Is that a bug or real??

It's an extended insurance cover licence - their argument is they carry the risk, so they keep 100% of the fee.

That seems to be it ok - not an EL, not even a sale.  Why . then, is it reported as such? 

Beat this if you can..

Talk about hitting the 'Wall' 

Yes, probably an extended legal guarantee - someone else asked about it here - exactly a year ago, as it happens: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359256

That thread didn't last too long and expect the same will happen to mine if it isn't deleted altogether.  This sort of thing can only piss people off, even the few remaining fan boys.  The argument is total bollox anyway, the image in question is 100% risk free and they are extracting multiples of the original sale price and not even passing on the paltry 15%.

Quote from: JKB on February 14, 2015, 06:23

Yes, probably an extended legal guarantee - someone else asked about it here - exactly a year ago, as it happens: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359256

That thread didn't last too long and expect the same will happen to mine if it isn't deleted altogether.  This sort of thing can only piss people off, even the few remaining fan boys.  The argument is total bollox anyway, the image in question is 100% risk free and they are extracting multiples of the original sale price and not even passing on the paltry 15%.

Agree

From their FAQ

What is an Extended Legal Guarantee?

The Extended Legal Guarantee is added peace of mind on top of the complimentary Legal Guarantee, which comes with every iStockphoto file. The Legal Guarantee is our promise that content, used within the terms of the license agreement, will not infringe any copyright, moral right, trademark or other intellectual property right or violate any right of privacy or publicity. The Extended Legal Guarantee increases iStockphoto�s responsibility for your damages and expenses to $250,000 and costs 100 credits.

Its just another way to circumvent having to pay you. They take a completely safe image and sell a guarantee for 100 credits to a naive buyer and take 100% of the cake. It is almost a scam.

Quote from: JKB on February 14, 2015, 06:23

Yes, probably an extended legal guarantee - someone else asked about it here - exactly a year ago, as it happens: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359256

That thread didn't last too long and expect the same will happen to mine if it isn't deleted altogether.  This sort of thing can only piss people off, even the few remaining fan boys.  The argument is total bollox anyway, the image in question is 100% risk free and they are extracting multiples of the original sale price and not even passing on the paltry 15%.

The ironic thing is that they are not assuming all the risk, as in the contract they reserve the right to pursue the contributor for any losses.

Interesting that you had an extended legal guarantee sale on a 'bland' image. At the beginning when the started the scheme, I had two totally safe images (a flower and a very bland, generic landscape) getting ELGs. At that time, they were really pushing them at the point of sale. As it happened, both of the sales were the maximum possible credit sale price, so almost certainly new buyers with their first sale who had been terrified into buying an ELG. I bet they never came back. But hey, a quick buck is a quick buck.

I had a look at the supplier licence agreement as this is the legal basis of my relationship with IS (as opposed to any relationship they have with the buyer).  Given this is reported as a sale and included as an extended licence option like any other  I should be paid the 15% in accordance with their own rate schedule.  I can see no wording in their agreement with me that provides a "get of jail card" in terms of their responsibilities to make the appropriate royalty payment.

You'd have to consult a lawyer about that. Most of their legalese was written to privide them maximum wiggle room.
Seems pretty clear from http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=116361&page=1 "The Legal Guarantee and the Extended Legal Guarantee both offer iStockphoto clients peace of mind that many of our competitors simply cannot offer. These guarantees attract more clients because iStockphoto is taking the risk of defending the content we are so proud of and legally confident in. Since the risk to protect our clients belongs to iStockphoto alone, the revenue from the Extended Legal Guarantee goes only to iStockphoto."

The argument is total bollox anyway, the image in question is 100% risk free

No image is 100% risk free from the end user perspective.

Quote from: bunhill on February 15, 2015, 10:52

Quote from: heywoody on February 15, 2015, 07:10

The argument is total bollox anyway, the image in question is 100% risk free

No image is 100% risk free from the end user perspective.

No?  What percentage chance is there that the isolated tomato will take a law suit?

Suppose the image of the tomato has been stolen.

The point is that they are, as far as I can tell, breaching their own  supplier contract.  I have some degree of experience arguing the toss on contractual minutiae but am open to anyone pointing out a legal basis for their position.

I am no fan of current iStock. But I have no doubt that Getty legal trumps your "some degree of experience".

To 2 decimal places, what percentage of generic stock imagery sales of isolated objects have resulted in lawsuits as far as you are aware?

It makes no difference. You said 100% risk free. And no image is ever risk free.

It's off the peg licensing and the system does not know the difference between an unknown tomato and a famous c-c-c-cucumber. It doesn't need to.

However, even Getty legal can�t stitch this sort of 3 card trick into a contract unless the bean counters who figure they can screw the contributor a bit further to trouser a few extra bucks, advise them to do so.

That's a totally different nebulous argument. Your claim previously above is that they are in legal breach of contract.

What they are selling in this instance is not something which the contributors have supplied. It's like insurance.

That's a totally different nebulous argument. Your claim previously above is that they are in legal breach of contract.

What they are selling in this instance is not something which the contributors have supplied. It's like insurance.

But they are not selling insurance.  What they are selling is an extended licence (listed as a type of extended licence and the sale is reported as such).  Unless someone can show me where, in their contract with me, that this type of sale is an exception I maintain the view that that are in breach.  You are the only person making nebulous arguments here, based on supposed intent rather than on the letter of what is written.