MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The New Contract Non-exclusive  (Read 3076 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 15, 2014, 19:48 »
0
Here it is, I'm no lawyer so no knowledgeable  comments from me.



Ed

« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2014, 20:34 »
0
Interesting.

Today I signed a 3 year non-exclusive contract with a RM agency.  I read it, it was straightforward, and it was only 5 pages long - 75% of the first page was my name and address and theirs, 75% of the last page related to where I sign my name and they sign their name...and blank space. 

This iStock agreement is 13 pages long, doesn't allow me to hold them liable for more than $1,000 USD if they decide to screw you over more than they already do, and they require that you work through arbitration instead of the U.S. Court system - in their choice of venue.

What this contract from iStock is telling me is 1) they really seem to upset a lot of folks that look to sue them and; 2) either they are looking at trying to sub-license images from other micro agencies or they are giving an absolute blessing for folks to upload images in the public domain - such as images from NASA (which also get uploaded to other agencies - both micro and macro despite the requirement that you must have created the content).

I'd prefer to work with an agent that is up front and likes to keep things simple, but that's just me.

« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2014, 20:38 »
-1
First as I see at that new "contract" iShmacksPhoto final achived to buy iStock domain from 643674378 placed wannabe brokerage site from Antartica scam site.

« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2014, 01:40 »
0
Istock is no longer Canadian but US now, so taxes apply. For contributors from non tax treaty countries that can mean 30% taxes.

« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2014, 02:42 »
+2
Istock is no longer Canadian but US now, so taxes apply. For contributors from non tax treaty countries that can mean 30% taxes.
... on licenses sold to US customers, not on everything, thank goodness. I have no idea what percentage of iStock sales are to the US, the lower it is the better ---- I should soon be finding out.

« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2014, 03:31 »
+3
 on SS I got approximately  10%  less because of 30% us tax sales - IS is more popular in us - so it could be much more...?!

« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2014, 04:16 »
0
I don't have any exact numbers, but from the time of day the stats update it seems I have more US sales on IS than on SS, plus SS has the submission of tax info pretty well organized and simplified. Let's hope IS will do likewise.

Dook

« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2014, 04:22 »
+5
First as I see at that new "contract" iShmacksPhoto final achived to buy iStock domain from 643674378 placed wannabe brokerage site from Antartica scam site.
Suljo is back!

« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2014, 09:17 »
0
I'm no lawyer like Pauli says but I was not aware that it takes three months for them to remove your content if you terminate the agreement. I know the argument on their side....that some of your images may be light boxed and slated for use but not actually purchased yet.  They are looking out for the customer, and the Getty/IS brand & reputation. I guess its better than six months with DT. Other sites are instant. Interesting.

« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2014, 16:32 »
+2
Either way you have two choices agree

or not agree and remove your port. 

BTW you can't upload photos there until you do agree so I found today

So folks iStock wants to shaft you all over again  >:(

« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2014, 13:35 »
+1
Why are we not surprised?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
223 Replies
43026 Views
Last post May 18, 2011, 11:08
by eurobanks
1 Replies
1782 Views
Last post October 24, 2012, 12:34
by velocicarpo
19 Replies
4051 Views
Last post November 30, 2012, 15:44
by ShadySue
2 Replies
1054 Views
Last post March 01, 2017, 02:46
by alno
0 Replies
498 Views
Last post April 21, 2019, 04:26
by vuk8691

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results