I read this article earlier today and immediately thought of all the talk here regarding a class-action suit against iStock. It sounds like the contributors have been cut off at the knees. Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect.

I read this article earlier today and immediately thought of all the talk here regarding a class-action suit against iStock. It sounds like the contributors have been cut off at the knees. Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect.

-----------------------------
Wondered the same thing myself.  There are lots of variables between the case the court ruled on and what any potential case would be against Istock.  I don't know if the differences are significant to escape this ruling.  

Of course the big difference is that a class action could be pursued in Canada since its (not yet) part of the U.S. :-)

Sounds like class-action lawyers are the big losers here.

I'd worry about actually having something to sue over before deciding whether you can do it.

First thing that I asked myself last I saw some hints of this.

On what grounds? The contract everyone agreed to says, they can make changes, with notice. We can accept or leave.

Why would there be a lawsuit based on ThinkStock and not the other 18+ agencies and divisions that Getty owns that all compete with each other in some ways?

I really don't understand?

If at any time the Rate Schedule is not acceptable to the Supplier, you may refrain from providing additional Content or terminate this Agreement in accordance with its terms.

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

16. e

This Agreement can be amended by the written agreement of the parties or by iStockphoto posting amendments on the Upload portion of the Site. Continued provision of Content or failure to terminate this Agreement within thirty (30) days of posting of such amendment will be deemed to be acceptance of the amendment by the Supplier and it will be incorporated by reference into this Agreement.

I went with payments, commissions, promises of levels Etc. I see there are other issues that some people thing might be viable. I hadn't considered all of those.

Nothing in the contract says you can't bring a suit. As my lawyer friends say, you can sue for anything, it's the winning and collecting that becomes a problem.

Lots of things are written into contracts but if there has been damage done, contracts might be irrelevant.

Case in point. Horseback riding stables were constantly getting sued when riders would fall off, get hurt, and then sue the stables. So the stables started making everyone sign a release of liability form. Guess what. It doesn't matter. If someone gets hurt, they are going to sue, and in some cases, win. (No, I don't have links to case files to prove what I am saying but I am sure if you want to prove me right or wrong, you can google it and see.)

Quote from: sjlocke on Today at 11:15
I'd worry about actually having something to sue over before deciding whether you can do it.

The first thing that comes to my mind is fraud. Seems like the whole credit card fraud/clawback issue just disappeared off the face of the earth. Thousands of contributors were expected to believe what corporate attorneys told a select handful of contributors. With all due respect to those involved in the phone call, it proved absolutely nothing.

The only way to find out exactly what is/was going on is to have an independent audit of the books and have attorneys get involved. That so many contributors were involved means that the simplest way, from a legal standpoint, to handle it might be a class action lawsuit. Some people lost a lot of money, some people lost a little money. If there was wrongdoing, it doesn't matter if it was $1.00 or $1,000 that was clawed back. It's still stealing, it's still fraud, and it should still be punished.

I am all for any legal remedies that might be offered large groups of people when large corporations may be taking advantage and abusing their vendors or buyers. It remains to be seen whether or not that is what Getty/istock is/was doing.

And I can think of another reason to sue...many contributors opted out of the whole Thinkstock partner program, yet their images remained, and in some cases, still remain on the site, for sale. That's copyright infringement.

Some people are going to believe there is nothing to sue over. Some have a pretty good idea there is something to sue over. To each his own, lets the chips fall where they may, if the shoe fits, and every other cliche that might be relevant in this conversation. 

No matter what the contract, you can never sign away your right to file a lawsuit. The key is whether or not the courts consider your suit valid enough to proceed, and you have the money it takes to fight.

If people can sue McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on themselves - and WIN! - then suing Getty for that fraud debacle doesn't seem so far fetched.