MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Potential Licence Breach - istock no help...  (Read 8603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 19, 2009, 18:56 »
0
Right i'll keep this short.

Image used in advertisement. Could have been downloaded from 3 sites. On 2 of the sites, would require an EL. On iStock, it wouldnt.

When contacted iStock about whether they could confirm if the image had been purchased from their site, the reply was...

'Unfortunately, because you are not an exclusive contributor, we have no reliable means of verifying if the image was licensed through iStockphoto.'


How on earth can they not know who bought the image, or confirm that it was bought through them!? A simple yes or no would suffice...

Moreover, such attitude sounds dangerous for any non-exclusive. 

Anyone else experienced anything similar?


« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2009, 19:30 »
0
How about asking the other two sites?

If it wouldn't have required an EL from iStock, then presumably even if it was sold through them there was no license breach... so it's the others that matter.

« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2009, 19:38 »
0
How about asking the other two sites?

If it wouldn't have required an EL from iStock, then presumably even if it was sold through them there was no license breach... so it's the others that matter.

Already have requested the info from the other 2, just istock have come back quicker.

Surely a yay or nah should be possible, not the evasive 'no reliable means' bull. They know who bought it.

What happens if that image WOULD have required an EL from istock, and had been purchased from them - would i still get the 'no reliable means' answer?

« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2009, 19:39 »
0
It isn't a friendly reply, but it makes sense.  If it doesn't require an EL at IS (I'm curious, what type of usage is that?), why would they help?  It makes more sense to have one of the sites who require an EL look after this, because they are also losing money.

Another thought. Even if you see a company using the image, it is not necessarily the buyer - and since it's advertisement, it's likely another company purchased for their client's use.

« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2009, 21:00 »
0
What kind of advertising use requires an EL from any site?

« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2009, 21:35 »
0
Another thought. Even if you see a company using the image, it is not necessarily the buyer - and since it's advertisement, it's likely another company purchased for their client's use.

Indeed, I used an image I bought from DT for a client's print ad.  My company name was no where on the ad, so if DT or anyone else looked for the client's name, they wouldn't find it in their records.  They'd have to contact the client who would then give them my company's  name.

« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2009, 22:12 »
0
Moreover, such attitude sounds dangerous for any non-exclusive.

Those are the inevitable consequences of not being exclusive on one site. DT would give you the same answer.

« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2009, 02:10 »
0
perhaps you could ask the advertiser where they purchased the image.

« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2009, 02:49 »
0
What kind of advertising use requires an EL from any site?

the kind that runs over a certain print run in mags and newspapers, as it does in istock updated licencing terms.

« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2009, 02:52 »
0
Moreover, such attitude sounds dangerous for any non-exclusive.

Those are the inevitable consequences of not being exclusive on one site. DT would give you the same answer.

actually dt didn't give me that answer last time I needed them to track down a misused file. I have found them to be nothing more than utterly helpful.

« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2009, 03:01 »
0
Another thought. Even if you see a company using the image, it is not necessarily the buyer - and since it's advertisement, it's likely another company purchased for their client's use.

Indeed, I used an image I bought from DT for a client's print ad.  My company name was no where on the ad, so if DT or anyone else looked for the client's name, they wouldn't find it in their records.  They'd have to contact the client who would then give them my company's  name.

yeah I guess this is their arguement. But still, bad attitude, have never received such arrogance from any other sites. And makes u worry about the potential problems if an image falls into some dodgy use etc, as would appear they would be quick to say they can't help.

All stock agencies have an inherent duty of care to their contributors to ensure that the images they sell on our behalf are licenced correctly.

« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2009, 03:02 »
0
perhaps you could ask the advertiser where they purchased the image.

yep. Might have to.

« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2009, 07:18 »
0
What kind of advertising use requires an EL from any site?

the kind that runs over a certain print run in mags and newspapers, as it does in istock updated licencing terms.

No, it doesn't.  No micro that I know of has a limit of advertising usage.

« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2009, 07:21 »
0
What kind of advertising use requires an EL from any site?


the kind that runs over a certain print run in mags and newspapers, as it does in istock updated licencing terms.


No, it doesn't.  No micro that I know of has a limit of advertising usage.


i think you had better look through your licencing terms at istock a bit more throughly then...

http://www.istockphoto.com/license_changes.php

4. 14

« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2009, 07:27 »
0
What kind of advertising use requires an EL from any site?


the kind that runs over a certain print run in mags and newspapers, as it does in istock updated licencing terms.


No, it doesn't.  No micro that I know of has a limit of advertising usage.


Add into that Shutterstock's terms

http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?type=standard

Part I 2 l

« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2009, 07:28 »
0
I think you'd better re-read it.  The additional royalty does not apply because the license includes a perpetual, unlimited license for advertisements.  C(1).

« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2009, 07:32 »
0
http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?type=standard

Part I 2 l


Good for them.  I'd like to see iStock adopt such a limit.

« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2009, 07:38 »
0
I think you'd better re-read it.  The additional royalty does not apply because the license includes a perpetual, unlimited license for advertisements.  C(1).

I take it you are talking about 3 c(1), where it states permitted use includes 'advertising and promotional projects, including printed materials'

'Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are Prohibited Uses and you may not:

'either individually or in combination with others, reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content, in excess of 500,000 times without obtaining an Extended License'

This clause USED to exclude newspapers and magazines, but no longer does. You will see it is now scored out.

This position was confirmed by the Compliance Officer at istock, i quote ...(the) '...licenses were purchased before there was a limit imposed on the print  ads...'

« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2009, 08:33 »
0
I will check on this and get back.

lisafx

« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2009, 10:10 »
0
Moreover, such attitude sounds dangerous for any non-exclusive.

Those are the inevitable consequences of not being exclusive on one site.

I agree, but Istock are particularly unhelpful in situations of misuse.  When I found one of my images misused (sensitive use) I was able to determine that it WAS downloaded from Istock (the company had a corporate account with IS and never bought stock anywhere else).  Even so, beyond a form letter saying they would look into it Istock did absolutely nothing. 

I ended up spending over $1,100 in legal fees to take care of it myself.  If there hadn't been a model involved I would have been better off not bothering.

« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2009, 11:48 »
0
I thnk MSBS is right about the print run, and it's 500,000 in IS and DT, 250,000 in StockXpert.  In any case, that's a very high print run, even if it's printed in more than one magazine.  I could not find this information at FT. 

« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2009, 17:07 »
0
It seems that istock best does that what is related with screwing non-exclusive members ;-)
 

« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2009, 19:47 »
0
All stock agencies have an inherent duty of care to their contributors to ensure that the images they sell on our behalf are licenced correctly.
I totally agree.  But unfortunately, I don't see it happening.   

« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2009, 05:45 »
0
Another thought. Even if you see a company using the image, it is not necessarily the buyer - and since it's advertisement, it's likely another company purchased for their client's use.

Indeed, I used an image I bought from DT for a client's print ad.  My company name was no where on the ad, so if DT or anyone else looked for the client's name, they wouldn't find it in their records.  They'd have to contact the client who would then give them my company's  name.

yeah I guess this is their arguement. But still, bad attitude, have never received such arrogance from any other sites. And makes u worry about the potential problems if an image falls into some dodgy use etc, as would appear they would be quick to say they can't help.

All stock agencies have an inherent duty of care to their contributors to ensure that the images they sell on our behalf are licenced correctly.

You got the dollar and read the contract before you uploaded, now you want more money. I can see them sitting in meetings talking about how they need to care about contributors. That's funny. You don't know if the photo was downloaded from istock or from one of the others for sure do you.


« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2009, 06:43 »
0
So if I bought the same photo from iStock, DT and StockXpert I could get a print run of 499,999 from iStock, another print run from DT of 499,999 and then yet another from StockXpert for 249,999?

I'm sure this has happened to me before as I've had the same photo downloaded from all three sites the same time, same day.

The perils of non-exclusivity?

« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2009, 07:04 »
0
So if I bought the same photo from iStock, DT and StockXpert I could get a print run of 499,999 from iStock, another print run from DT of 499,999 and then yet another from StockXpert for 249,999?

Ding, ding, ding!

I think we have a winner.

There have been many, many times when I have had an obscure photo (that hardly sells at all) all of a sudden sell simultaneously on a few different sites.  I could never figure out what the buyers were doing, but I figured that they were trying to get around something.

Well, now I finally know what they are doing.  They are trying to avoid having to purchase an extended license.

traveler1116

« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2009, 12:37 »
0
So if I bought the same photo from iStock, DT and StockXpert I could get a print run of 499,999 from iStock, another print run from DT of 499,999 and then yet another from StockXpert for 249,999?

I'm sure this has happened to me before as I've had the same photo downloaded from all three sites the same time, same day.

The perils of non-exclusivity?

Yeah I had an image printed in a magazine that had a print run of something like 400,000 with no ELs so I checked into it but the agency they bought it from (can't remember which) allowed printings up to 400,000.  It depends on the agency as to how many times your image can be printed w/o an EL as far as I know and it is a pain if an image sells a lot on different sites.  You almost have to assume the worst and they are allowed to print 500,000.

« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2009, 17:18 »
0
Just a curiosity, what is the print run of one edition if Time or Newsweek or National Geographic?

« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2009, 17:22 »
0
I had one in a major UK newspaper, and the print run was over 3 million. Thats per day. So when its run over a 28 day period.....

Exactly...

Probably why 90% new goes RM.

« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2009, 18:03 »
0
Just a curiosity, what is the print run of one edition if Time or Newsweek or National Geographic?



Time magazine has a circulation of between 3.4 million and 5.4 million.

Newsweek has a circulation of between 2.6 million and 4.2 million.

National Geographic about 4.7 million.

See here http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question70671.html or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(magazine)

Here are some stats for other mags:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magazines_by_circulation

AARP magazine has a circulation of over 24 million!

« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2009, 18:06 »
0
Wow, I had no idea of such high print runs!  The image I almost sold for magazine was for something like 5,000, but then it was a scientific publication.  I expected these weekly magazines to be no more than 500,000 - maybe because I don't like to read such magazines. :D

« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2009, 19:24 »
0
I'm in graphic design and do ad runs in various newspapers. Is that circulation (ie expected readership) or the actual print run of the paper itself? there can be a huge difference.

For example... the paper prints one paper, but a family of 10 read it, then it gets left a the local coffee shop where 25 other people read it during the day. So we go from 1 print to 35 readership (circulation) - Newspapers use this to pump up there numbers so potential advertisers think its way better than it really is.

« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2009, 12:32 »
0
I believe the microstock licenses pertain to print runs, not circulation. But the circulation numbers can give you an idea of print runs. BIG!  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
1972 Views
Last post January 20, 2013, 15:55
by mattdixon
11 Replies
2900 Views
Last post November 16, 2013, 12:51
by scottdunlap
0 Replies
794 Views
Last post March 11, 2014, 08:13
by ipag
12 Replies
1729 Views
Last post June 13, 2019, 07:36
by EO
0 Replies
1298 Views
Last post August 09, 2019, 11:54
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results