pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Exclusivity and POD sites  (Read 9158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 18, 2009, 16:41 »
0
An istock contributor has been denied exclusivity because she has works for sale on RedBubble. RB sells prints (mounted/framed), greeting cards, Ts, calendars of your work but not the digital files. Has anyone had experience with this situation? I have work on RB and would like to go exclusive on istock when I reach 250dls.


LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2009, 18:01 »
0
Thats a little bent  if your selling Artistic somewhere else, the stuff that IS wont take. Just like most say, Artistic is not Stock so whats the problem with trying to make money off stuff IS wont even approve. I guess IS somehow feels threatened by Redbubble... who knows. Oh well, not looking at being exclusive anyways. I want to make money where ever I can get it. I save Redbubble for stuff I think is Pretty and Artistic. Stock Shots go to Stock sites.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 19:14 by LSD72 »

lisafx

« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2009, 18:04 »
0
I thought that only RF stock sales were affected.  Can't see how selling items for sale, but not the image file would affect this. 

If I were you I could contact istock support directly and get a more complete explanation.  And if you get one, would you mind posting here?  I am sure it would benefit others in the same situation...

bittersweet

« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2009, 18:39 »
0
It may have to do with the user agreement on Red Bubble. Some of these sites require you to grant them an unlimited royalty free license. The wording conflicts with your exclusive agreement which states you can only license RF through them.

There have been previous discussions about this on the IS forums. Youmight want to attempt to find an answer there.

« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2009, 19:33 »
0
The contributor I mentioned has already contacted support, and I'll post her findings here. The RB contract does require an unlimited RF license 'in accordance with the agreement' to provide prints using ones artwork. Oh well...

« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2009, 20:50 »
0
Could it be because IS also sells prints?

« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2009, 21:01 »
0
I'm pretty sure it's because RB requires an RF license to sell, even though they're selling different content. istock says selling through cafepress is OK, and cafepress also requires a RF license, just as RB does, so ???

« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2009, 21:19 »
0
This has nothing to do with RedBubble's agreement and everything to do with a lack of communication between the staff. It was made very clear when exclusivity was started that only RF sales are affected. You may not license as RF. If you want to use them on Zazzle, Cafe Press, RedBubble, sell prints from your website or license them as RM you are free to do so.

This application was probably denied by the same guy who denied the guy a month or so back because he had RM images on Alamy. She needs to call headquarters and ask what's going on. The phone support seems to have more of a clue than the email support.

« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2009, 00:16 »
0
Contributor Relations has just told that contributor (and indirectly me) that selling through RB is not OK because RB requires an RF license. CafePress also requires an RF licence, but istock says its OK to sell through CafePress. Go figure.

« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2009, 02:15 »
0
Perhaps istock don't like the large unwatermarked preview images with RB?

« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2009, 03:56 »
0
I think the matter is pretty simple...
If you read this piece from RB User Agreement:

Quote
You keep the copyright of any content you submit or upload to the website. In order to receive the RedBubble services you grant RedBubble a non-exclusive royalty free license to use and archive the content in accordance with or as reasonably contemplated by this agreement.

This is in clear breach of the conditions set by IS to be exclusive - "IS is your exclusive agency for all your RF imagery/content"...

Bye!

« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2009, 04:11 »
0
I think the matter is pretty simple...
If you read this piece from RB User Agreement:

Quote
You keep the copyright of any content you submit or upload to the website. In order to receive the RedBubble services you grant RedBubble a non-exclusive royalty free license to use and archive the content in accordance with or as reasonably contemplated by this agreement.

This is in clear breach of the conditions set by IS to be exclusive - "IS is your exclusive agency for all your RF imagery/content"...

Bye!
So why does istock allow exclusives to sell art through CafePress, which has EXACTLY THE SAME REQUIREMENT?

The probem is that a prospective exclusive reads the page that says that selling through CafePress and similar art sites is fine, and then discovers when they apply that RB is not included, even though its terms are the same. Then the contributor has to wait 3 months to apply again. What kind of contributor relations is that?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 04:14 by averil »

« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2009, 04:31 »
0
Hi Averil,

I believe that CafePress approach is slightly different. In fact if you read this...

Quote
CafePress.com provides an automated internet-based service to users, which they use to design and sell merchandise. We contractually prohibit our users from using the service to sell merchandise that infringes third party intellectual property rights (such as copyright, trademark, trade dress and right of publicity). We encourage intellectual property rights owners to contact us if they believe that a user of our service has infringed their rights. If you let us know that your rights are being infringed by one of our users we will (in our discretion) require that the user's content is removed from products and, if the user continues to infringe your rights (or infringes the rights of others) terminate the user's access to our services.

...will realize that CP is simply an "Automated Platfom" where users upload their own content.
Is not an agency who hold and promote your work hence the difference approach of IS legals...

Bye!

Quote
So why does istock allow exclusives to sell art through CafePress, which has EXACTLY THE SAME REQUIREMENT?

« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2009, 04:58 »
0
Another possibility is if he was selling the same photos he has on istockphoto in RB.

« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2009, 05:03 »
0
From CafePress TOS:

4.3 Licensing Your Content to CafePress.com. You will retain ownership of the Content that you upload to the Website. You hereby grant to CafePress.com a royalty-free, worldwide, transferable, nonexclusive, right and license to use such Content, in all media existing now or created in the future, as CafePress.com deems necessary to enable you to use the Create & Buy Service to create, produce and purchase Products. CafePress.com may sublicense the rights that you grant it in this Section to a third party subcontractor only for purposes of providing the CafePress.com Service, processing your order, and producing and shipping your Products.

« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2009, 05:49 »
0
Maybe the key is that CP refers to using the image "for products".  RB doesn't say that.

bittersweet

« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2009, 06:11 »
0
Maybe the key is that CP refers to using the image "for products".  RB doesn't say that.
Ssshhh! How dare you insert reason into this istock bashing thread? You know that's not allowed!  ;)

KB

« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2009, 09:58 »
0
Maybe the key is that CP refers to using the image "for products".  RB doesn't say that.
Ssshhh! How dare you insert reason into this istock bashing thread? You know that's not allowed!  ;)
Actually, the OP got her crown today, so it seems there's no iStock bashing needed here. Probably wont' stop it, though.  ;D

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2009, 10:49 »
0
Heavy is the head that wears the Crown  :D

bittersweet

« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2009, 11:39 »
0
Maybe the key is that CP refers to using the image "for products".  RB doesn't say that.
Ssshhh! How dare you insert reason into this istock bashing thread? You know that's not allowed!  ;)
Actually, the OP got her crown today, so it seems there's no iStock bashing needed here. Probably wont' stop it, though.  ;D
Edited to remove needlessly snarky comments.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 15:07 by whatalife »

« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2009, 13:30 »
0
istock is now allowing exclusives to sell through RB - great news for me and the contributor who first encountered this difficulty.

lisafx

« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2009, 14:17 »
0
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see istock bashing in this thread.  Looks to me like it was started by an exclusive hopeful who just wanted to clarify some policy and now she's exclusive and happy.

Where's the bashing??

« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2009, 14:42 »
0
Not to worry Lisa - that's what killfiles are for (aka the Ignore button in this less violent age).

bittersweet

« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2009, 14:57 »
0
Not referring to you, averil. My statements were admittedly too general as to be applicable to just this thread, so I have removed them.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 15:08 by whatalife »

« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2009, 16:31 »
0
Where's the bashing??

Exclusives can be a bit neurotic, you know.   ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5395 Views
Last post June 30, 2007, 17:51
by yingyang0
3 Replies
3071 Views
Last post October 02, 2007, 15:54
by Peter
4 Replies
3609 Views
Last post February 24, 2009, 11:17
by digiology
3 Replies
2333 Views
Last post April 11, 2009, 17:00
by Dreamframer
14 Replies
9116 Views
Last post November 18, 2010, 15:02
by TimMc

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle