MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: goober on January 20, 2014, 23:21
-
I dropped a Redeemed Credit level starting Jan1st. Even with the drop I'm still way down on downloads and royalties compared with Jan 2013. You'd think rather than leaving the 2011 Redeemed Credit Targets they should revise them down as they well know sales are down across the board.
-
Yeah, I'm getting killed. Finally gonna drop the crown because there's no way I'll make LESS going indie.
-
Yeah, I'm getting killed. Finally gonna drop the crown because there's no way I'll make LESS going indie.
I respect your work Blamb. Kind of glad to hear it's not just me but it's disappointing at the same time.
-
Thanks. The three years of slow decline have taken their toll and I've rode this thing to the bitter end. Time to move on.
-
I dropped a Redeemed Credit level starting Jan1st. Even with the drop I'm still way down on downloads and royalties compared with Jan 2013.
Are you sure that the clients are still here?
Remember 2013 issues? ;)
-
I thought IS was going to grandfather redeemed credits -- nobody was going to go down... was that just for exclusives?
-
No-one is supposed to drop a level
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357536&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357536&page=1)
but it seems nobody told the programmers, and it isn't a priority to fix it:
Why is that in the Help forum rather than announcements? Like these:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358648&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358648&page=1)
-
No-one is supposed to drop a level
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357536&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357536&page=1[/url])
but it seems nobody told the programmers, and it isn't a priority to fix it:
Why is that in the Help forum rather than announcements? Like these:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358648&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358648&page=1[/url])
So when you click on the link "What are redeemed credits" on your stats page you get 2011 credit targets. To get the latest targets you have to go searching through the forums. That makes a lot of sense.
To top it off the programers have stuffed up and the site is recording the wrong royalty rates. You can understand why I thought I had dropped to the next level.
-
And when they get around to fixing the royalty rate problem I'll get an email saying we owed you $XXX but I'lll never know if it went into the account total because there's no proper accounting system in place showing line by line credits and debits.
-
really? doing pretty well here with 16.21$ from 24 downloads ;D ;D ;D
-
I seem to be broadly on a par with Jan 2013 myself - DLs a little down, but RPD is up (highest ever in fact) so it's balancing out so far, and that's at a lower royalty rate than I should be getting.
In fact, when PP and GI figures come in (and assuming they add on the correction for the royalty rate, eventually) I would expect it to be better than last January. But we shall see.
-
Yeah, I'm getting killed. Finally gonna drop the crown because there's no way I'll make LESS going indie.
Blamb and goober - Sorry to hear this news. But your RC rates are grandfathered from 2013 so you're royalty rate will not change so that's good. But yes, sales are a poor start for 2014 - I'm not sure what is going on and there is the royalty glitch (which they will fix). I would "sit and wait" for now and see what the next six months hold for us all. If you are committed to dropping the crown I would try this instead, form an independent business and as an artist, "sell" your images to the business for a dollar each under a "work for hire" contract. Then use the business to submit to other sites. By dropping the crown you're giving Getty images/istock a better royalty rate, so you're basically "rewarding" them your images. If I was going to leave Getty/istock I wouldn't leave my images there, they don't deserve them. Good luck guys regardless.
-
I think a ton of people will be dropping the crown in the coming months. They really have no choice. New work does´t sell, there is now 5 times more indie content coming in than exclusive content and the prices for exclusive content have gone up again. And then there are the "special exclusives". And the RC levels/targets have not been adjusted for the massive influx of indie files who can upload without limit now.
Exclusives will be a marginalised breed by end of the year, if the trend continues. Even if best match still favours them, the sheer volume of new indie content will swamp them out.
istock used to be an agency for high quality content where nearly 50% of the content was exclusive to the site. Now it is just a portal for everything the market has and files then get moved around the way the agency sees fit. The artist has no control over pricing although he/she knows their own specific niche best.
Very sad to watch, but I am glad I made the difficult decision last year. I keep hoping that istock gets new managers that will make it shine again. Even if I am indie, it is still hard to see what is happening there.
But I guess SS and now Dreamstime are the ones really making a visible effort to attract the artists.
-
They're not even highlighting their exclusive content.
Maybe iStockLawyer finally understood the legal minefield they were in by labelling content you could get in many places as 'only from iStock'.
So yet another hard slap in the face for their real exclusives.
Update: 'Only from iStock' seems to be back on.
-
I think a ton of people will be dropping the crown in the coming months. They really have no choice. New work does´t sell, there is now 5 times more indie content coming in than exclusive content and the prices for exclusive content have gone up again. And then there are the "special exclusives". And the RC levels/targets have not been adjusted for the massive influx of indie files who can upload without limit now.
Exclusives will be a marginalised breed by end of the year, if the trend continues. Even if best match still favours them, the sheer volume of new indie content will swamp them out.
istock used to be an agency for high quality content where nearly 50% of the content was exclusive to the site. Now it is just a portal for everything the market has and files then get moved around the way the agency sees fit. The artist has no control over pricing although he/she knows their own specific niche best.
Very sad to watch, but I am glad I made the difficult decision last year. I keep hoping that istock gets new managers that will make it shine again. Even if I am indie, it is still hard to see what is happening there.
But I guess SS and now Dreamstime are the ones really making a visible effort to attract the artists.
Very well encapsulated Jasmine. The unintended consequences of earlier decisions will be felt particularly hard by exclusives ... even by the 'special exclusives'. At least they have the comfort of knowing that "Professionals deal with professionals".
-
Yeah, I'm getting killed. Finally gonna drop the crown because there's no way I'll make LESS going indie.
Blamb and goober - Sorry to hear this news. But your RC rates are grandfathered from 2013 so you're royalty rate will not change so that's good. But yes, sales are a poor start for 2014 - I'm not sure what is going on and there is the royalty glitch (which they will fix). I would "sit and wait" for now and see what the next six months hold for us all. If you are committed to dropping the crown I would try this instead, form an independent business and as an artist, "sell" your images to the business for a dollar each under a "work for hire" contract. Then use the business to submit to other sites. By dropping the crown you're giving Getty images/istock a better royalty rate, so you're basically "rewarding" them your images. If I was going to leave Getty/istock I wouldn't leave my images there, they don't deserve them. Good luck guys regardless.
Is this what Yuri has done and is it legal? Surely you can't sell your existing images to the company for $1 and still sell them exclusively on iStock. It would have to be new images only. I've always tried to do the right thing by iStock as they are my primary source of income.
-
I seem to be broadly on a par with Jan 2013 myself - DLs a little down, but RPD is up (highest ever in fact) so it's balancing out so far, and that's at a lower royalty rate than I should be getting.
maybe it's due the fact there is no XS size on istock ? gone today to use my last credit on istock and the cheapest images is only for 2 credits
-
Yeah, I'm getting killed. Finally gonna drop the crown because there's no way I'll make LESS going indie.
Blamb and goober - Sorry to hear this news. But your RC rates are grandfathered from 2013 so you're royalty rate will not change so that's good. But yes, sales are a poor start for 2014 - I'm not sure what is going on and there is the royalty glitch (which they will fix). I would "sit and wait" for now and see what the next six months hold for us all. If you are committed to dropping the crown I would try this instead, form an independent business and as an artist, "sell" your images to the business for a dollar each under a "work for hire" contract. Then use the business to submit to other sites. By dropping the crown you're giving Getty images/istock a better royalty rate, so you're basically "rewarding" them your images. If I was going to leave Getty/istock I wouldn't leave my images there, they don't deserve them. Good luck guys regardless.
Is this what Yuri has done and is it legal? Surely you can't sell your existing images to the company for $1 and still sell them exclusively on iStock. It would have to be new images only. I've always tried to do the right thing by iStock as they are my primary source of income.
Yes, but he presumably got a special 'professionals-only agreement' with iStock. And to keep his older images up at other agencies.
It's totally illegal in the UK, and several other countries, (including Canada AFAICS), to have photos labelled 'only from iStock' which are available elsewhere.
I believe he's not the only pseudo-exclusive.
-
I seem to be broadly on a par with Jan 2013 myself - DLs a little down, but RPD is up (highest ever in fact) so it's balancing out so far, and that's at a lower royalty rate than I should be getting.
maybe it's due the fact there is no XS size on istock ? gone today to use my last credit on istock and the cheapest images is only for 2 credits
When in the world did that happen?
Actually, I can answer that. At least in part: It happened sometime in the last 24 hours, as I did have an XS sale just yesterday morning. But it's true, XS is completely gone from all collections.
-
Whose turn was it to 'think of something else we can try' today? ::)
-
Bizarrely, the explanation is "Part of our rationale is to provide the client base with a simplified experience (http://a simplified experience)on the site."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358810&messageid=6978246 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358810&messageid=6978246)
File size is not the most complicated or inexplicable thing on iStock. In fact, it's about the clearest thing on the entire site.
There are other reasons I can think of; maybe that's the secret part we're not privy to.
-
Sales are strong for me on the video so far this year, Thankfully!!!!
-
Yeah, I'm getting killed. Finally gonna drop the crown because there's no way I'll make LESS going indie.
Blamb and goober - Sorry to hear this news. But your RC rates are grandfathered from 2013 so you're royalty rate will not change so that's good. But yes, sales are a poor start for 2014 - I'm not sure what is going on and there is the royalty glitch (which they will fix). I would "sit and wait" for now and see what the next six months hold for us all. If you are committed to dropping the crown I would try this instead, form an independent business and as an artist, "sell" your images to the business for a dollar each under a "work for hire" contract. Then use the business to submit to other sites. By dropping the crown you're giving Getty images/istock a better royalty rate, so you're basically "rewarding" them your images. If I was going to leave Getty/istock I wouldn't leave my images there, they don't deserve them. Good luck guys regardless.
Is this what Yuri has done and is it legal? Surely you can't sell your existing images to the company for $1 and still sell them exclusively on iStock. It would have to be new images only. I've always tried to do the right thing by iStock as they are my primary source of income.
Yep. Another istock contributor has done this as well. (I forget who, it was mentioned here before) His company name was his name with the "Inc." added and that one is non-exclusive. Correct, as an istock exclusive, those images would only be on istock. You will have to create new ones for your "work for hire" portfolio.
-
Sales are strong for me on the video so far this year, Thankfully!!!!
I'm glad to hear that, as I know sales had not been going great for you recently.
My experience is entirely different, but I have a very small (and not very stocky) port compared with yours (~400 files). With only 10 days remaining to the month, I am in grave danger of my first month ever without a video sale at IS, since I started contributing clips back in late 2009. In fact, since Nov 2009 I hadn't had a month with fewer than 3 sales.
On the photo side, things are not quite as dire. But it looks like the number of sales will be down by 60% from Jan '13 (i.e., 40% of last year's number), with the fewest number of sales in a month since my first 6 months ('07 - '08).
-
I seem to be broadly on a par with Jan 2013 myself - DLs a little down, but RPD is up (highest ever in fact) so it's balancing out so far, and that's at a lower royalty rate than I should be getting.
maybe it's due the fact there is no XS size on istock ? gone today to use my last credit on istock and the cheapest images is only for 2 credits
No. The XS size was only removed in the last 24 hours, and I've sold a few which are included in my figures.
But we'll have to see how it pans out from now on...
-
At this rate will be on par for dls with my first months at iStock in 2007 when I had less than 10 files uploaded. This despite a good effort at uploading in 2013. My return per Dl. is at it's highest ever, with some of my files selling at $196 for a Vetta Xl. Actually I haven't sold a Vetta XL this year. I am in quite a quandry. I will hang in there this year and see if my royalty rate gets grandfathered next year. Also A lot depends on if some of my 2013 files ever get moved to S+. So far nothing has since May 2013 despite good sales on some including one that compares very well to my existing Vetta images. I will be talking to some boutique niche image sites this year and seeing if they will let me join. If I can get them on a site at mid or macro prices I can move the rest into micro sites. In the meantime I am concentrating on fine art photography and marketing of those images. The new uploads don't bother me as much as the lack of buyers for exclusive images.
-
I think a ton of people will be dropping the crown in the coming months.
Maybe that's what iS wants / expects ? I think that lots of people will also just go off and do something else for the moment whist remaining exclusive (if the option still exists) and wait and see what happens. It depends what other things they have on. Either way it seems obvious that things are building up to something. ETA - what I mean is that I do not think it likely that these are unintended consequences.
Exclusivity join / leave page is currently broken btw.
-
Exclusivity join / leave page is currently broken btw.
Really? So people cannot go exclusive even if they wanted to? And those that want to leave have to write to support?
To me it looks like they want to turn istock into a stock version of flickr. They have a lot of experience with flickr and have a large team of editors that do nothing else but sift through mass of files to find what they need for the getty collections. The artists then consider their amazing "luck" to have their files discovered and moved "upstream" to getty.
And obviously if they find an artist or more often a production house that they want to keep they will offer them "special" exclusive contracts via Getty.
The RC system makes no sense in a system with this kind of flooding. Nobody can shoot their way out of this swamp. The artists that can deliver top quality will all need to go after a getty contract that also handles their royalty rates on istock,the way yuri and the "professionals" do it.
For the indies it does´t matter that much, because istock is just one income stream out of many. what istock loses in clients and good will, will be picked up by the other agencies.
It is the traditional istock exclusives that are being punished.
-
One person reported an issue (a member here who might choose to chime in) which Kelvin hasn't been able to replicate, so has referred them to CR.
-
Maybe that's what iS wants / expects ? I think that lots of people will also just go off and do something else for the moment whist remaining exclusive (if the option still exists) and wait and see what happens. It depends what other things they have on. Either way it seems obvious that things are building up to something. ETA - what I mean is that I do not think it likely that these are unintended consequences.
Exclusivity join / leave page is currently broken btw.
I started a post on the forum about this ... Interesting it's not just me.
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
Trouble is, it's impossible to check how universal the problem is unless you actually want to start/stop exclusivity. I assumed Bunhill was citing you, Kim, but maybe not.
Anyway, hope CR get it sorted for you.
-
Strange thing..... I was watching that thread and didn't see that response to contact CR
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
For now I am going to keep things the same... It was going to be regarding video Whitchurch for me is animation Whitchurch is one of my 2014 goals to do more of. :)
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
Mind the spell check madness ;)
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
Sales are strong for me on the video so far this year, Thankfully!!!!
Are you shooting techno, professionally created stuff or more basic out of the camera vid? Just curious because it seems that the best sellers are the high end videos where people have special effect skills.
-
Sales are strong for me on the video so far this year, Thankfully!!!!
Are you shooting techno, professionally created stuff or more basic out of the camera vid? Just curious because it seems that the best sellers are the high end videos where people have special effect skills.
Are you banned from iStock search?
-
I assumed Bunhill was citing you, Kim, but maybe not.
not ! Page is broken for me.
I assumed it was broken for everyone.
-
Trouble is, it's impossible to check how universal the problem is unless you actually want to start/stop exclusivity.
no you just click on the exclusivity link in your profile. It does not commit you to a change. Where you would also go to read the contract etc
-
Trouble is, it's impossible to check how universal the problem is unless you actually want to start/stop exclusivity.
no you just click on the exclusivity link in your profile. It does not commit you to a change. Where you would also go to read the contract etc
I can click on a link which takes me to a page titled Exclusivity Cancellation Application then "Upon cancellation, your exclusivity status will be deactivated in 30 days. There is 90 days waiting period before we can approve your exclusivity status again if you choose to reapply." then two boxes, one asking for your cancellation reason (I thought people here had reported that they didn't ask for that info) and one asking for your password as identify confirmation.
I didn't go any further.
-
@sue - it's the "You Are an Exclusive Contributor" page which fails for me. I went to that thread you were talking about and posted a screenshot there + the bugs thread. You are obviously seeing something different.
Like I said, I assumed that everyone was seeing the same bug.
-
@sue - it's the "You Are an Exclusive Contributor" page which fails for me. I went to that thread you were talking about and posted a screenshot there + the bugs thread. You are obviously seeing something different.
Like I said, I assumed that everyone was seeing the same bug.
Oh, and I'd assumed it was unique to Kim, but I see Lobo says there are more incidences.
I went on to the You are an Exclusive Contributor and followed the link from there Win7 FF26.0:
(http://www.lizworld.com/Exc.jpg)
OTOH, dls seem to be turned off for me. ;)
-
Great. It's not working for me. I can apply for video and photo exclusivity but NOT cancel. Tomorrow was going to be the day I was going to drop (my birthday, fresh start, etc. etc. etc.). Hope it gets back up by then.
-
I'm going exclusive to the very end! Clinging to my piece of driftwood in the freezing ocean. Wiping saltwater from my eyes as the Captain and a few third world contributors float away into the darkness on a tiny lifeboat.
-
Great. It's not working for me. I can apply for video and photo exclusivity but NOT cancel. Tomorrow was going to be the day I was going to drop (my birthday, fresh start, etc. etc. etc.). Hope it gets back up by then.
Or contact CR.
-
"I'm going exclusive to the very end! Clinging to my piece of drift wood in the freezing ocean. Wiping salt water from my eyes as the Captain and a few third world contributors float away into the darkness on a tiny lifeboat."
This sounds like your on the titanic and we all know how that ended...
-
This sounds like your on the titanic and we all know how that ended...
Yes. I'm a big bloated Leo, floating in the icy Atlantic.
-
And the good news is that my grandfather, the royalty rate of 2013, has turned up and is making a welcomed improvement to the stats, although I'm still way down on last year.
-
This is the worst month for me in years. I just reactivated my SS portfolio and it's doing much better than IS this month. Probably the worst month for me in like 8 years...
-
And the good news is that my grandfather, the royalty rate of 2013, has turned up and is making a welcomed improvement to the stats, although I'm still way down on last year.
Oh, thanks for posting. Just checked and mine's back up too. Wonder if/when we can expect to be reimbursed for the back money we're owed as a result of this bug.
-
And the good news is that my grandfather, the royalty rate of 2013, has turned up and is making a welcomed improvement to the stats, although I'm still way down on last year.
Oh, thanks for posting. Just checked and mine's back up too. Wonder if/when we can expect to be reimbursed for the back money we're owed as a result of this bug.
When they get a Round Tuit:
"We will now begin working on the calculation of the missing royalties contributors would have received due to this bug. This process is going to take some time to complete. As soon as we have a timeline for resolution we will update this thread." (Lobo)
... they have a few things to sort out ATM.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358648&messageid=6978946 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358648&messageid=6978946)
(I guess they have pixies working it out on abaci; maybe calculators and computers have escaped their notice.)
-
I would love to see the faces of auditors when they find a mess in the books by all these reporting cock ups. My god, how can this even keep continuing. It shouldnt, I cant fathom how incompetent that company is, and whats worse is, that no one in that place seems to wanting to do anything about that incompetence. I am thinking if IS were based in Europe, they would have been investigated by Brussels by now.
-
And how can it be that out of the tens of thousands of contributors no one is reporting this sheite to a BBB or something. Is really no one saying anything about this?
-
And how can it be that out of the tens of thousands of contributors no one is reporting this sheite to a BBB or something. Is really no one saying anything about this?
Like reporting 'only from iStock' to the ASA, it's an interesting way to quit.
-
whats BBB ?
-
whats BBB ?
Better Business Bureaus
http://www.bbb.org/ (http://www.bbb.org/)
Like an ombudsman
-
I quit iStock about two years ago so I don't read the iStock posts usually. I just find it amazing when reading this, it sounds exactly like the same crap that made me leave two years ago and so many others all said they were leaving also, but chose to stay. I hope for all your sakes you make the right choice this time around. Two years is a long time and how do you even know if the money that they "refund", because of these supposed bugs, really is what they owed you? These people are crooks plan and simple.
-
And the good news is that my grandfather, the royalty rate of 2013, has turned up and is making a welcomed improvement to the stats, although I'm still way down on last year.
Oh, thanks for posting. Just checked and mine's back up too. Wonder if/when we can expect to be reimbursed for the back money we're owed as a result of this bug.
I suspect that it may have already happened. When I got up this morning my balance had increased by an amount that was not apparent from either recorded sales or the PP.
-
Yes. I have an extra big fat wad of cash in my account this morning and because of their opaque accounting system I have no idea if its from GI or refund for Jan royalty rate glitch. On the positive side, I'm glad to have it.
-
Yes. I have an extra big fat wad of cash in my account this morning and because of their opaque accounting system I have no idea if its from GI or refund for Jan royalty rate glitch. On the positive side, I'm glad to have it.
It'll be GI.
See here http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?Offset=0&DownloadsGraphFileType= (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?Offset=0&DownloadsGraphFileType=)
and check for the purple bar in December. You'll have to dig a bit deeper to find out exactly what sold though.
-
Yes. I have an extra big fat wad of cash in my account this morning and because of their opaque accounting system I have no idea if its from GI or refund for Jan royalty rate glitch. On the positive side, I'm glad to have it.
It'll be GI.
See here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?Offset=0&DownloadsGraphFileType=[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?Offset=0&DownloadsGraphFileType=[/url])
and check for the purple bar in December. You'll have to dig a bit deeper to find out exactly what sold though.
I just checked that link, which is my stats page. It proves i had downloads 8 months after I pulled my port.
That is not legal! Why dont someone sue them?
Conclusion is that they proved they deserved all the bad vibes I have spread about them.
-
Yes. I have an extra big fat wad of cash in my account this morning and because of their opaque accounting system I have no idea if its from GI or refund for Jan royalty rate glitch. On the positive side, I'm glad to have it.
It'll be GI.
See here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?Offset=0&DownloadsGraphFileType=[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?Offset=0&DownloadsGraphFileType=[/url])
and check for the purple bar in December. You'll have to dig a bit deeper to find out exactly what sold though.
I just checked that link, which is my stats page. It proves i had downloads 8 months after I pulled my port.
That is not legal! Why dont someone sue them?
Conclusion is that they proved they deserved all the bad vibes I have spread about them.
I think it would have to be you, I doubt if anyone else could sue on your behalf.
Probably you'd have to give them the opportunity to give you the money you own them and to get every image off all of their programmes, which of course they should have done already.
Is there a way you can contact them after you've (supposedly) closed your account there?
NB: Did you formally close your account, or did you just deactivate your images from iStock?
-
I deactivated and have only one picture left. A dead coackroach, I thought it was appropriate.
It is not about the money, but about them violating copyright laws.
I disagrreed on the business concept, and therefore I deleted my images, and yet they still sell them.
Noone can sue on my behalf, I know that, but, there might be others in the same situation and closer to the headquarters. They could.
I think there is basis for 1 mill lawsuits against IS. Why hasnt someone done it.
Yes, yes, duty of silence and all that. But it doesnt hold water.
You can say all you want during a lawsuit, only thing is, that the opposition might use it against you.
Which again can be to your advantage.
But, do we agree on, that they should not sell pictures 8 months afher they have been deactivated?
-
I deactivated and have only one picture left. A dead coackroach, I thought it was appropriate.
...
But, do we agree on, that they should not sell pictures 8 months afther they have been deactivated?
That might be debatable.
You deactivated them from iStock, but didn't formally close your account and ask that your images be deleted from all their programmes.
I'm guessing they have wiggle room there.
(IANAL)
-
(http://dailyhaymaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/drevil.png)
-
I deactivated and have only one picture left. A dead coackroach, I thought it was appropriate.
...
But, do we agree on, that they should not sell pictures 8 months afther they have been deactivated?
That might be debatable.
You deactivated them from iStock, but didn't formally close your account and ask that your images be deleted from all their programmes.
I'm guessing they have wiggle room there.
(IANAL)
How can they have access to, and sell my images If I have deleted them?
I know, that there can be strange ways among servers, but I have deleted the pictures I uploaded, and since I am the copyright holder, the images cannot be copied further.
It is not my problem what kind of strange server setup one site has with another.
I have never uploaded my images to any is affiliate. It is only IS who has, and I have told them to stop. When I deleted my images, the flux of images was meant to stop.
UNLESS the flow of derivate images was not based on the original.
And if it wasnt, its violating copyright.
-
Deactivating is not the same as deleting. As far as I know you cant delete images, only deactivate. If you can still login, your account wasnt removed either. Maybe your loboroach image picked up 8 sales.
-
Deactivating is not the same as deleting. As far as I know you cant delete images, only deactivate. If you can still login, your account wasnt removed either. Maybe your loboroach image picked up 8 sales.
I dont think so. If I deactivate or delete it is the sAME. is may have ways of their own, but thats is not important, I pressed the only button there was to delete, I do not remember what it was called.
A company can write many things in a contract, like I hereby mention that all your earnings go to my account. but contracts are not always legal. Laws sometimes overrules contracts. And with Istock , there are many such cases.
It was my swallowtails they spread. Not the cockroach, and they knew exactly what they did. Therefor they should be sued and punished.
BUT.
I knew they were playing a foul game, thats why I left.
It has now been proven in court.
I hope some near the headquarters with an attorney in the family sues them, so their abuse can end.
-
I deactivated and have only one picture left. A dead coackroach, I thought it was appropriate.
...
But, do we agree on, that they should not sell pictures 8 months afther they have been deactivated?
That might be debatable.
You deactivated them from iStock, but didn't formally close your account and ask that your images be deleted from all their programmes.
I'm guessing they have wiggle room there.
(IANAL)
How can they have access to, and sell my images If I have deleted them?
I'm assuming that your images were already on Thinkstock and Photos.com, so deactivating them from iStock wouldn't remove them from these, unless you specifically asked them to do so.
-
Facts are that they sold my pictures 8 months after I deleted them.
Thats a fact, friends.
Dont wrap it up in excuses and conditions.
It IS foul play.
-
Deactivating is not the same as deleting. As far as I know you cant delete images, only deactivate. If you can still login, your account wasnt removed either. Maybe your loboroach image picked up 8 sales.
I dont think so. If I deactivate or delete it is the sAME. is may have ways of their own, but thats is not important, I pressed the only button there was to delete, I do not remember what it was called.
A company can write many things in a contract, like I hereby mention that all your earnings go to my account. but contracts are not always legal. Laws sometimes overrules contracts. And with Istock , there are many such cases.
It was my swallowtails they spread. Not the cockroach, and they knew exactly what they did. Therefor they should be sued and punished.
BUT.
I knew they were playing a foul game, thats why I left.
It has now been proven in court.
I hope some near the headquarters with an attorney in the family sues them, so their abuse can end.
Its not the same, because deactivated images can be activated again. Delete images are gone. You didnt delete them. Period. Can you still login to your account? If so, your account was active all this time. If you asked your account to be deleted, you would get a banned message when trying to login.
-
The fact is you DIDNT delete them.
-
So you can have a company that uses the word "deactivate" so they can abuse your copyright.
That is where the law overules contracts.
What Is does is illegal. No matter what sort of contract you produce, it should still be legal.
It compares to a killing contract in a spy movie: "If you kill him you are free." It is not legal, you cannot make that kind of contracts.
Isnt it obvious, or are you going to debate it?
As I said before, there are 10 million lawsuits agains Istock, and they would loose most of them.
Reminds me. That would actually be the way to kill Is, and if somebody ask, Im in.
-
What part of deactivation is not the same as deleting do you not grasp?
Can you login to IS, yes or no? You avoid that question, and I think you are still able to log in. That means you DID NOT delete your account.
-
What part of deactivation is not the same as deleting do you not grasp?
Can you login to IS, yes or no? You avoid that question, and I think you are still able to log in. That means you DID NOT delete your account.
I can log in to my account. I have not deleted my account and one image. i will not deny that they can sell that image.
Still I repeat my answer above.
-
So you can have a company that uses the word "deactivate" so they can abuse your copyright.
You deactivated your images from the site istockphoto.
You did not ask for your files to be totally removed from the partner sites.
You can't expect the computers on different sites to be able to read your mind.
I can see that you're angry because you didn't realise this, and I probably would have missed this too (if it had applied, I'm not in the PP), but that doesn't mean iS have acted illegally or even, in this specific, immorally.
-
So it is my own fault that is is playing games with me, and abuse me.
Im too stupid and have not read the terms.
Right so. So I am.
Im stupid.
And Is is just another one of those companies you should be aware of.
And that I will be.
Beware of Nigerian scams, Russian mail order brides, Istock photo and things from South Sudan.
-
Facts are that they sold my pictures 8 months after I deleted them.
Thats a fact, friends.
Dont wrap it up in excuses and conditions.
It IS foul play.
You might want to see if they changed your account name. A year after I deleted my port there, they changed my user name to dondingclosed....or dondingdelete....something like that. I had made over $100.00 in sales. I just happen to find one of my photos by doing a tineye search and found that my account was still open, but under a different user name. I did finally get my money and the account removed, but if I hadn't done that tineye search I would have never found that my account name had been changed and they were still selling my photos. It could be something like that.
-
it IS foul play and it is not legal.
-
it IS foul play and it is not legal.
Can you explain why it would be illegal?
If you deactivate your files from iStock, how are they supposed to guess you want to remove your files from partner sites if you chose not to tell them?
Who would even know that you'd deactivated your files from iStock?
Step back, take a deep breath, then go and formally ask CR to delete your account there. They will give you a timescale as to when your files should be removed from all partner sites, after which you should be paid.
Donding's case is quite different, and that is much more likely to have been illegal.
-
I think a ton of people will be dropping the crown in the coming months. They really have no choice.
Jasmine, some people don't have to make this difficult decision.
They already started uploading exclusive content somewhere else without dropping the crown.
-
it IS foul play and it is not legal.
Can you explain why it would be illegal?
If you deactivate your files from iStock, how are they supposed to guess you want to remove your files from partner sites if you chose not to tell them?
Who would even know that you'd deactivated your files from iStock?
Step back, take a deep breath, then go and formally ask CR to delete your account there. They will give you a timescale as to when your files should be removed from all partner sites, after which you should be paid.
Donding's case is quite different, and that is much more likely to have been illegal.
They have provided the channel, they can close it again. My relationship with is is via their homepage, and do not tell me anything else.
It is their job to keep track of affiliates they have spawned themselves.
Its plain and simple: I upload a file and they sell it, they are salesmen, with fancy programs.
I delete the file, then they cannot sell it anymore. Nowhere. If they do, then it is because they copy copies.
Thats how copyright works. You own the right to distribute your work. Noone else do, and they cannot write it into contracts.
-
And the good news is that my grandfather, the royalty rate of 2013, has turned up and is making a welcomed improvement to the stats, although I'm still way down on last year.
Oh, thanks for posting. Just checked and mine's back up too. Wonder if/when we can expect to be reimbursed for the back money we're owed as a result of this bug.
Exactly. Could be more than the clawback from the PP debacle.
-
Thats how copyright works. You own the right to distribute your work. Noone else do, and they cannot write it into contracts.
Take it up with iStockLawyer.
Contract pont 3a
"The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's non-exclusive distributor to sell, license, or sublicense Content to third parties worldwide and to collect and remit funds in connection with those endeavours on the terms set forth in this Agreement.
For all Content, Supplier grants iStockphoto:
...The right to grant perpetual, worldwide and non-exclusive licenses or sublicenses to end-users. iStockphoto and its Distribution Partners will determine the terms and conditions of all licenses of Content granted by them."
and point 11a:
"Term and Termination
This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to iStockphoto using [email protected] or such other means of written notice acceptable to iStockphoto which enables confirmation of your identity and your intention to terminate. "
You could put the $100 they 'illegally' earned you towards your legal fees.
Good luck.
-
Sue. You must realize, that it is common that companies writes things on paper that does not hold water.
There are contracts, eventually with istock, they are binding in many ways becaus both parties signed them.
But they are not laws.
I stock does not make the laws of the world, and thank God for that.
I stock as well as I are subject to the Kings, Queens or the presidents law.
One of these laws are the law about copyright, which states that a creator has the right to distribute his work.
NO contract in the world can overrule that.
-
I certainly agree that contacts aren't necessarily binding. There is such a thing as unfair contract in UK law, for example
However, iS in this case gave a clear and simple way for someone to teminate their dealings with them, and I doubt if that would be considered unfair.
But as IANAL, you should, as I suggested, take it up with iStockLawyer if you're convinced you've got a case.
I doubt if anyone here can help you. However, I'll do what I can.
Since we signed that
15 a Applicable law
The Site is controlled, operated and administered by iStockphoto from within the Province of Alberta, Canada. The Site can be accessed from all provinces and territories of Canada, as well as from other countries around the world. As each of these jurisdictions has laws that may differ from those of the Province of Alberta, you acknowledge and agree that this Agreement will be governed under the laws of the Province of Alberta and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein (without reference to conflicts of laws principles). You hereby irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the Province of Alberta, Canada with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. ...
So, as (y)our contract is bound by the laws of the Province of Alberta, here's a link to 34 pages of Contract Law in Alberta. Happy reading.
http://www.lawcentralschools.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ContractLawInAlberta.pdf (http://www.lawcentralschools.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ContractLawInAlberta.pdf)
The section on Unenforceable Contracts begins on page 19. The conditions are Misrepresentation, Mistake, Duress or Undue Influence. Personally, I still don't think you have a snowball's chance in H*ll; but you'll know better, no doubt.