Author Topic: Anyone heard of 3D Studio (Read 23227 times)

bittersweet · « **Reply #50 on:** July 25, 2009, 13:55 »

You cherry picked items from my post and that is fine. It is there in its entirety for everyone to read if they are interested in what I actually said.

Thank you for your time clarifying your position on things. I definitely feel better informed about your web site and wish you the best of your luck with your new venture.

Adeptris · « **Reply #51 on:** July 25, 2009, 14:22 »

Quote from: LisaAnderson on July 25, 2009, 13:16

I find it very interesting that someone wants to be “damned certain” something is “legally sound” yet they don’t consult an attorney! One wonders where they get their medical advice.

Lisa
@The3dStudio.com

Lisa,
I think that we are not communicating here at the same level, it could be that I am reading your posts as being dismissive of our views when they are not really meant to be, while reading it is hard to understand the tone that a reply was written in, which can lead to something written looking defensive or dismissive.

Quote from: LisaAnderson on July 25, 2009, 13:16

David, I’m sure are probably correct in your observation that big agencies have legal departments to protect them. I personally can’t make a conclusion from that observation that agencies’ legal departments therefore “protect everyone”.

Where did I say protect everyone?, I was talking about good business practices and I wrote "protect everyone as much as they can making the artist and buyer experience as safe as they can".

I find it hard understanding where your reply is coming from as you already run a business, and a lot of your business would be done on trust without a lawyer, as a customer you will need to trust a supplier that you deal with to protect you to a degree, by making sure that to the best of the suppliers knowledge that a purchase is legal and the goods are fit for use, so you can purchase a product or service with some confidence.

What I am saying is that other stocksites carry out a form of 'Due diligence' with each artist and asset that the artist uploads, when I joined the big agencies and before I could upload, I had to upload a copy of my passport for verification, each commercial image with any person or body part I upload must have a copy of the model release uploaded by me and assigned to the image before it is on sale, if not then I can only set a licence of Editorial Only and RM, this to me is reasonable due diligence.

I.M.O. this is not about placing blame if things go wrong, but any businesses greatest duty of care is to their customers, to ensure they have the knowledge and information to make a balanced and informed choice when making a purchase.

If I was a perspective buyer for a large company and I called or emailed your website and asked about your policy statements for due diligence with your asset suppliers and duty of care to your customers, and you came back with 'we offer a high level of contributor and client support' you would not be getting a contract for my business.

Quote

Due diligence in civil litigation is the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another party, failure to make this effort may be considered negligence, this is conceptually distinct from investigative due diligence, involving a general obligation to meet a standard of behaviour, quite often a contract will specify that a party is required to provide due diligence.

From a customers perspective even with a small $1 purchase, I would expect that the stocksite has carried out a form of due diligence with this asset supplier and expect them to have a duty of care towards me as a customer, it would not protect the website or me from a stolen image or a fraudulent model release, but it would then be fruad and a miss-representation by the artist, and could be subject to a legal proceeding against the artist in question.

Any product I purchase from a candy bar to a car, I would expect that the company had exercised due diligence with the supplier of the product, and a duty of care to me as the customer in any dispute about the fitness of the product for the required use, that is how I choose where to shop not just on a price point.

We are not trying to be negative, but trying to give another perspective and raise points we are concerned about, maybe a way forward is for you to talk to your legal advisors and discuss a few of the concerns and points we have raised, and see what comes back if they have never been asked before then they have not given you any advice.

David

LisaAnderson · « **Reply #52 on:** July 25, 2009, 17:10 »

Hi David,

My intention is never to be dismissive of anyone’s views here, or in life. I try to not take personal offense at things and I find most people do the same. I don’t feel negativity coming from the forum and I hope you are not feeling negativity from me.

I do think there’s a big difference between disagreeing and being negative. I have always assumed the purpose of forums was to exchange ideas for mutual benefit, and that the goal should be to express them in a respectful manner. Which I do think is done here. If we are all the same and agree on everything, where’s the education (or fun) in that?

I probably am communicating from a totally different viewpoint than many of you. I don’t see it as a negative when people approach something from different directions and express their views. I don’t want to seem dismissive of you folks. I want to understand you all better, since you represent some members of our site, either buyer or seller or both. The more I understand where you are coming from, the better able I will be to understand and serve our current and future members. I truly appreciate all the time and information that’s been shared.

I do still stand by my opinion—I am not saying I am right and others are wrong--I am just saying what I think on this matter: I find it hard to understand that someone concerned with being “certain” something is legal wouldn’t verify that for themselves, but would be willing to take internet advice, or to rely on their own interpretation of guidelines on a big stock agency’s advisors. Maybe that is just one of those “agree to disagree” topics.

