Is it my reading or is Miz's acceptance ratio rating backwards. Miz for iStock you rate your acceptance to rejection ratio a 1 and your rating system has 1 as the highest, meaning iStock accepts more of your stuff than any other site. Since this is extremely unlikely I suspect the ratings were suppose to be the other way around. Or why in the world would rate iStock as last when they accept all of your stuff and you rate them with an earnings potential of 4.

Well pixart, those are technically different photos. Look at the folds in his suit where his left hand folds under his right arm. Also the fold in his suit at the shoulder in the esquire photo that doesn't exist in the time photo. I'd be pissed if I was the editor of either one of those magazines though.

There is an exclusive only forum and although it isn't talked about much it isn't supposed to be kept a secret.

Its nothing really worth talking about. There has been some discussion on the new business cards that are supposedly coming (Moo cards).

It's weird, but I'm not getting any of these emails trying to entice me into being exclusive.

Quote from: sjlocke on June 04, 2008, 16:54

Quote from: snurder on June 04, 2008, 16:26

You are incorrect in making this statement. See cphoto's post above. Once it is released in RF world, it cannot go RM.

No, actually, I'm not incorrect.

You had better read this then istead of making up your own rules

http://www.thephotographybiz.com/photography-business/understanding-licensing-types-rights-managed-image-licences/

Sorry, but sjlocke is the one that is correct on this. From the site you link to, "Most stock libraries will not allow you to place an image as rights managed if it has ever been sold as Royalty Free." Just because that is the SOP at many of the big stock houses doesn't mean that is what the license requires. I'm not saying I would do it, but the reasons not to do it are ethical in nature and have nothing to do with the term Rights-Managed or the licenses that normally accompany such photographs.

Have you tried contacting them (them being the infringing publisher)? Unlike MIZ, I've seen dozens of mutual settlements in cases like this. If they're a legitimate publisher it normally only takes a call to the publisher's general counsel (or in this case solicitor/barrister) and they'll send my client a check for the normal Getty/Corbis rate.

iStock just started up istock audio. Looks like another interesting way to make a dollar.

www.istockphoto.com/audio

I found the article funny because elsewhere on his site he shows a graph of Getty's predictions of the future and it clearly shows how wrong he is. Here is the graph:

I agree with michealo. On his profile page it says he has 150 files, but when you go to his portfolio he only has 97 under best match search.

A couple of changes took place - so I am looking for your feedback.

First, after a request from a few members I have included the author of the thread on the front page.
Question:  what do you think of the placement.  I could let it have it's own column if that provided a better overview.  The problem with too many collumns is that it can start to look over crowded (which the forum is perhaps all ready suffering from)

To be honest I didn't even notice the author change until I read your post. I think the author's name should be a bigger font because it's very small on my screen(1440x900) and I think I'll still miss it when I'm looking for it.

No, I don't have this image on BS. It is for sale at a couple others sites but as I stated before the TOS doesn't seem to allow this type of use on any of the sites under the standard lisence.

This just doesn't feel right. If only 5% of the people who watch the show buy the book they will have made 1million euros(minus costs offcourse). My cut is 20cents for a full page spread.

As Madelaide said, that's microstock for you. Read the allowable uses more closely in SS's standard license.

"l)As part of editorial or advertising copy in magazines, newspapers, books, book covers, textbooks, editorials and directories provided that the print or manufacturing run(s) of such magazines, newspapers, books , book covers, textbooks, editorials and directories does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) copies in the aggregate;"

Unless you sold ELs of the image then the IP rights which the 200 buyers got are very limited. Bob at the Fish Mart can't legally do very much with the image. IMO the 200 dls do not very much diminish the value of the character. 

I'm going to have to beg to differ on that one. The regular RF license is one of the most extensive commercial licenses in the intellectual property world. There are only a few things "Fish mart" can't do. If you go read the terms of the licenses, which everyone should have already done, you'll see that the licenses are very extensive and the typical one only forbids use on items for resale, resale of the image itself, use in a logo, some seat limitations, and use above some obscene number of prints (250,000 or 500,000). For a comparison go read the license on any software, or the license on music you download .

@Leo - if they're looking to use it as a logo then it would be important to include in the contract the facts that:
 1) the character has been sold before under the RF license (I'd include appendices of the licenses from the sites that the character has been sold before) . I'd have the contract say something to the effect of "...it being known that the Character has been sold previously under the licenses found in Appendix X thru Z..." Character would be a defined term in the contract.

and

2) If you're selling the copyright to them outright then I'd want the contract to include something about the Purchaser "taking subject to" the rights of the previous licenses who licensed images of the character before.

To be frank, the #2 is the reason I said before that this would all be fraught with peril. No intelligent company would buy the image for use as a logo/mascot if they knew it was possible that a competitor could use the character in an attack ad and the company could do nothing about it. Some may think that is unlikely, but it really isn't. All the competitor would have to do is find a designer that had licensed the image previously for a different project and have that designer create a negative ad campaign. That's permissible under all of the RF licenses that I've read as long as the total usage/prints didn't exceed the license.

Seeing the 200 sold beside the character would only give a clue to someone that has read the licenses and fully understood the ramifications. Most people don't read the licenses and don't fully understand them even when they do read them.

I personally wouldn't do it if it was me. However, if you do decide someday to go ahead with it then you should get a lawyer that specializes in IP and make them aware of the fact that the character has been previously licensed under an RF license.

you surely COULD sell it like sokfoto said and just promise to not sell any more of that character... how intereresting that would be for them is unknown.

But Yingyang... I am confused..
How does dreamstime and other sites 'sell the rights' to the image work when there is allready hudreds or thousands of that image sold all ready. ... or is 'selling the rights' different than 'selling it exclusive' as in the new person gets all the rights to sell, use etc. the image in the first case and exclusive means the person is the ONLY one with the use of that image in the second case?

so couldn't blanchette sell the rights to a character?  And wouldn't that be different that selling exclusivity to a character?

That is what I was referring to when I said:

...and trying to sell the character exclusively "subject to the previous RF licenses" is fraught with peril.

When DT and the others foolishly offer that all the customer is buying is a promise not to sell the image anymore, which is worth absolutely nothing because of the previously licensed images. All you end up with is a pissed off customer that wants to sue someone because their competitor is using the same images (or in this case character) in an advertisement. I handled a case like this and it gets messy quick. To answer your question: DT and the others that offer the fake exclusive purchase are using poor business practices.

If the person wanted to buy exclusive rights to the character in order to resell it, that's a different situation and I don't see a problem with that unless there have been extended licenses sold for that character that allow for resale. But it was my impression that they wanted to buy the character to be the exclusive one to use it, and in that situation I wouldn't do it.