Author Topic: moving away from istock. (Read 23488 times)

abb · « **on:** January 02, 2011, 00:07 »

wondering if i could legally do this. i am an istock exclusive with a portfolio that is 65% people and 35% stuff and my direction going forward is photographing 90% people. i want to delete my people pics from istock and sell them on my personal site rights managed. i have been holding back on uploading people pics and have a lot of fresh content that istock won't be getting because of the treatment of contributors/buyers from september on.

can a person stay rf exclusive for nature, scenery, and the like and have a rm personal site for different subject matter without breaching exclusive terms? i've read the terms and i think i would be ok but wondering what you think?

if i have to quit exclusive for everything to do rm thats fine, i just don't want to give up the thousand or so dollars the scenery pics will bring me next year.

thoughts?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1 on:** January 02, 2011, 01:17 »

Ask istock support otherwise you could make a mistake.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2011, 02:32 »

I'd agree that you should check with support, but RM - regardless of how or where - is permissible while being an IS exclusive.

The only gray area is taking IS rejects and selling them elsewhere - there's some ambiguous and puzzling clause in the ASA that talks about asking permission for that.

I'm not sure that IS would permit you to link to your personal web site from your IS images or profile page if you sell RM there (you didn't say anything about that, but I can imagine it would be tempting to try and drive traffic there). Support could probably answer that too.

One thing to consider is what 2012 would look like if you take this approach for 2011. Pulling 65% of your portfolio will probably mean that your RC numbers for 2011 will be lower than they were for 2010. That would mean lower royalties for 2012. If that's the case, perhaps just becoming independent would make more sense and you could sell whatever, wherever.

aeonf · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2011, 02:59 »

Perfectly legal. many people do exactly what you said. You can stay exclusive as well.
main rule:
You can sell RM where ever you want.
You can't sell RF anywhere.

abb · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2011, 03:15 »

if i could do it over i wouldn't have went exclusive. of course i did it with far different data than exists now. i did it just before feb. when the parameters were going to change to 500 downloads. i removed my stuff from all other agencies and then istock makes all these changes that most contributors percieve to be negative.

it pains me to think about re-uploading everywhere else, all that time and effort wasted because i believed what istock said the end of 2009. its also a pain in the butt to delete all my people files but when you feel good about losing a dollar in sales because it prevents getty from making three dollars on your work it's time make changes. that time has come, i am just trying to figure the best option.

thanks for the replies so far.

gaja · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2011, 06:50 »

But are you going to sell as RM the same files that you earlier have sold as RF?

Gannet77 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:24 »

As already mentioned, there's no problem selling RM elsewhere, whether you remain exclusive or not; but as I understand it, if you're going to sell as RM images that were previously sold as RF, you'll need to ensure that your clients are aware of that and OK with it, because you can't guarantee them sole use.

That being the case, I would think you'd find it simpler to just leave your iStock portfolio as is (or just deactivate anything unsold) and concentrate on putting your fresh material out as RM.

And be aware, as also mentioned, that as an exclusive, you're not permitted to sell rejected content elsewhere, even as RM, without permission.

Either that, or just drop exclusivity completely...

aeonf · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:28 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:24

And be aware, as also mentioned, that as an exclusive, you're not permitted to sell rejected content elsewhere, even as RM, without permission.

As far as I know, you are !

Gannet77 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:38 »

Quote from: aeonf on January 02, 2011, 07:28

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:24
And be aware, as also mentioned, that as an exclusive, you're not permitted to sell rejected content elsewhere, even as RM, without permission.

As far as I know, you are !

Not according to iStock support. I've asked.

madelaide · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2011, 19:44 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:38

Quote from: aeonf on January 02, 2011, 07:28
Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:24
And be aware, as also mentioned, that as an exclusive, you're not permitted to sell rejected content elsewhere, even as RM, without permission.

As far as I know, you are !

Not according to iStock support. I've asked.

I remember this having been discusse din the past, and Gannet77 would be right (unless something had changed). It sounds silly, but that was IS' rule.

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2011, 19:47 »

Quote from: gaja on January 02, 2011, 06:50

But are you going to sell as RM the same files that you earlier have sold as RF?

This can be an issue when a client wants a guarantee such as a local exclusivity or exclusivity in some type of usage. If a client doesn't require any of that, then this would not be an issue. Some say however that a typical RM client doesn't expect to find an RM image floating around in hundreds of websites, flyers, ads....

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** January 02, 2011, 20:01 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 02, 2011, 19:44

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:38
Quote from: aeonf on January 02, 2011, 07:28
Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:24
And be aware, as also mentioned, that as an exclusive, you're not permitted to sell rejected content elsewhere, even as RM, without permission.

As far as I know, you are !

Not according to iStock support. I've asked.

I remember this having been discusse din the past, and Gannet77 would be right (unless something had changed). It sounds silly, but that was IS' rule.

Exclusive ASA 7.2
"You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties. "
IIRC, JJRD said a few months ago that they were going to review this clause, but either they have not done so, or they reviewed it and decided to retain it.
That said, I've always had permission when I've asked. In fact, the last time, the IS support person suggested I should try all my content RM first, then uploading any RM rejections to iStock (!) as that would be easier all round. Very surprising answer, I thought.

SNP · « **Reply #12 on:** January 02, 2011, 20:08 »

FWIW - this supposedly applies to similars. I asked contributor relations and received an email stating that I could not upload sames or similars of any of my iStock images as RM anywhere. they didn't mention rejects in the email. she did mention that if I want to sell an image as RM that is currently on iStock, I could deactivate it and any of its 'sisters' and sell those files as RM. but nothing about rejects.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** January 02, 2011, 20:20 »

Quote from: SNP on January 02, 2011, 20:08

FWIW - this supposedly applies to similars. I asked contributor relations and received an email stating that I could not upload sames or similars of any of my iStock images as RM anywhere.

