Author Topic: iStock Exclusive Loophole (Read 14619 times)

heywoody · « **Reply #25 on:** June 10, 2015, 18:54 »

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

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.

While I agree that doing something immoral / illegal is not justified just because the other party is doing so, the whole file a complaint thing doesn't really hold water as nobody sane is going to get litigious over a few bucks. Is there somewhere to simply report evidence of IS not meeting is contractual obligations?

gbalex · « **Reply #26 on:** June 10, 2015, 19:40 »

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #27 on:** June 10, 2015, 19:46 »

Immoral, illegal, or not, I don't see how it would benefit the OP. It would be a whole lot of extra work to create a company, apply for acceptance at all the sites as a separate entity, and create a separate portfolio of non-exclusive images—which, if the poll at the right is any indication, would probably earn the same amount at several agencies combined as the exclusive files earn at iStock. You really can't have the same files be exclusive and non-exclusive simultaneously—and make double earnings—unless you have the special unfair iStock sweetheart deal. Or am I missing something?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #28 on:** June 10, 2015, 20:00 »

Quote from: gbalex on June 10, 2015, 19:40

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.

Evty · « **Reply #29 on:** June 10, 2015, 23:29 »

Wow this has certainly been a very spirited debate! While my question was dealing primarily with the legal end i was just and interested at hearing the ethical discussions that would ensue. I really appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts concerning both issues

iStock exclusivity has really been a double edged sword. When I went exclusive iStock promised a great royalty rate, marketing and better protection for my work. Back in the Bruce Livingstone days, they made good on the promise. I had 45% royalty rate, my work was posted all over the place and getting lots of views and iStock even chased down copyright infringers working up a very sizable settlement for me at times. Now however my royalty rate has dropped to 30%, iStock's marketing power and visibility has dropped significantly (see alexa.com) and iStock won't even follow up on my infringers.

I want to leave but the exclusive royalty rate is the thing keeping me. I'm the only one in my house that's working and I have a family to support. Losing exclusivity with nothing to immediately supplement it would be taking food out of mouths. Also afraid that if I was brave enough to drop exclusive and come back that my work would lose it's priority in searches on iStock and Getty. 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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #30 on:** June 11, 2015, 02:37 »

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.

Difydave · « **Reply #31 on:** June 11, 2015, 04:44 »

Quote from: Evty on June 10, 2015, 23:29

Wow this has certainly been a very spirited debate! While my question was dealing primarily with the legal end i was just and interested at hearing the ethical discussions that would ensue. I really appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts concerning both issues

iStock exclusivity has really been a double edged sword. When I went exclusive iStock promised a great royalty rate, marketing and better protection for my work. Back in the Bruce Livingstone days, they made good on the promise. I had 45% royalty rate, my work was posted all over the place and getting lots of views and iStock even chased down copyright infringers working up a very sizable settlement for me at times. Now however my royalty rate has dropped to 30%, iStock's marketing power and visibility has dropped significantly (see alexa.com) and iStock won't even follow up on my infringers.

I want to leave but the exclusive royalty rate is the thing keeping me. I'm the only one in my house that's working and I have a family to support. Losing exclusivity with nothing to immediately supplement it would be taking food out of mouths. Also afraid that if I was brave enough to drop exclusive and come back that my work would lose it's priority in searches on iStock and Getty. 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.

That's life though isn't it? There is nearly always some compromise; You can't have your cake and eat it etc.
It really is simple. If you want to do business with multiple agencies, drop exclusivity. The exclusivity rate is for having your work exclusively at iStock, unless you have arranged another deal with them directly.
If you want to submit as multiple entities, I'd run it past them first. That way there will be no problems down the line.
Also remember that (as far as I know) none of the agencies has any actual obligation to do business with any individual or business. It's entirely up to them. I wouldn't want to fall foul of the rules either written or implied.

everest · « **Reply #32 on:** June 11, 2015, 04:44 »

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.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #33 on:** June 11, 2015, 06:36 »

Quote from: everest on June 11, 2015, 04:44

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.

Yes, I had some doubts if my decision was right several times. And the sums you see when you have a few days of only subscription sales at Shutterstock can be very depressing. Then again, I also see that today it takes 2 credit sales on iStock to get to $20 but effectively it takes more like 6 sales as well, given that two thirds of downloads are coming from subscriptions. Due to their reporting lag it is just hidden better. And also I get large sales on Shutterstock pretty regulary, like multiple each month, while the really large sales at iStock have become extremely rare.

But I agree, without a premium price agency it is becoming a very, very hard way to make decent money in microstock.

However, the OP is a vector artist which opens a completely different world. If I was an established exclusive vector artist at iStock, I would really explore the world of pixel base illustrations and 3D outside while keeping my vector exclusivity. Perfectly legal with the ASA, and the best of both worlds.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #34 on:** June 11, 2015, 06:37 »

. [accidental duplicate post] .

robhainer · « **Reply #35 on:** June 11, 2015, 08:12 »

Quote from: Evty on June 10, 2015, 23:29

Wow this has certainly been a very spirited debate! While my question was dealing primarily with the legal end i was just and interested at hearing the ethical discussions that would ensue. I really appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts concerning both issues

iStock exclusivity has really been a double edged sword. When I went exclusive iStock promised a great royalty rate, marketing and better protection for my work. Back in the Bruce Livingstone days, they made good on the promise. I had 45% royalty rate, my work was posted all over the place and getting lots of views and iStock even chased down copyright infringers working up a very sizable settlement for me at times. Now however my royalty rate has dropped to 30%, iStock's marketing power and visibility has dropped significantly (see alexa.com) and iStock won't even follow up on my infringers.

I want to leave but the exclusive royalty rate is the thing keeping me. I'm the only one in my house that's working and I have a family to support. Losing exclusivity with nothing to immediately supplement it would be taking food out of mouths. Also afraid that if I was brave enough to drop exclusive and come back that my work would lose it's priority in searches on iStock and Getty. 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.

The way I see it, ethics are secondary to survival. I don't see an issue with building a second portfolio as another entity or doing so in a spouse's name as long as they aren't the same files.

I would never consider being exclusive with one of these sites. They make changes unilaterally with little consideration for how they affect you. All they care about is their bottom line, so I don't think we should be any different. As far as other contributors, they are actually your competition. Your needs should come before theirs.

The only thing is that I doubt doing a second portfolio will make you more money right now. It takes time to build up a portfolio to decent earnings on places like Shutterstock. You'd be diverting work from your primary source and investing it somewhere else, so there would be some risk. I think you'd benefit over the long run. The question is whether you can afford the time for that to happen while your family relies on you to put food on the table.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #36 on:** June 11, 2015, 09:39 »

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #37 on:** June 11, 2015, 09:51 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 11, 2015, 09:39

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.

I would argue it's a private company and has no obligation to treat all contributors equally. Some contributors are more valuable than others, that's a fact and if they have to pay more or give better terms to get them that's their perogative. Sean got a special with DP wasn't it? Shutterstock promotes some contributors for the enterprise sales. They only accept some to offset. That's their right. Instead of being jealous of them and advocating defrauding them you should congratulate the contributors and work harder to become important enough to be worth more.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #38 on:** June 11, 2015, 11:01 »

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.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #39 on:** June 11, 2015, 14:14 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 11, 2015, 11:01

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.

So what are your results after 1.5 years of RM? Was it worth it? You gonna keep with RM or spend your time working on Istock?

blamb · « **Reply #40 on:** June 11, 2015, 14:51 »

Quote from: Evty on June 10, 2015, 23:29

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.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #41 on:** June 11, 2015, 15:31 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 11, 2015, 14:14

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 11, 2015, 11:01
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.

So what are your results after 1.5 years of RM? Was it worth it? You gonna keep with RM or spend your time working on Istock?

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.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #42 on:** June 11, 2015, 22:47 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts link=topic=25206.msg421567#msg421567

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.

Micky_Mango · « **Reply #43 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'?

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #44 on:** June 12, 2015, 05:16 »

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.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #45 on:** June 12, 2015, 11:31 »

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #46 on:** June 12, 2015, 11:40 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 12, 2015, 11:31

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #47 on:** June 12, 2015, 11:49 »

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.

gbalex · « **Reply #48 on:** June 12, 2015, 13:05 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 12, 2015, 11:49

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: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 12:07

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?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #49 on:** June 12, 2015, 13:29 »

gbalex said:

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".

You're easily confused.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Exclusive Loophole (Read 14619 times)

heywoody

gbalex

Shelma1

PixelBytes

Evty

ShadySue

Difydave

everest

MichaelJayFoto

MichaelJayFoto

robhainer

Shelma1

tickstock

PaulieWalnuts

PixelBytes

blamb

PaulieWalnuts

PixelBytes

Micky_Mango

Dr Bouz

PixelBytes

cathyslife

Shelma1

gbalex

Shelma1

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors