I can't believe that any contributor who (a) can read and (b) has any ethical sense (not to mention more than rudimentary Photoshop skills) could possibly do what this person has done. He has built a portfolio on other people's work and apparently received only a slap on the wrist for doing so.

The fact that some people think it's OK - or not all that bad - leaves me gobsmacked. The file of mine is old and not a great seller, so I don't really have a lot of skin in the game, but I am furious that someone would be that sleazy  and that the agencies would let this continue.

I can only hope that iStock's compliance enforcement will help them see the error of their ways. Otherwise the agencies and anyone who lifts other people's content win, and only the contributor whose content is swiped is the loser. Totally unjust.

I contacted Fotolia again just a few minutes ago as I have heard nothing from them after a business day has passed and the content is still live on their site.

Quote from: jsnover on October 05, 2009, 12:49

I contacted (via iStock site mail) the owner of an elephant image that fritzkocher has used in images on SS and FT with other backgrounds. This guy clearly has no shame and the number of problems indicate willful behavior not an inadvertant mistake.

Not what I had planned to do with my morning, but I'll contact anyone else I happen to notice being infringed. The more of us contacting the agencies about this the sooner they'll realize they have to do something about it.

I just sent an email to SS about the elephant...

I think they will sort it out

The kicker is, that SS let him come back online after being taken down for a bit.
Never seen that before...

I've always found Jon to be a straight shooter, but honestly that's just not right. To let someone come back without checking their content for more of what they got removed for is sloppy.

I'd bet that the statue of liberty composites aren't legit, but it's harder to check as there are so many shots of that and finding a unique element in a shot not so easy. I think I'm going to go and do something else for a bit so I can calm down.

I checked his portfolio at BigStock, Shutterstock and StockXpert. I didn't find the images that infringed (me) at BigStock and SS, but I did at StockXpert. I have notified them (and iStock with an update) - it should be fairly straightforward to get the guy's work pulled from another Getty company, one would think.

In looking at his SS portfolio, there are lots of obvious composites. It'd be worth people having a quick check for their own stuff. Let's try and get this practice stopped, not just one or two infringing images removed and the guy gets to continue doing it with new material.

We'll see how things turn out, but I was pleasantly surprised today when I got a quick response to a claim that a contributor had taken an image of mine and used it with minimal changes (a blurry background in one case and a few other background elements in the other) as if it were his own.

The portfolio has been suspended pending investigation. I wonder if there are other "composites" made with copyrighted content in the portfolio - I was kindly alerted by another contributor to this misuse.

One inadvertent mistake might be forgivable, but when you have over 1,000 images in your portfolio you'd think something like this isn't a beginner's mistake. Even from the agency's point of view, how can they continue offering work from someone who doesn't want to honor other contributor's copyright?

I was independent for nearly 4 years and a year ago became exclusive with iStock.

In terms of earnings, overall iStock has (and had at the point I became exclusve) earned more than the others. Some months - when IS was fiddling with the best match and my sales there fell off a cliff - SS was top earner.  My focus is earnings - but over time, not just one week or month. How do I want to handle my business over the medium to long haul.

In terms of a pain in the butt quotient, I found all the agencies took their turn at putting various pot holes in the road Overall I found IS to be the best deal for me. I found some of the less than honorable dealings at some of the agencies (read the old posts here if anyone cares about the history) to be something I just didn't want to deal with any more. If you go read about the fiasco with Albumo, for example, agency integrity takes on a new meaning.

The trouble is, I don't see how I can improve next time, given that the reason for rejection they give is so clearly BS.

Any advice?

My advice would be to decide whether you'd rather rant at iStock's rejection or figure out how to get accepted. If you really believe that their rejection reason is BS, do you want to try again?

If you do, then post to the iStock critique forum (or if you don't have any credits, post somewhere else, like here) showing what's been rejected. The fact that it's been accepted at another site doesn't really add much to the discussion as each site has its own acceptance criteria (and I used to be independent so I'm familiar with submitting to multiple sites).

You might also want to look at posts in iStock's critique forum from other people in your circumstances - it won't tell you about your specific images, but you'll get some general pointers about having a range of types of images, technical standards, etc.

There are lots of people who will help point you in the right direction, if that's what you're looking for.

Another set of opinions would be the ones from long time independents who went exclusive late in the game, like tacojim and jsnover.  They also have a unique perspective of what exclusivity looks like from both sides.

I guess you know where I end up in the balancing of pros & cons given that I'm still exclusive, just about a year after making the switch. There's a lot to recommend being independent, and I think for people starting out, it actually makes a ton more sense to be independent - the small increase in iStock commission just doesn't cover the loss from other sites.

iStock was in a state of best match turmoil right after I went exclusive, and the first few months were very rocky. There was also the burial of vector files in the search results which caused me to change plans to emphasize vectors more. Ever since BM2.0 (with a minor hiccup when Vetta was introduced and virtually nothing else showed up on the first few pages of searches) things have been doing well from a sales point of view.

I realize the risks involved in dealing with one one agent for RF licenses, but for me, that's outweighed by reward of not getting involved in trying to deal with anti-contributor moves at multiple sites.

I'm part of the iStock middle class - not a newbie or one of the top sellers. I have had second thoughts once or twice - last time was when the partner program was anounced - but then one or other site I used to submit to is kind enough to pull some asinine stunt and I stop having them

Nearly a year ago I became an exclusive after about 4 years as an independent. I assume you've made a list of the waiting periods at each site you upload to; the first thing is to stop uploading to sites with a waiting period, but start with the longest and phase in the others as their wait times dictate (i.e. if you stopped uploading to DT today, in 3 months you'd stop at BigStock and so on). The goal is to keep earning the absolute max you can while you disentangle yourself.

Watch your payout amounts and for the sites where you control the timing (i.e. not SS or 123rf) so you can ensure you end up with a balance over the minimum at the date you want to pull the plug. Don't want to leave any money on the table. And with the exception of small sites (ScanStockPhoto was very gracious to me) the big guys will happily keep your money, so don't assume it'll be all friendly and you'll get your money anyway.

For the monthly payout sites, if you think you'll be leaving early in the month, set the minimum payout to a very high number the previous month (to be sure you don't get paid). Then, in the month you'll be leaving, set the minimum payout back to normal.

For SS, you can disable your images without deleting them via the  Opt Out button on your account page. After a certain amount of time, they'll automatically disable your account, but won't delete it. You'll want to do that (leave the accounts in place) so you can reactivate with an e-mail to support if you later decide to cancel exclusivity.

FT deleted my account even though I didn't request it (they dislike any less than glowing comments made about them in offsite forums) but otherwise I still have my accounts on most sites. I don't think it's likely someone will use my login, but I'd rather not have someone else selling images under the same name and keeping the login ensures that.

I may have forgotten something and things change in a year, but hope this helps a bit.

ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration...

I don't think it is. When I was independent, I didn't upload my vector illustrations anywhere but iStock because for a complex vector (not the simple ones or icon sets) I thought the pricing wasn't right. Many sites didn't make any distinction in price based on the complexity of the vector file. For a subs sale the pricing problem was even worse.

The other sites got large JPEGs of the vector image which I had no problem selling at subscription prices - buyer paid less but got less value too.

I think HD video for subscription commissions is exactly in the same boat - a very high value thing going for next to nothing. It should be web videos only, IMO.

If FT doesn't get any/much video content, they'll have to rethink their decision. Unfortunately, past experience suggests that there will always be someone willing to sell for a very low commission; let's hope the majority of contributors don't.

That may be a bug in the search dropdown that selects Best Match, Age, Downloads, etc. for the sort. Vectors were the most recently added to the Vetta collection and the bug with the sort order not refreshing is being looked at according to an admin post.

Unless something changes between now and August, the Plus side.

Something about this sounds so wrong.. the retailer is meant to add sales tax to the item you buy, if there is no sales tax marked on the item, you presume it is included in the overall cost..

That isn't how things work in many states in the US. First the price quoted never includes the sales tax. Second, most states have a use tax, meaning that if you are a resident in that state and buy something out of state for use at your residence, they expect you (the purchaser) to pay the use tax to the state directly.

I used to live in New Hampshire (no sales or income tax) which borders on Massachusetts (both) and a lot of businesses set up along the border (on the NH side) to pull in buyers who were Mass residents. One furniture store had to display a big poster of a blow up of a letter they had received from the Massachusetts Dept of Revenue, saying that deliveries of furniture to Massachusetts required payment of Massachusetts Use Tax and that they'd be monitoring the parking lot for vehicles with Massachusetts tags loading up furniture.

I'm sure that Lisa's letter is legit, but it's unfortunate they can go back 3 years to get the tax.

I didn't see Sean's response as I have been afraid to check in at the istock thread to see if I have been burned in effigy

You might want to go have a look - no burning Lisa going on at all:) I saw mostly support, if from exclusives resigned to the unpleasant state of things generally with respect to the Partner program, not gathering up their pitchforks to storm the castle

I do think that when you look at what's gone on with commission reductions at FT and DT, where the sites made the argument that they were reducing the percentage but overall your income would go up (they predicted), a number of independents, including you Lisa if I remember correctly, said that as long as the overall income was going up, you would live with the decrease in percentages. I don't really see a difference between accepting that and accepting that Getty has just reduced the commissions on Photos.com+/JIU sales for StockXpert contributors. If the total monthly take went up because Getty marketed the heck out of the site, would that make you less angry with the situation?

I don't know if the fact that contributors just accepted it when FT and DT cut/announced a cut in commission percentages emboldened Getty, but I've generally thought that like kids, if they get away with it once, they'll try it again with a bit more next time.