I had mention of this too, but there's nothing in the current exclusive ASA about it.

SNP · « **Reply #14 on:** January 02, 2011, 20:22 »

yeah, I still haven't verified it. but that's what the email said. weird though. I didn't think that was the case.

abb · « **Reply #15 on:** January 02, 2011, 20:38 »

thanks for all the replies. great information, i'll still consult support.

i am doing a clean break, all people pics to rm. some of my stuff has sold rf but in very limited quantities. like most peoples portfolios a few have sold multiple times but most have sold 0 times. i have no plans to upload rejected istock content to my site and there won't be similars as all people pics are migrating and no consideration would be given to istock for future people pics.

i'll ask when i get the transition complete if i can stay exclusive on my generic files, if not i'll give up the crown.

Orchidpoet · « **Reply #16 on:** January 13, 2011, 10:07 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:38

Quote from: aeonf on January 02, 2011, 07:28
Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:24
And be aware, as also mentioned, that as an exclusive, you're not permitted to sell rejected content elsewhere, even as RM, without permission.

As far as I know, you are !

Not according to iStock support. I've asked.

Apparently they have expanded their interpretation to the exclusive agreement to RM. It was meant for RF. This is so unfair.

jamirae · « **Reply #17 on:** January 13, 2011, 10:48 »

Quote from: Orchidpoet on January 13, 2011, 10:07

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:38
Quote from: aeonf on January 02, 2011, 07:28
Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:24
And be aware, as also mentioned, that as an exclusive, you're not permitted to sell rejected content elsewhere, even as RM, without permission.

As far as I know, you are !

Not according to iStock support. I've asked.

geez, you'd think that iStock owns YOU. I dont think the RM part is correct, they should not have control over you selling your other stuff as RM. I would get another opinion on that. Replies from support have been known to be incorrect. Probably not on purpose, just someone replying who did not know for sure and misstated.
Apparently they have expanded their interpretation to the exclusive agreement to RM. It was meant for RF. This is so unfair.

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** January 13, 2011, 10:50 »

Quote from: Orchidpoet on January 13, 2011, 10:07

Apparently they have expanded their interpretation to the exclusive agreement to RM. It was meant for RF. This is so unfair.

I don't think this is true. Here's an excerpt from the Artists Supply Agreement (Exclusive) on their site now;

"... but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity, except to the extent Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement; (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier is certain that such Content may be licensed, sub-licensed and/or distributed on a royalty free basis as in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked; (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto; or (5) other Content specifically designated by the Supplier and agreed by iStockphoto as being non-exclusive Content."

Orchidpoet · « **Reply #19 on:** January 13, 2011, 11:01 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 13, 2011, 10:50

Quote from: Orchidpoet on January 13, 2011, 10:07
Apparently they have expanded their interpretation to the exclusive agreement to RM. It was meant for RF. This is so unfair.
I don't think this is true. Here's an excerpt from the Artists Supply Agreement (Exclusive) on their site now;

"... but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity, except to the extent Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement; (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier is certain that such Content may be licensed, sub-licensed and/or distributed on a royalty free basis as in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked; (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto; or (5) other Content specifically designated by the Supplier and agreed by iStockphoto as being non-exclusive Content."

How do you interpret that? Does it say that any iStock rejected images cannot be sold as RM anywhere? If so, please point out.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #20 on:** January 13, 2011, 11:18 »

Nope. It's always been no licensing rejections elsewhere.

Quote

In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means ... Photo Content ... but shall not include ... Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked;

However, by uploading, you've already deemed the content as "exclusive content":

Quote

The Supplier will provide Exclusive Content to iStockphoto using the Upload procedures and policies of the Site or such other procedures and policies as the parties may mutually agree.

As such:

Quote

You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto.

Orchidpoet · « **Reply #21 on:** January 13, 2011, 11:27 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 13, 2011, 11:18

Nope. It's always been no licensing rejections elsewhere.

Quote
In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means ... Photo Content ... but shall not include ... Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked;

However, by uploading, you've already deemed the content as "exclusive content":
Quote
The Supplier will provide Exclusive Content to iStockphoto using the Upload procedures and policies of the Site or such other procedures and policies as the parties may mutually agree.

As such:
Quote
You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto.

But IS had granted the prior written consent before.

Quote

In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means ... Photo Content ... but shall not include ... Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked;

See Content that is "Rights Managed" is excluded? I am talking about fresh images with no sales history.

gostwyck · « **Reply #22 on:** January 13, 2011, 11:41 »

^^^ *sigh* You'll just have to read the agreement for yourself and come to whatever conclusions you prefer as clearly nothing we can say or do will convince you otherwise.

Orchidpoet · « **Reply #23 on:** January 13, 2011, 11:52 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 13, 2011, 11:41

^^^ *sigh* You'll just have to read the agreement for yourself and come to whatever conclusions you prefer as clearly nothing we can say or do will convince you otherwise.

Clearly iStock has granted permission to at least ShadySue, right? I have written to JJRD and RogerMexico.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** January 13, 2011, 11:55 »

Quote from: Orchidpoet on January 13, 2011, 11:27

See Content that is "Rights Managed" is excluded? I am talking about fresh images with no sales history.

Non-submitted content is fine to sell RM.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: moving away from istock. (Read 23488 times)

abb

BaldricksTrousers

Jo Ann Snover

aeonf

abb

gaja

Gannet77

aeonf

Gannet77

madelaide

madelaide

ShadySue

SNP

ShadySue

SNP

abb

Orchidpoet

jamirae

gostwyck

Orchidpoet

Sean Locke Photography

Orchidpoet

gostwyck

Orchidpoet

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors