No, there aren't really any posted rules.  Common sense would say to keep images with similar subjects separate, to keep up the value of the exclusive collection.

http://istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

Quote from FAQs:

Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:

    * Rights-managed files with other organizations
    * Personal portfolio sites
    * Work for hire/editorial work contracts
    * Prints for sale
    * Prints, t-shirts and the like produced on art-only sites such as cafepress.com

If you need a sure answer, don't hesitate to write to support (mark "Contributor relations" and you'll probably have a faster answer). Ah... and don't forget to post what you have larned when getting the answer!

Another interesting question: IS do not require exclusivity if you sell your photo with Getty Images. Does it now include StockXpert which is owned by Jupiter Images which is owned by Getty Images?

The sale hasn't gone through yet. My guess is that once it does, we'll hear about any new rules. I can't imagine diluting iStock exclusive content that way, however.

Quote from: araminta on November 04, 2008, 08:55

Seems quite clear to me that IS do not require exclusivity for RM images: IS allow you to sell ANY photo on RM site.

Since the point of exclusivity is to create a collection with a value due to the limited access of that exclusive content, putting similar images, even at an RM site, would devalue your work as an exclusive.

In this case why does IS allow exclusive to sell their images on RM sites?

The notion of similars is quite well understood in stock.

Same model, different clothes and location and props is fine. Same model, same props, same location, different expression is a similar and not OK.

Quote from: araminta on November 04, 2008, 08:55

Seems quite clear to me that IS do not require exclusivity for RM images: IS allow you to sell ANY photo on RM site.

Since the point of exclusivity is to create a collection with a value due to the limited access of that exclusive content, putting similar images, even at an RM site, would devalue your work as an exclusive.

So the way I'm reading your comments are that it's perfectly acceptable to IS for exclusive contributors to submit similar images (which I'm not planning on doing, I just want to know what is/isn't acceptable) as RM elsewhere And that the only issue is it might devalue my work (and most likely exclusive work as a whole)?

There's gotta be more to it than that. I can't image IS letting an exclusive contributor submit a similar smiling customer service rep image to IS and RM even if it's from different shoots.

It's always been my impression you shouldn't even submit the same categories of images (sports, beach, etc) to IS and RM.

Sounds like getting an answer straight from IS is the way to go here.

[/quote]

So the way I'm reading your comments are that it's perfectly acceptable to IS for exclusive contributors to submit similar images (which I'm not planning on doing, I just want to know what is/isn't acceptable) as RM elsewhere And that the only issue is it might devalue my work (and most likely exclusive work as a whole)?

There's gotta be more to it than that. I can't image IS letting an exclusive contributor submit a similar smiling customer service rep image to IS and RM even if it's from different shoots.

It's always been my impression you shouldn't even submit the same categories of images (sports, beach, etc) to IS and RM.

Sounds like getting an answer straight from IS is the way to go here.

[/quote]

PW,

There are only so many ways to shoot a smiling service rep and they all quickly become similar, and yes I would consider them not similar if they had different models in different
wardrobe against a different backdrop (except white).  Categories are wide open and I wouldn't worry about shooting within those categories for both RM and RF. As far as devaluing your work by selling similar images through RM venues outside of micros, is laughable. I mean, you decide to sell for many dollars instead of quarters or a few bucks and this devalues your work? If anything it increases the value of it. Also the thought that just because the image is exclusive to iS and somehow you will devalue it selling as RM is just as laughable. You may get a few sales a year if it is really hot. How does this weigh against hundreds or even thousands of sales per year against hot micro images? Remember that just because its RM doesn't mean its exclusive or can have exclusivity licensing attached to it. Go to Getty and see the articles on sistering and their requirements. There it actually counts because they do sell exclusivity. I guess iS likes to have an as exclusive arrangement as possible but besides upsetting them it won't matter a diddle if a similar happened to be sold else where.

Surely this is a non issue. If an image is available on an RM site, and the same image on istock (but no other RF site) at a significantly lower price, why should istock worry? The RM site might though, as someone has already mentioned.

wow, this gets complicated.
as a newbie it's even more complicated, all this licensing issues.
RF, RM, exclusive..
can you be more specific?
eg. if you have images of a pregnant lady drinking tea looking out the window.
can you make the same pose , with even the same woman, in a different house
drinking tea? drinking coffee?
and use this with say Alamy RM?
the concept is the same. the model is the same. only the setting is not.
or say something that Yuri has lots of . a bunch of ppl in suits.
but the same models in the same pose . but in a different order.
can one be exclusive RF, and the other be RM?
from what leaf says, you can. or else the models will be out of work fast enough.
do i understand you all completely?  i am confused too. and yes, i do want
clarification too. not just exclusive RF vs RM, but also RF vs RM.

Start with this:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/rm-vs-rf/

citing yourself for authority.. tisk tisk. I'd go read Yuri's blog before sean's.   


P.S. Post is meant to be jab at Sean, not an actual suggestion.

thx sean ! much appreciated
yingyang, quite honestly, i am not a video fan 
 i will check out yuri's too if i can find the URL again.
(newbie ignorance, sorry)

Surely this is a non issue. If an image is available on an RM site, and the same image on istock (but no other RF site) at a significantly lower price, why should istock worry? The RM site might though, as someone has already mentioned.

You said it, this would be an issue for the RM site. From Sean's website: Typically, for an image that has always been licensed as Rights Managed, the licensor is able to provide a history of usage to a prospective licensee.

How can you sell an image RM and provide history, when the same photo is up for sale as RF without any tracking?

Here's another way to look at it. If a photo has ever been licensed as RF it can never be sold RM. If a photo is up on IS it can't be sold anywhere else RF.

Since this thread has taken various directions beyond the original question, selling similar images from the same shoot is a different question. I don't see why not as they are different photos. "girl with glass of wine facing left" RF on IS "girl with glass of wine, facing right" RM Alamy.  Same setting, same clothes, same girl, but a different photo. Am I wrong about this?

If it's wrong, how different does it need to be to be "different"? Sounds complicated?

Yes, if I understand this right, you can be an exclusive at IS and sell RM images elsewhere. You just can't sell RF on other sites.