Are our areas of difference here due to the differences between how you creatives (such as photographers) look at the world compared to those like me who are in the business end? Does that even matter--do we have to try to find agreement or can we just express our opinions? Respectfully of course.

As far as my “protecting everyone” statement. I was trying to state that I can’t make a conclusion about protection based on an agency having a legal department. I didn’t mean to imply that you had stated that or that you made that conclusion. I was using the quote marks to show emphasis not to attribute words to you. Sorry if I stated it badly and didn’t separate it from other statements, no offense meant.

It seems some photographers do think that if an agency has guidelines, the photographer is “protected” from some liability if they adhere to those guidelines. Maybe that’s possible in some situations, but overall I would not agree because I do not believe a photographer bears the liability in the first place in most situations. Of course I understand that one can be “right” legally and still have to expend time and dollars to prove it; I assume that may be what some photographers are concerned about.

I think we are on the same page about needing to trust those you do business with. I do trust, but I verify. For me, verification cannot be anonymous information from the internet. It’s information but not verification. Do not take that as a slam on anyone in this forum—I use internet in the overall sense—TripAdvisor, blog posts, Amazon.com comments as well as forums, everything you read where you do not personally know—I mean have met the writer in person and KNOW them. Not that I would totally discount internet info as there is much truth from good people “out there” AS EVIDENCED by this forum! But I could not make my decision about something important solely on that info without proof.

I agree businesses should practice due diligence. With a candy bar I will take it on faith but in legal matters that affect my business I want proof. If I as a photographer verified for myself that the guidelines are based on law and are applicable to me, I might consider that due diligence on the part of me and of the agency.

I don’t consider taking advice from someone to be due diligence unless the person had some credentials to back up their advice. Secondhand advice is never something I would rely on in a legal matter. Even a stock site’s guidelines to me do not prove due diligence because I don’t know the credentials of the writer of the guidelines. To me their guidelines are what they want or require for their benefit, not mine.

As I have said before, we have been in this not quite 2 months, and we are playing “catch up” in some areas. But just because we are not a threat to Getty doesn’t mean we should or will give up.

Those who join us are welcome, and we wish only good things to those who don’t.

I hope it continues to be positive here, which it seems to be for the most part. I’m sure most people who post on forums realize the biggest downside to writing as opposed to talking or personal conversations is that it is hard to capture the feeling, tone, or intention of what is being said.

Happy Weekend!

Lisa

Don’t take this wrong, but here’s something we discussed at our last meeting that still puzzles us: You mention in your post that you had to upload your passport, and we know some sites require or request photo ID. It struck us as ironic that expert Photoshop folks are being to submit a photo ID online to verify something. If any of you wanted to, couldn’t you easily modify the passport or photo ID?

So what is being verified? Honestly, I am not trying to “stir the pot” but it doesn’t make sense to us so we must be missing something. We recognize that a web site’s requirements must be met if one wants to join that site, but what exactly is being verified and how is identity verified with a scanned document?

Adeptris · « **Reply #53 on:** July 25, 2009, 17:59 »

Quote from: LisaAnderson on July 25, 2009, 17:10

Don’t take this wrong, but here’s something we discussed at our last meeting that still puzzles us: You mention in your post that you had to upload your passport, and we know some sites require or request photo ID. It struck us as ironic that expert Photoshop folks are being to submit a photo ID online to verify something. If any of you wanted to, couldn’t you easily modify the passport or photo ID?

So what is being verified? Honestly, I am not trying to “stir the pot” but it doesn’t make sense to us so we must be missing something. We recognize that a web site’s requirements must be met if one wants to join that site, but what exactly is being verified and how is identity verified with a scanned document?

Lisa I agree it is good to take different perspectives,
Altering a passport or using someone elses passport as ID would be a serious criminal offence in most countries and most likely would attract a prison term if used for fraud, that is why some agencies will take nothing else as verification, as a company it would show that you had done due diligence on the supplier and everything possible to protect yourselves and your customers from falling prey to fraudsters, that would be the same with offering the correct data boxes for artists to enter the relevent assets data.

The most sophisticated and cunning fraudsters will take care to ensure that their information appears to be 'squeaky clean' and therefore they will pass with flying colours any tests of their credibility.

Scenario #1:
A fraud claim is made and a transaction is examined in detail, the circumstances of the supply and sale of the asset, and the knowledge which was in the possession of the website, the websites awareness of any fraud, as passports are often accepted as due diligence 'fraud indicators' this would likely be a good defence of any claim, also the model release information submitted by the fraudster would help defend any claim.

Scenario #2:
A claim is made and a transaction is examined in detail, the circumstances of the supply and sale of the asset, and the knowledge which was in the possession of the website, the websites awareness of any fraud, as no supplier verification was asked for as a 'fraud indicator' this would likely not be a good defence of any claim, also if no model release information was submitted by the fraudster.

In scenario #2 it could be claimed that the website did not carry out due diligence or a duty of care to the customer so was negligent in all matters, which is a different civil charge to deal with than the copyright theft.

David

Adeptris · « **Reply #54 on:** July 28, 2009, 04:39 »

I have just checked back and as promised the People with No Model Releases now say "No Model Release Editorial Only"

As they 'do as they say on the tin', listen to suppliers and customers and change if needed, we have a new stock image website with an existing customer base, so prehaps worth a second look.

Hope to see thier advertisment on the forums shortly

Notes: Non US artist this is a withholding tax setup until you sort out the IRS, Quote: "If you are located in a country other than the U.S. you must send an IRS W-8 form to us."

No Property Release or RM Options as yet!

David

LisaAnderson · « **Reply #55 on:** July 28, 2009, 09:26 »

Thanks for checking back with us, David.

We will be discussing some paid advertising soon, though our first stabs at it likely will be directed toward those who buy stock, but I will put the forum on the list for consideration as well.

We have been the term "model release" in a generic sense to apply to both people and buildings so if someone has a released shot of the Eiffel Tower at night (which I was told is what the trademark covers), they could certainly add that product with us and use the "model release" option.

A couple people on our team have been working steadily to approve releases for each of the photos that were on the site when we updated our photo/image product creation form. I don't think they are done yet, so there may still be photos of people where you still see release n/a. We hope to be done very soon.

If anyone has any suggestions for other places we should look for advertising, for buyers as well as photographers, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

Or if you have a great idea for improving our site or how we do things, we would love to hear from you!

Thanks!
[email protected]

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #56 on:** July 28, 2009, 10:40 »

Yes, it is good to see the changes. I would suggest actually defining "editorial" usage somewhere. Your legal page seems a bit light: http://www.the3dstudio.com/legal.aspx .

I would suggest not trying to lump model release and property release together. They aren't the same thing, and in an image where both are required, it would be confusing to the buyer if there actually was the necessary releases.

LisaAnderson · « **Reply #57 on:** July 28, 2009, 11:15 »

I think you are right on the MR/PR combo and we will have to address that. I have added it to my list for tomorrow's staff meeting. After your earlier post, one of our team pointed out the type of instance where it could be a problem to have only MR, such as a photo of a person standing in front of the Eiffel Tower at night.

We probably will be updating the legal agreement again after we meet with our attorney in a few weeks. We have many Members from other countries so we hope to be able to keep the "legalese" as short and simple as possible.

Lots of stuff for us to do but we will keep working until we get there!

All of us here appreciate your ideas and willingness to share info.

lisa

Adeptris · « **Reply #58 on:** July 28, 2009, 11:52 »

Quote from: LisaAnderson on July 28, 2009, 09:26

Thanks for checking back with us, David.

We will be discussing some paid advertising soon, though our first stabs at it likely will be directed toward those who buy stock, but I will put the forum on the list for consideration as well.
<...
>...
If anyone has any suggestions for other places we should look for advertising, for buyers as well as photographers, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

Or if you have a great idea for improving our site or how we do things, we would love to hear from you!

Thanks!
[email protected]

The release question is a little more involved as Sean points out, I have flowers and plants now as editorial when they are really commercial:

It is Four options that decide where the useage sits:
Has People | Model Released | Has Property | Property Released | Licence
>>No << | >>>No <<<< | >>>>No<<< | >>>>>No<<<<< | Commercial
>>Yes<< | >>>Yes <<<< | >>>>No<<< | >>>>>No<<<<< | Commercial
>>Yes<< | >>>Yes <<<< | >>>Yes<<< | >>>>Yes <<<<< | Commercial
>>Yes<< | >>>No <<<< | >>>>No<<< | >>>>>No<<<<< | Editorial
>>Yes<< | >>>Yes <<<< | >>>>Yes<<< | >>>>>No<<<<< | Editorial

<<..................>>
The Idea of the Forum Ad is so artists can find you without having to trawl through the forums, I have a 125x125px visible to all regular members and guests in all topics 1/4 of the time - your ad is rotated equally with 3 other ads for $30 a month

Much longer term Rights Managed option as well, some of us have RM commercial and editorial images on other websites so we cannot upload them as RF, there are a few other considerations to look at with RM as well!

RM has a number of other options like sector, country, usage SAA have a pack you can download as a guide!

David

LisaAnderson · « **Reply #59 on:** July 28, 2009, 22:50 »

Thanks for the info on SAA and releases.

We briefly discussed RM and likely will do so again so all info will be reviewed as we go forward.

lisa@T3DS

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Anyone heard of 3D Studio (Read 23227 times)

bittersweet

Adeptris

LisaAnderson

Adeptris

Adeptris

LisaAnderson

Sean Locke Photography

LisaAnderson

Adeptris

LisaAnderson

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors