enough.
Often the pages are shown without the photos, for copyright reasons.  This is a Good Thing, even if it means I don't see my 'in use'.
LonelyPlanet credits the agency and tog directly under the images, or at least I've found mine so credited on two different LP books.

Gio

« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2015, 00:49 »
+10
An update.

After my post here in MSG, iStock modified the post on Facebook and properly tagged me in the photo (3 days after publishing it).

« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2015, 20:11 »
0
Gio remember also that they usually publicize in their social images of ex exclusive become now signature where they get more being you indie.. Btw it is a nice picture!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2015, 08:33 »
+3
Super ironically, this is an interview with Rebecca Swift, where the photos are mass credited All images courtesy iStock by Getty Images whereas the rule for images used editorially is clearly "You must give credit as follows: "iStock.com/membername" (sic, iStock.com).
https://www.marketingmag.com.au/hubs-c/evolution-of-stock-photography-in-marketing

That's not the only ber irony in the article, but I won't go there.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2015, 17:39 by ShadySue »

« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2015, 00:59 »
+4
bye bye ismoke, just pulled the plug, 3k+ stils and 1k videos, this place does not worth our attention anymore

« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2015, 01:07 »
0
I still have files there, but don't upload. For shutterstock i did a program which checks for keywords changes if any, for iStock API i don't want to spend time, because restoration is useless there. They will delete them again. Nobody will find broken window if there is just "construction" left.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4907 Views
Last post January 17, 2008, 08:33
by ZMB
18 Replies
10986 Views
Last post May 28, 2008, 06:12
by helix7
40 Replies
28069 Views
Last post February 14, 2009, 13:01
by yingyang0
7 Replies
5125 Views
Last post June 18, 2010, 20:24
by Phil
4 Replies
4593 Views
Last post February 15, 2020, 02:55
by SpaceStockFootage

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors