Section 5

Quote from: heywoody on February 15, 2015, 14:38

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.

Here is the agreement. Which part of it are they in breach of ?

I can try to be creative

Ok, lets say the buyer gets sued after buying that legal guarantee, and that income  is not shared with contributor because its only istocks responsibility right ?

Lets assume you are right and no image is 100% secure...

Now lets check section 17.

"If and to the extent you are submitting Content to iStock as an authorized representative of the applicable copyright owner(s), you acknowledge and agree that (a) you will ensure that such copyright owner(s) comply with the terms of this Agreement where necessary; and (b) to the extent Royalties are paid to you in such capacity, you will be solely responsible for compensating the copyright owner(s) where applicable."



So, really... you claim its like insurance...then on what basis should the contributor be compensating anything in the area that "they solely  insure" ?

And if we are sharing responsibility , because according to agreement we are, than it would be normal to assume  to share any income based on that responsibility on any legal basis u can think of ?  And also its not a favor they offer because its inseparable from the image itself.   

If contributor is responsible for compensation on agreement basis than they can not be only responsible side, they can not sell their responsibility so the argument is not valid.

Yap, and they are charging insurance "by taking responsibility" on our responsibility to play by the rules  in this particular case described in section 17.

Its fine to be responsible but its fine to be compensated if responsibility is being sold separately.



 

Quote from: heywoody on February 15, 2015, 15:51

Section 5

Could you quote the specific part of that which you are saying they are in breach of ?

I am not a fan of current iStock for various reasons - but I cannot see any reason to believe that they are in breach of the contract.

OK In steps. 
Section 5 of the agreement defines royalties as follows:
�No payment will be made unless a minimum of $100, after Royalty Deductions (defined below), is due to you in accordance with the rate schedule [/size](the �Rate Schedule�). Royalties are paid on �License Fees� which are (a) the amount charged by iStock or a Distribution Partner to each of their Clients (or in the case of certain Distribution Partners, the amount charged by iStock to those Distribution Partners for royalty free licenses);�
The rate schedule says:
�For files licensed using on a Pay As You Go basis, the royalty rate is applied to the net amount paid to download your image. In the case of a file licensed using iStock Credits, the contributor's royalty is applied to the net price of iStock credits used to license a file. iStock Credit prices vary depending on when they were purchased (as our prices change over time) and how many were purchased at once (as we discount bulk packages). For licenses bought with a subscription, the flat royalty is calculated based on your exclusivity and the collection your file is in.�
The extended legal guarantee is sold in the same way as any other extended licence, is specific to the file in question, and is part of the nett amount charged to the customer, and should result in the same cut for the contributor.
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses
QED?

It is outrageous - without our work to sell there wouldn't be any extended licence to sell either.

I agree but it seems like standard practice.  SS does the same thing.  It wouldn't surprise me to find other agencies doing it too.