pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Retroactive raise in Royalty?  (Read 10754 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

U11


« Reply #50 on: October 16, 2014, 09:00 »
+8
I am wondering if there is a way to trigger some official (government?) audit of IS


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #51 on: October 16, 2014, 11:17 »
+1
How nice of iStock to word their lie so carefully. There is no such thing as a transaction not occurring through the website, the files are downloaded from the website.


You'll need to go onto the iS forum to argue your case with Lobo.
"As you know, from time to time, we enter in to license agreements with our corporate clients on different terms than are available on the website. In some cases, the license is more restrictive than the Content License Agreement. In other cases, it is a modification to an extended license. These manual adjustments reflect your royalty on those non-website transactions."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=363577&messageid=7056059

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #52 on: October 16, 2014, 11:19 »
+1
And there was I, thinking this was actually our 100% royalty day payment. What happened to that?
It was paid out on the date they said they'd pay it out. Most people seemed to get the right amount. I was a bit 'out' and the CR rep hit the wrong button when I queried it, but if you didn't get it, you're the first I've heard of. (Presuming you're exclusive, as the 100% day was only for exclusives.).
You'll need to send the relevant facts and files to CR and hope for the best.

« Reply #53 on: October 16, 2014, 14:07 »
+4
Contributor relations replied this morning. They said the original licenses were purchased prior to deactivation and that the adjustments were "... specifically extended license adjustments."

Here is what I replied:

"(name),

Thanks for the reply. I understand that the original licensing occurred prior to deactivation, but you are not authorized to make any further licenses - adjustments, on or off the web site, after the time I deactivated the image.

You perhaps need to escalate this to a Getty legal team, but you have to direct clients who wish to purchase more/additional/adjusted rights elsewhere for images you no longer have the authorization to license.

The original licenses stand, but you must not make any adjustments for these customers.

I want written assurance that you will not continue to sell license "adjustments" on these (or any other deactivated files). It is a violation of my copyright to sell licenses when you're not authorized to do so.

regards,

Jo Ann"

It isn't that I want more money, I just want iStock's customers to be inconvenienced by iStock's shabby behavior, without which I would probably still be an iStock exclusive. I know iStock/Getty don't care about their suppliers, but I want their customers to be aware of the consequences of how badly Getty treats suppliers. I'd like those customers to have to go to a competitor to purchase the licenses they need (or they can buy them from me - anyone but iStock).

« Reply #54 on: October 16, 2014, 15:34 »
+3
I said somewhat the same, but specifically pointed out that the termination clause revokes any right they have to further license my content - their problem for terminating me.

Pretty shifty, the little side step about not calculating RCs.  The RC term description makes no dis-allowance for special purchases:
"Redeemed credits can refer both to the actual number of iStock credits used for each iStock Credit-based download on the site (based on file size, type, collection and any extended license options added), as well as to the equivalent credit cost of a file licensed using our Pay As You Go pricing."
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 15:43 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #55 on: October 16, 2014, 16:56 »
-2
Quote
If you're licensing content with iStock Credits, you can purchase an Extended License when initially licensing content or anytime afterward by calling Support.


http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses

Terms of original sale. Seems to me that contributors implicitly accept those terms (and the responsibility to the client) irrespective of deleting their content or later leaving.

« Reply #56 on: October 16, 2014, 17:29 »
+2
Quote
If you're licensing content with iStock Credits, you can purchase an Extended License when initially licensing content or anytime afterward by calling Support.


http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses

Terms of original sale. Seems to me that contributors implicitly accept those terms (and the responsibility to the client) irrespective of deleting their content or later leaving.


The original license stands.  Any further license modification on files they no longer are allowed to license is infringement.  There is no responsibility to the client past the terms of the license purchased.

« Reply #57 on: October 16, 2014, 19:28 »
+3
Quote
If you're licensing content with iStock Credits, you can purchase an Extended License when initially licensing content or anytime afterward by calling Support.


http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses

Terms of original sale. Seems to me that contributors implicitly accept those terms (and the responsibility to the client) irrespective of deleting their content or later leaving.


The artist supply agreement clause on termination (section 12) states:

"(ii) notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Content is distributed; "

That says to me that once the content is removed (and above that it talks about having 30 days to remove content) they no longer have that right.

The help text isn't part of the Content License Agreement which says "d) No terms or conditions may be added or deleted unless made in writing and either accepted in writing by an authorized representative of both parties or issued electronically by iStock and accepted in writing by your authorized representative." so you can't amend the agreement by what's written in the forums or the help or anywhere else.

« Reply #58 on: February 09, 2015, 16:01 »
+2
I know this is an old thread, but I received a reply from support this morning :)

They basically said that they shouldn't have sold the additional licenses because the files were deactivated at the point that happened. They said they do audit for this before doing deals, but somehow messed up this time. They did pay me and as long as it doesn't happen again, I'll just accept their apology for a mistake - if they would have argued that it was OK to do this and might do it again in the future, I'd continue the discussion.

Here's their words for the above:

"Thanks for your patience while we investigated. It does appear that the assets were in fact deactivated at the time of this invoice. I have confirmed that license adjustments should not occur for files that had been deactivated and that we do audit content prior to these negotiations to ensure that the files are still active. It seems that we did not catch your deactivated file(s) on the audit we did and for that we apologize. The royalties have have been deposited to your account. "


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4468 Views
Last post March 31, 2006, 02:38
by CJPhoto
26 Replies
11391 Views
Last post July 11, 2010, 07:27
by microstockphoto.co.uk
5 Replies
4324 Views
Last post March 04, 2008, 17:26
by andresr
2 Replies
2535 Views
Last post April 01, 2008, 13:40
by lisafx
3 Replies
4075 Views
Last post October 30, 2015, 13:47
by Microstock Posts

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle