Well there is a problem professorgb. If you're professorgb on iStock then you're not accepting creative network members right now.

(I assume you are transfering it from yourself to a company owned by you or something similar??). 

Didn't read the original post?

SS likes blown-out white backgrounds, they don't accept a lot of grayish backgrounds. Good luck on the next attempt.

Their exclusivity deal is much better for IS than it is for contributors, except those who don't want the extra work by uploading to multiple agencies.

I've had the opposite experience as epixx. I have about the same number of downloads on both IS and SS and I signed up at the same time (Plus I have almost the exact same number of photos on each site). I've also had many, many extended licenses at IS versus none at SS. Even at the bronze level I'll be making more as an exclusive at IS then I would at SS and IS combined as a non-exclusive. While I don't like all the changes to the best search algorithm, I'll probably go exclusive when I hit the 500 downloads.

Quite frankly I don't see what the photographer had to complain about, you can't see any tit, I certainly don't find it offensive in any way. I don't see the person in the image being degraded. However had it been a child then I could see it being a problem.

It's not really the photographer complaining, but worrying about the people he photographed. I think it depends on the person. Many people here in the bible belt would be very offended by being photoshoped into a flyer for a strip club (even the hypocritical ones that are their on Friday night and in church on Sunday morning).

Hypothetically, wouldn't you be upset if someone took a photo of your family and photoshoped them into a flyer for a strip joint?

...The man's a lawyer...

Just for the record I am a law student, so not a member of the bar quite yet (only a few months left to go). Everyone in my family is some kind of lawyer, some criminal, but most are intellectual property or corporate. (Sometimes they post on my account when I tell them of an interesting situation.)

I was only giving my personal problems with the contracts that stopped me from wanting to join. If someone expect me to indemnify them against suit, then I expect to only have to pay those cost when the mistake is mine and not because the license is poorly written. Intellectual property suits cost $100,000+ to litigate so I don't lke the idea of being bound to contracts that are questionable. Remember that you're not selling photos, you're sell licenses, which are nothing more than contracts.

Digital Darrell,

You're still trying to use lawyerly language, and it's not having the effect you're looking for. It's not as bad as the first one, but it still doesn't look professional. Here are some examples:
1) You say the contract is between Pure Nature Stock and "the END-USER". End user is the wrong "term of art". The purchaser will likely be a designer who would not be the end user. If the purchaser isn't the end-user then there is no privity of contract between your Agency and the end-user, only between your Agency and the purchaser. The more appropriate wording would be "This agreement shall be between Pure Nature Stock ("PNS") and you ("Purchaser"), who..."
 a) This brings out another question: Is Pure Nature Stock a legally formed company, or just your website? If it is a registered company, then the contract should be between Pure Nature Stock, Inc. (or whatever your company is called) and the purchaser. If it is not a legally formed company, then neither the user agreement nor the photographer's agreement can be between them and PNS.

2) You keep using two phrases that don't add to the clarity the document, only words. "made by and between", "will constitute and be defined as".

3) "you are asserting your declaration that.." This one belongs in number two, but I am singling it out to say that you should have either asserting, or declaring, but not both.

4) You use "Materials" in the paragraph before you define it.

5) You say "END-USER (otherwise listed herein as You or Your)" but later you define END-USER again with "END-USER (You)". This is not needed.

6) You can't bind people to "terms and conditions as outlined herein, and as listed elsewhere on our website" without specifying exactly were on your website these additional terms can be found, and what they are.

...I have many more but the point is to get a lawyer if you want the contracts/agreements to sound lawyerly. Otherwise stick with plain/short sentence. Remember that contracts are to lawyers as photo are to photographers. Contracts, and the words used to create them, are an art form. Everyone thinks they can write a contract, or take great photos, but only people with the knowledge and skill can make long lasting ones.

Your contracts are the most important part of your business, especially because you're selling intellectual property. I wouldn't have even considered opening a stock agency without having at least two lawyers/firms on retainer. One as general counsel who is versed in contracts, and the second would be an intellectual property firm (perferably one that has first amendment experience).

And with some being concerned about my lame terms (since I'm not a lawyer), I'll press onward in my quest to form the world's best Pure Nature Stock agency.  I'll hire a lawyer to write some really good terms soon, and solve that problem.

I just signed up to have my application reviewed and I noticed two things:

1) there are photos of buildings on the newest uploads. I thought this was a nature stock agency?

2) You really should get a lawyer to fix your terms before accepting photographers/images, because they are way off. One example is that your indemnity clause renders itself null and void. You can't have the photographer and the agency both indemnify each other. Here's why: if someone sues for a copyright violation they're going to name both the photographer and the agency. So when it says "Agency and Photographer shall each indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against any and all claims..." that clause nulifies itself.

In layman's terms here is what your idemnity clause ends up saying, "When we get sued for copyright/trademark/etc. infringement the photographer agrees to pay for the agency's costs and any judgement against the agency, while the Agency agrees to pay the photographer's costs and any judgement against the photographer. Oh, and everyone is one there own when it comes to incedential and punitive damages."

In the end the Agency would be getting the short end of the stick because the photographer would likely end up with the judgement against him/her and the Agency would have to pay. Not only that but your "indemnity" clause directly contradicts term 28.

You're also missing a choice of law (jurisdiciton) clause, and maybe a binding arbitration clause. Term 27 doesn't have any effect because as Justice Cardozo once said "an agreement to agree is no agreement at all", so you can't  say that the parties have to agree on a moderation agent. Also, right after the moderation you say that both parties waive all jurisdictional defenses? If you're trying to create a binding arbitration clause then waiving jurisditional defenses is the wrong thing to say, because it implies that you'd be in court (jurisdictional defenses are only raise in a court of law, not "moderation").

Also, "moderation" itself is not binding on either party so the disagreement would likely end up in court and because you (the agency) have agreed to waive your jurisdictional defenses I could sue you anywhere I want.

And don't get me started on the End User Agreement. "This agreement is made by and between Pure Nature Stock (otherwise listed herein as You or Your) who creates an account for the right to access, acquire, and use Materials from this website." The End User Agreement is an agreement between Pure Nature Stock and itself!
 
Here is the end lesson. Either write terms of a contract in clear, non-"legalise" or hire a lawyer to write it so that it is clear to lawyers/judges, and don't start accepting uploads without getting your legal stuff in order.

Why do people believe a "story" that is only based on two people speculating in their blogs about what Yahoo should do.

I would follow up SS on this.  Since SS doesn't offer exclusivity, it makes a mockery of their extended license as in most sitations, every photo on the site si potentially elsewhere.  So they can never pursue a copywrite case??

News flash: if your photos are on more than one site than the only one that can/would pursue a copyright infringement case would be the photographer. First, SS doesn't have access to the stats of other sites and doesn't know if the "infringer" bought an extended license somewhere else where it might be cheaper. Second, SS wouldn't make any real money from suing the newspaper, and would have to hire a law firm in Italy to sue. Not to mention that they would lose a customer.

Why are people saying "they" should do something. It is the photographer responsiblity to protect his/her phtos, so he/she should do something. Call the newspaper. Then follow up by sending a demand letter to the newspaper saying that they infringed on your copyright, and tell them how they can make you whole (e.x. buy an extended license).

Well, that is why I am asking. I wasn't complaining about iStock. I guess I need to be careful about using existing photos on the site for keyword references.

Not really. Your photo/photos would have been wiki'ed eventually because those keywords didn't belong. Have you tried the search for vegas? The only photos that are actually of vegas are of the "welcome to fabulous las vegas sign". You have to search through all the 2,000+ files to get the few photos that are actually of Las Vegas. The rest are spammed photos of dice, cards, etc.

The problem isn't unique to iStock, but at least iStock is beginning to deal with the problem.

check these prices in your country and let me know:

Sony A100 (with DT 18-70 lens) $US749
Canon EOS 5D body only $US2454
Canon xti (single lens kit) $US755

Well those are only around a 13% savings on B&H's prices. Not including the large difference in shipping cost and the fact that you don't get a US warranty. I think I'll stick with US companies that I know I can get my money back from if something goes wrong.