Despite everyone lumping Istock and Getty into the same hat I think it is important to make a distinction.  When the Google Drive deal was announced the first posts in the Istock forum by admins amounted to "what deal?  Umm let us get back to you on that we need to check with corporate".  They could have been lying but I do believe Istock staff were not informed of this, or at least it never got down to the level of people who post on forums.  The Google Drive deal was done by Getty and it seems they neglected to inform Istock about it until it came out in the wash.

And it is also important to remember that Getty in turn is owned by the Carlyle Group, a private equity group that will have it's own agenda.  The contributor of content is so far down the chain of command here that they don't even register. 

Istock staff may want to sell micro-stock photography but
Getty wants to maximize it's profit on selling stock photography and it's other assets but
Carlyle Group wants to maximize the return on it's investment to it's investors.

See the difference in point of view as you move up the ladder?  Istock staff MAY care about their contributors but their bosses at Getty certainly do not, though they MAY care about their stable of RM photographers and wholly owned collections, but Getty's bosses at Carlyle Group care only about making Getty look good enough to justify their $3.3B purchase price.   Are the people making decisions even thinking about photography?  Or just about how to make the company look good enough to sell?

100 years ago corporate coal barons sat in mansions and laughed at the idea that common miners would dare to argue for better working conditions or even accurate scales so they would be paid fairly.  I have this vision of some suits smoking cigars and chuckling over the idea that a few common photographers would dare to question a deal that might bring millions into the Getty coffers.

I don't think that it really matters to most contributors exactly who is pulling the strings, as we're the ones being hung regardless of who is on the other end.

Quote from: dingles on February 13, 2013, 20:03

There is nothing there that indicates they are taking ownership of anyone's work. Artist's are clearly included to what they refer to as "iStock parties".

The way it is written implies that they are part owners.  They are acting as agents to contributors and the DMCA should be written on their behalf and only on their behalf not for 'iStock parties' that include iStock.

Here's an example of the way an agent should write up a DMCA.

http://futurequest.net/Services/TOS/DMCA/DMCANotice.php

Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't believe it's worded correctly at all. 


ETA:  apologies for going off on a tangent.

Also nit=picking and off at a tangent, they aren't anybody's agent, they are merely a distributor. I would have thought you would have had to be an agent to be entitled to issue take-down notices.

Quote from: 9lives on February 13, 2013, 13:11

Quote

and this is the brain power that got us hear in the first place. when you cant defend yourself start calling ppl names, nice.

Sorry didn't you start the name calling bit by telling us we're all "brainless sheep"? Baaa.

Ok im sorry--it just pisses me off. we talk like adults then one person comes and namecalls or makes a snide remark. and i get carried away and do the same. sorry for that, i wont name call again.

We know you won't.

Look at your istock ASA, the one you were gently asked to agree last year, otherwise you would have had you account closed.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 14, 2013, 04:58

Quote from: Mars on February 13, 2013, 20:18

Quote from: dingles on February 13, 2013, 20:03

There is nothing there that indicates they are taking ownership of anyone's work. Artist's are clearly included to what they refer to as "iStock parties".

The way it is written implies that they are part owners.  They are acting as agents to contributors and the DMCA should be written on their behalf and only on their behalf not for 'iStock parties' that include iStock.

Here's an example of the way an agent should write up a DMCA.

http://futurequest.net/Services/TOS/DMCA/DMCANotice.php

Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't believe it's worded correctly at all. 


ETA:  apologies for going off on a tangent.

Also nit=picking and off at a tangent, they aren't anybody's agent, they are merely a distributor. I would have thought you would have had to be an agent to be entitled to issue take-down notices.

Hmmm, they're not an agent?  Did they say they're a distributor and not an agent and if so, is this something new?  By definition they have to be an agent.  To be a distributor, they would have to buy the licences from the contributors and then distribute them to third parties.  They also wouldn't have any negotiating power as a distributor.  I can't see how they're a distributor.  Isn't the contract of a licence sold between the copyright holder and the buyer?  If so, they'd have to be an agent.

