Author Topic: Microsoft giving images away for free to unregistered users and istock agrees (Read 28241 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #25 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:27 »

Do you suppose that Microsoft paid iStock money as part of this deal? If so, and someone could get the details, that would make a good case that IS should compensate contributors

They call it "promotional" but they get paid and contributors don't? I'd ask this in the IS forums if I could. It would be interesting to see how they answer.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:45 »

Quote from: jbryson on January 09, 2013, 10:08

Can you not see who I am when I post? (serious question).

Yes, we can see who you are just fine Jani.

Looks like this issue has been resolved so I will stifle my indignation on your behalf...

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:49 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 09, 2013, 10:27

Do you suppose that Microsoft paid iStock money as part of this deal? If so, and someone could get the details, that would make a good case that IS should compensate contributors

They call it "promotional" but they get paid and contributors don't? I'd ask this in the IS forums if I could. It would be interesting to see how they answer.

Unfortunately they changed the terms of the ASA to that we were all forced to agree that they could use them in promotions withough compensating us.

However, that clause was only changed in 2011 so didn't apply back then. Payment was definitely promised for the MS deal, but it possibly didn't specify how much, so 5c might cover it.

cmannphoto · « **Reply #28 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:53 »

While waiting for an answer from a friend in the know to Jo's question I did a little searching and found this article from 2009

http://markstoutphotography.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/the-time-magazine-cover-photo-ripoff/

"For example, iStock worked a deal with Microsoft to license images for $20 each. Microsoft then made those images available FREE to all who bought their software. These images are now available to millions of people free, at the expense of the photographers who produced them. Try buying a copy of Windows Vista and then giving copies of it away to your clients free and see what Microsoft does to you.."

Silberkorn · « **Reply #29 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:55 »

Quote from: aspp on January 09, 2013, 06:01

Divorcing couples and corporate ****s communicate via their lawyers. Not people in relationships of mutual trust and empathy. The Getty Images Istockphoto current method of communicating, as demonstrated in the communication about refunds, is to state the policy and ignore any contradictions.

It is weird that a company which is all about image is so useless at dealing with its own image. They should read their own trends analysis which is always all about companies wanting to be more authentic, trustworthy and genuine. As if.

Hope you don't mind posting your words in the IS thread :-) - I'm not sure if they will stay up ...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2013, 11:08 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 09, 2013, 10:49

Quote from: jsnover on January 09, 2013, 10:27
Do you suppose that Microsoft paid iStock money as part of this deal? If so, and someone could get the details, that would make a good case that IS should compensate contributors

They call it "promotional" but they get paid and contributors don't? I'd ask this in the IS forums if I could. It would be interesting to see how they answer.

Unfortunately they changed the terms of the ASA to that we were all forced to agree that they could use them in promotions withough compensating us.

However, that clause was only changed in 2011 so didn't apply back then. Payment was definitely promised for the MS deal, but it possibly didn't specify how much, so 5c might cover it.

I know about the promotional terms in the ASA, but what I was getting at is the possibility that this wasn't about promoting the IS site at all, but being paid by Microsoft to allow some content to be included in their office site. More along the lines of a bulk sale but stiffing the contributors of their share by classifying it as a promotion. The Getty goal is no more than 20% payout to rights holders, but 0% would just mean all the more profit for them.

I wonder if any ex-iStock employee who knew the terms of that deal would be prepared to share?

loop · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2013, 11:13 »

Keep in mind that this is not just an istock exclusives problem, there are also images of other sites, at least Fotolia. I dind't spent much time in the MS page, but, for example, I found a lot of Lisa's images, coming from Fotolia.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2013, 11:23 »

Quote from: loop on January 09, 2013, 11:13

Keep in mind that this is not just an istock exclusives problem, there are also images of other sites, at least Fotolia. I dind't spent much time in the MS page, but, for example, I found a lot of Lisa's images, coming from Fotolia.

I was aware of this and so was Lisa - if I recall correctly she (a) was asked if she wanted to participate and (b) was paid for the inclusion of her images.

It's still not right that you can download images without registering or agreeing to a license (and I did just that with one of Lisa's images to see if the IPTC data was there; it was for the Fotolia images but not for the iStock ones. For Lisa's images they were marked as Copyrighted but for the iStock ones I checked they were marked as Public Domain).

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2013, 11:26 »

Quote from: loop on January 09, 2013, 11:13

Keep in mind that this is not just an istock exclusives problem, there are also images of other sites, at least Fotolia. I dind't spent much time in the MS page, but, for example, I found a lot of Lisa's images, coming from Fotolia.

I have no idea how the fotolia thing is panning out with Fotolia, but it used to be that at least you could see that the photos came from Fotolia.
In fact, even now, fotolia-supplied images say:
Provided by
Fotolia

Fotolia

Microsoft Partner

For more variety, visit the Fotolia site. (with a link), so I guess that is a legitimate promotion.

I thought that was what was supposed to happen with the iStock files, or something similar, and IIRC that did happen with the original batch.

So I looked up the file referenced by the OP in the now locked thread, and it has exactly the same at the top:
Provided by
iStockphoto

iStockphoto

Microsoft Partner

For more variety, visit the iStockphoto site. (also with a live link to iStock with a 10% off signup deal).
So I guess that is also 'promotional'.
I don't know if all the iStock supplied images have the link.

I'm not saying it's right, but I guess they've covered their *ss.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2013, 11:30 »

Quote from: Phil on January 09, 2013, 09:44

non exclusive images can be included in promotional use, just looks like istock chose not to use them, so they probably dont have to remove for non-exclusivity. I cant see how they can keep them there if the contributor deletes the file though. (but then there is thread about deleted accounts on thinkstock)

If they have given MS an unlimited royalty free license to use them why would it be any different from a sale? Issuing the license is final. the person getting it does not have his rights to use affected by the changing status of the photographer.

That is probably why they are indicating that nothing can be done.

lisafx · « **Reply #35 on:** January 09, 2013, 11:40 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 09, 2013, 11:23

Quote from: loop on January 09, 2013, 11:13
Keep in mind that this is not just an istock exclusives problem, there are also images of other sites, at least Fotolia. I dind't spent much time in the MS page, but, for example, I found a lot of Lisa's images, coming from Fotolia.

I was aware of this and so was Lisa - if I recall correctly she (a) was asked if she wanted to participate and (b) was paid for the inclusion of her images.

It's still not right that you can download images without registering or agreeing to a license (and I did just that with one of Lisa's images to see if the IPTC data was there; it was for the Fotolia images but not for the iStock ones. For Lisa's images they were marked as Copyrighted but for the iStock ones I checked they were marked as Public Domain).

Great sleuthing JoAnn! To be honest, I am no longer thrilled with the Fotolia deal.

When one of my images of an elderly couple wound up being used in a statewide billboard campaign against syphilis and their relatives contacted them about it, it could have been disastrous. When I contacted the state and spoke with the people responsible for the ad, they said they thought it was okay to use the image because it was "clipart" from MS. Fortunately, after I explained sensitive uses to them they were willing to take down the images.

Unfortunately, I have asked both Fotolia and Microstoft several times over the past couple of years to have my images removed from Microsoft Clipart and it has never happened. I have not been told "no", exactly. I had thought they were removed awhile back, but turns out they haven't been. Without legal action, I don't know how I can get them out. On a slightly positive note, we only agreed to specific images and no new ones have been added.

xerith · « **Reply #36 on:** January 10, 2013, 06:35 »

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if there is anything similar at SS? (even if it is not Microsoft related)

With all the iStock problems, I was thinking of trying for SS as well (anyway I'm not exclusive), but it would be no point trying if SS is just as bad...