I read on IS that they will sometimes pay more for an image  then they will earn from it (if I remember corectly). This means that there will be some sub package that will cost less than the ammount that has to be paid to the photographer. So if I buy this package and start buying my own images I would be making money. And if we all do that IS will have to change the subs or go bankrupt. What stops us from doing that (taxes maybe?)? 

Yeah I know, some Romanians were doing that. Made their pictures climb to the first pages of "Best match".

But still, they left a hole which can be exploited by some "organization" that dislikes IS.

I think that's an appalling suggestion and makes you no better than a thief.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yeah I'm planning to do it and I'm letting the whole world know. I might be dumb, but not that dumb and I for sure ain't no thief.

PS: Read between the lines (if you can).

On the credit prices implied by the examples you would have to be a silver exclusive or better to do this sort of arbitrage - and be willing to pay out some serious sums of money (three months subscription at more than 100$ per day!) in the vain hope that you wouldn't be stopped after about five minutes. Not terribly likely although theoretically possible!

Ah ok, tnx for clearing it up, didn't go into calculations. It's hard to belive that someone would spend such big ammounts of money hoping it would bring down IS Would be easier to buy it.

If you set up something to monitor buying patterns where all credits are spent on only (let's say) 5 contributor's work, I'll bet you'd catch this type of stuff.

They don't seem to have implemented this monitoring as evidenced by the fact than entire portfolios are being ripped off and sold illegally across multiple other sites. I am so glad my work is not on that site.

Quote from: bittersweet on April 21, 2008, 11:16

...I am so glad my work is not on that site.

Yeah. It would really suck to be selling on the site that is the highest monthly earner for a large percentage of contributors. Good thing you're staying away.



The people that try to resell other people's images are often found out quickly and shut down. And this isn't something that happens just with SS portfolios.

For photographers who are used to being paid for a lot of x-small images, maybe a 25cent royalty isn't so bad. For a vector artist who is accustomed to earning at least $3.00 on 98 percent of my sales, yeah, I'm so glad my work is not on that site. It would most definitely not be a highest monthly earner for me, and it would erode my earnings where vectors are priced fairly.

There are at least weekly occurrences of vector artists finding their work stolen. Even if they are shut down "quickly" the thieves have made money up until the time they are discovered, and then continue to up until the time they are taken down, only to pop up somewhere else.

But you are right about the fact that it isn't just happening on SS portfolios, although I guess it's hard to know for sure if the same images are across several sites.

Interesting addition to the Artist's Supply Agreement:

You represent and warrant that you shall not: (i) license your own Content (except occasionally and then only for legitimate creative purposes); or (ii) predominately license the content of only a few contributors. You agree that you will not collude with another iStockphoto member to have that member do either of (i) or (ii) above for your benefit. You acknowledge that genuine subscription customers typically license files from many contributors and you agree that your subscription licensing behavior will conform to this typical conduct. In addition to any other available remedies, if you breach this paragraph iStockphoto may immediately terminate this Agreement and/or, if applicable, cancel your subscription package without any refund to you. You further agree to forfeit any royalties earned by you in connection with your misconduct.

Maybe they read this topic?