I am confused now... have they changed the ASA again without telling us, like they did recently for the "Net revenue", or did I missed the change?

here is a related thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1

Quote from: JFP on February 14, 2013, 08:05

Look at your istock ASA, the one you were gently asked to agree last year, otherwise you would have had you account closed.

JFP, I'm not with them.  The last ASA I agreed to was back in April (I think) 2010.

I'm looking at the ASA now and it says they're an agent:

Quote

Background of Agreement
This is a legal agreement between any member intending to upload data or materials onto the Site (in this agreement referred to as �you� or the �Supplier�) and iStockphoto LP (�iStockphoto�). If you are a corporation or other entity or a minor you may be subject to further filing requirements. The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its non-exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Content (as defined below) produced by the Supplier on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement Upon accepting the terms of this Agreement, you may make Content available to iStockphoto by following the �Upload� procedures and policies identified on the relevant portion of the Site. Each upload of Content will be governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

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

ETA added quote and link

Fascinating, isn't it? I even pointed out in their forum that it was strange behaviour for a distributor and nobody came back and said "we're an agent". Maybe their lawyers pointed out they were doing things a distributor couldn't do so they had a little rewrite.

I am confused now... have they changed the ASA again without telling us, like they did recently for the "Net revenue", or did I missed the change?

here is a related thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1

Quote from: Mars on February 14, 2013, 08:14

Quote from: JFP on February 14, 2013, 08:05

Look at your istock ASA, the one you were gently asked to agree last year, otherwise you would have had you account closed.

JFP, I'm not with them.  The last ASA I agreed to was back in April (I think) 2010.

I'm looking at the ASA now and it says they're an agent:

Quote

Background of Agreement
This is a legal agreement between any member intending to upload data or materials onto the Site (in this agreement referred to as �you� or the �Supplier�) and iStockphoto LP (�iStockphoto�). If you are a corporation or other entity or a minor you may be subject to further filing requirements. The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its non-exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Content (as defined below) produced by the Supplier on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement Upon accepting the terms of this Agreement, you may make Content available to iStockphoto by following the �Upload� procedures and policies identified on the relevant portion of the Site. Each upload of Content will be governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

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

ETA added quote and link

.

Trying to sweep this under the carpet by booting Shaun, Getty admits wrongdoing and being vulnerable at the same time. That should give the rest of us hope that something CAN be done after all.

Much as we might wish this were so, they should have held their hands up, admitted they were wrong, promised not to do anything so insane in future and patted Sean on the back. That would have been the Right Thing To Do.
That was not the option they chose.

The "funny" thing is that Sean has been booted out under an ASA that he didn't signed as istock unilaterally changed the contract. I can't believe this could go on istock's favor in court.

Looks like iStock's lawyers have the same degree of expertise as its development team.

I can't speak for Sean as I don't know him but I would imagine he's hurting a little bit right now.  However, I suspect that 6 months from now he'll be turning cartwheels and silently thanking Getty for putting him on the path he's now on.

.

I lost productivity the last few days cus of this incident. Spending way too much time on msg!

+1

When Sean started the thread on IS, I was shocked not only because of the deal but the direct approach taken by Sean. I thought wow he's playing with fire, but he instantly got my respect. This was a deal too far (I'm sure there will be more to come) and Sean went out to defend/save his images, by exposing it. When I saw this thread on msg I was shocked, but not hugely. I think the Stocksy thing might become the excuse for their actions but the real reason I think is that they felt threatened by such a large figure (someone who has sway with the others) outright condemning their actions, and it also must have seemed to them that he was the spark that ignited the fire (the revolt, albeit mini one). I think Getty actually felt the situation was a threat and for them, in their eyes, the advantages of letting him go overtook the disadvantages. They did feel threatened though and I don't think that happens to them often.