I've been a vector contributor at iStock for years now. I'd like to test the waters but I don't want to lose my exclusivity status. Here is the thing I'm thinking. All of my iStock work is credited to me as an individual. All royalties are paid to in my legal name as well. Could I, as an individual, sell exclusive vectors through iStock while an independent business i own creates and sells royalty free vectors through other sites? Would this violate the exclusivity terms?

I've been a vector contributor at iStock for years now. I'd like to test the waters but I don't want to lose my exclusivity status. Here is the thing I'm thinking. All of my iStock work is credited to me as an individual. All royalties are paid to in my legal name as well. Could I, as an individual, sell exclusive vectors through iStock while an independent business i own creates and sells royalty free vectors through other sites? Would this violate the exclusivity terms?

If you have a look at the Exclusive Artist Supply Agreement, there is a number of things you are allowed to do as an exclusive listed in section 2. a. One of the statements is:

"Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity,"

As you can read Jo Ann Snover doesn't remember it correctly: You are allowed to work for hire and sell your works directly to others but not if they are going to resell or license them. So you you can not provide content to anyone else if that content is going to be put up as stock somewhere, no matter if you own that other entity or not.

If you want to explore the world outside of iStock, I would say as a vector artist your best bet is to move into the world of pixel based illustrations or maybe 3D. Images that are being saved and sold as JPG. Because that is in fact a possibility: Stay exclusive with your vector work but sell everything that is counted as a "photo" on iStock on other places as a non-exclusive.

But again, it's a thin line. You can not just take your EPS (or AI) files and save them as JPG. In some way they need to be different enough to classify them as JPG files.

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:23

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:00

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:48

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:44

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:23

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:00

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:59

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:54

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:48

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:44

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:23

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:00

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?

If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person.  iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business.  Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 12:15

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 12:07

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:59

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:54

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:48

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:44

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:23

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:00

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?

If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person.  iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business.  Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.

If you're OK with skirting the boundaries of ethics by doing business with a company that offers sweetheart deals and breaks the law, don't chastise others for seeing what they're doing and looking for ways to skirt around things as well.

You've drawn an arbitrary line that stops exactly where you personally feel comfortable with questionable ethics and illegality as long as it makes you money, but still feel entitled to climb up on your high horse.

The line I'm drawing is nowhere near arbitrary.  I'm saying committing immoral and illegal actions by a person is wrong, even if you're committing them against someone or some business you see as immoral or doing something illegal.  Just because someone might think a company is immoral and doing illegal things doesn't mean they should be excused from stealing from them or defrauding the company.  It's a clear bright line and I'm honestly surprised that this a point that needs arguing, it should be clear to everyone here.

You aren't going to persuade me that defrauding a company and buyers is ok and I'm not going to persuade you that it's wrong so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

We can't forget that Istock is the most ethical company on the planet either.  They would never enter into an agreement with you and then reduce your royalties. And they would never enter into an agreement with you to sell your art on their site and then drop the price and sell as subscription elsewhere.

And you can leave whenever you see fit.  Defrauding the company and buyers should never be your reaction.  I hope you can agree with that.

I do agree Tickstock.  It just drives me mad that we abide to an agreement and they do whatever, whenever they want.  Because they can.

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 14:53

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

Like I said you won't convince me that it's ok to defraud buyers or a company, no matter how bad you see them (obviously it can't be that bad or you wouldn't be paying them 85% to license your work).  It's wrong, period.

So you think iStock is wrong for defrauding buyers. Ok, then. Great.

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 14:53

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

It is your double standards that are confusing.

"Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?"

As for the original question, there is no grey area when it comes to right or wrong.

It is like saying because my wife does not clean the house the way I think she ought to; it is okay for me to cheat on her because she deserves to be punished for her infractions.

iS created a legal loophole for some contributors to get the benefits of exclusivity while also contributing to other sites. The OP is asking about the possibilty of a similar loophole that would allow him or her to act the same way as the contributors who benefit from iStock's special loophole. Who's wrong?

Quote from: gbalex on June 10, 2015, 16:08

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 14:53

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

It is your double standards that are confusing.

"Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?"

As for the original question, there is no grey area when it comes to right or wrong.

It is like saying because my wife does not clean the house the way I think she ought to; it is okay for me to cheat on her because she deserves to be punished for her infractions.

iS created a legal loophole for some contributors to get the benefits of exclusivity while also contributing to other sites. The OP is asking about the possibilty of a similar loophole that would allow him or her to act the same way as the contributors who benefit from iStock's special loophole. Who's wrong?

Then he needs to do the same thing that Yuri, Andres, etc did. Contact IS upfront and hammer out a mutually agreeable deal.

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 16:30

Quote from: gbalex on June 10, 2015, 16:08

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 14:53

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

It is your double standards that are confusing.

"Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?"

As for the original question, there is no grey area when it comes to right or wrong.

It is like saying because my wife does not clean the house the way I think she ought to; it is okay for me to cheat on her because she deserves to be punished for her infractions.

iS created a legal loophole for some contributors to get the benefits of exclusivity while also contributing to other sites. The OP is asking about the possibilty of a similar loophole that would allow him or her to act the same way as the contributors who benefit from iStock's special loophole. Who's wrong?

Then he needs to do the same thing that Yuri, Andres, etc did. Contact IS upfront and hammer out a mutually agreeable deal.

This would be ethical, but not gonna happen for the average contributors.

None of us, me included, can claim any moral high ground in this dodgy industry.  They say 'you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps';  that clearly applies equally to women,  and it has seemed for quite some time that the various micro company/ies we keep have pretty low ethical standards.

Exclusivity is no doubt a double edged sword more nowadays. I made the jump a few months ago and uploaded more than half of my portfolio. Love the freedom and less risk about this but financially I think that Istock exclusivity is still better if you are on the 35-40 % royalty, with 30% or less I would say that being non exclusive is more profitable BUT there is definetely more work sending images to more agencies (more categorization, upload problems, releases, etc) and time is money. I am still on the fence on what to do.

 I am inclined to go back to exclusivity and accept that the golden age is over and focus on producing images with the present state of the industry but being in one of the premium agencies like Stocksy or Offset might make all the difference to stay free. I cannot get over that 50 images sold at shutterstock only bring me a little more over 20$ when it only takes 2 images to get the same amount at Istock.

I am glad to know now first hand and can assure that pastures are NOT greener on the independent side, there is a lot of hatred here against Istock for a good reason. Their behaviour and action has been negative to clients and contributors the last 3 years but financially they still can deliver. Don't know for how much time do as the trend is falling like a rock. If they don't change that it is game over for exclusivity sooner than later. Keep an eye on the microstock poll it is much more accurate than I expected. Once Istock exclusive numbers fall under 150 it will really make no sense to keep the crown. I remember not so far ago it was over 400........that's how bad things have turned out there.

. [accidental duplicate post] .

I think ethics matter. If a stock site treats you unethically, I can see why you'd have the impulse to return the favor. What would bother me more is if someone were to gain an unfair advantage over his/her competitors....us. In this specific case I'm not sure any advantage would be gained, with all the extra work and separate portfolios involved. However, the faux exclusivity iStock gave to some contributors definitely is unfair to the rest of us, since the same images can be licensed elsewhere. I'm sure ticky would argue that it's legal, but legal isn't necessarily ethical.

What I did to test the waters was to create new unique images and sell them as RM elsewhere. Istock allows this in their exclusive contract. Over the past year and a half I promoted the RM to see how it did. If it did well I could transition out of exclusivity. If not I'd stay. Seems to be a safer approach then risking your income with a perceived loophole.

I was merely wanting to explore ideas that would minimize immediate financial risk test the waters legally so I can ween myself from iStock exclusivity.

I was also an exclusive vector contributor and I dropped photo exclusivity and submitted raster illustrations to the other sites for a year or two.  They probably changed the rule when they made rasters a more prominent part of the Illustration side, but it's something you should look into.  When I was ready to jump, it really helped because I had a buffer income and it gave me a chance to learn the quirks of the various sites. But, the rule has probably been changed.

Anyhow, I make more as a non-exclusive than I did in those last months as an exclusive.

Yes RM and direct sales have been absolutely worth it. It hasn't been easy but with the right strategy, effort, and time the potential is there. My focus moving forward is RM direct sales and other image sales outside of stock. I haven't submitted a new batch of images to Getty or Istock in over a year. I appreciate the opportunity I've had with them but I need to spend my time on things that meet my business and financial needs.

Thank you for sharing this info.   Will probably be very helpful to others in similar situations.

as i remember it IS allowed to have different contributor accounts - as an author, and as corporate-account holder.
 also, if i remember correctly - if you do so - you are NOT allowed to be author of any single file on your corporate account. so, if you have small company, with hired people working for the company - it is allowed that company to have it's own account. at least - it was few years ago.

 is it etical/moral e.t.c.? - for me - it is.

 BUT - i think you should ask contributor relations, and explain yur question.
 i can speak for myself of course - but whenever i asked contributor support any kind of question, that i was not sure about - i always had helpful answer, and in reasonable time. with no exception.

 so - ask support, i think it is the best way to go.
 

Quote from: Micky_Mango on June 12, 2015, 01:13

If it's such a bad place why not just leave? You can't be earning much money there, you have mentioned before you have a full time job in advertising, you complain a lot about IS, and yet your work is still there. Most people would say 'Why'?

No most people would not ask why.  At least not if tbey are istock contributors.  Contributing to a site doesn't prevent you from complaining about it.  It makes it more likely you will care about it because you and your income are affected by their policies.  And if a sites policies negatively affect you, it makes sense to complain.

I wonder more why people who aren't on a site bother to complain about it.

I disagree.

Quote from: Micky_Mango on June 12, 2015, 01:13

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:54

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:48

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:44

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:23

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:00

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

If it's such a bad place why not just leave? You can't be earning much money there, you have mentioned before you have a full time job in advertising, you complain a lot about IS, and yet your work is still there. Most people would say 'Why'?

If everyone left an agency because there was something to complain about, there'd be very few contributors to any agency.

Again your personal double standards are confusing, you have made it clear that it is okay for you Shelma1 to "turn a blind eye" and do business with IS "as long as they make you money" while at the same time you berate tickstock's ethics for contributing to "a company that breaks the law".

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:59

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?

Again your personal double standards are confusing, you have made it clear that it is okay for you Shelma1 to "turn a blind eye" and do business with IS "as long as they make you money" while at the same time you berate tickstock's ethics for contributing to "a company that breaks the law".

I don't think you need to point any of this out it's so blatantly obvious what she is doing.  Anyone reading what she's written will quite easily see how hypocritical and unethical she is.  There are some big differences between us, she believes they are doing illegal and unethical things and is still contributing as long she can make a buck, I don't believe they doing anything illegal and I don't believe that treating different contributors differently is unethical.  I have no respect for her so I've decided to put her back on ignore and trust that everyone will see her opinions for what they are without anymore argument from me.

The OP wants to get around the contract he signed so he can get the benefits of exclusivity and nonexclusivity at the same time, that's just wrong and I'm surprised to see anyone arguing for that.

You think it's wrong when the OP simply asks about a legal way to get both benefits, but not when iStock actually does it.

Seems like the most consistent view would be that both are wrong.

Quote from: Micky_Mango on June 12, 2015, 01:13

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:54

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:48

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:44

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:23

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:00

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

If it's such a bad place why not just leave? You can't be earning much money there, you have mentioned before you have a full time job in advertising, you complain a lot about IS, and yet your work is still there. Most people would say 'Why'?

If everyone left an agency because there was something to complain about, there'd be very few contributors to any agency.

Would that matter? Surely that would be a good thing, everyone gets pissed with agencies, everyone leaves, agency left high and dry, where is the problem?

Yup. But I can understand the impulse to want to level an unfair playing field.

Why would it be "unfair"? If you don't get the deals you want, your product probably isn't good enough.

It's not like anyone would be discriminated because of their skin color, gender, sexual preference or whatever. You can do everything that all the big guys do. You just have to become a big guy (or gal) yourself first. You're free to do whatever business you want with whoever you want in the way you want. But so do all of your business partners. No one is obliged to give you the same treatment as someone who is just better at doing what they do.

And I don't mean anything of this personally directed at anyone, it's just the way business goes and I am as much of a "you" in all of this as most others in this forum.