@ me

yes, thats right, am photographer too and the royalties of my portfolio on SS (or others) are just to support my apprentices (new gear / workshops / travels etc) and it does not generate my income. Thats why i dont care much about all these royalty constructs (EL / DL / SOD and all that quite difficult to understand "shares"). Thats the job of my apprentices.

I generate my income as the owner of a marketing company.

But - and thats the link - i hate it if photographers get ripped off and so i want to buy only on sites with fair conditions for contributors.
Got it, "me" ?


@all
Misunderstanding
we do not want to buy in bulk.
we need to buy a bigger amount but we are willing to buy as single downloads.
we do not want to buy as subsriptions because we dont like "exploitation models"
Fair prices for good work!

regards axel

You all probably know ho to spell "S-U-P-P-O-R-T"
But obviously you all forgot what it means.
Maybe you are used to be treated as cashcows for to long ...

If i ran my business on the supportlevel of  IS i would be broke.
Good Night

Thats a kind of an open Letter because we decided to give IS the axe.
We are not willing to work with people who try their best to sink the boat

Why....?
Amongst all these latest scandals the last thing which annoyed thehell out of me was this and what can be asked as "Is IS selling images although they know that they do not have a correct MR??"


Here we go.
I uploaded around 100 images of a shooting with one model.
After uploading files and MR I realised that the MR was the wrong one !!!

We informed IS like this:

Dear Misses N...
we have to inform you that we mixed up the data in the modelrelease we uploaded with the latest delivery.
So please do not publish these photos.

We informed them that they do not have a proper MR and that they are not allowed to publish these images.

They said

Hi Alex,

The file is currently in process............. and you will be able to cancel
the file after it has been processed and before it has entered the
inspection queue.

........

We replied:

Hello K.,

the name is Axel, by the way. We do not just mean one single file. ALL the photos that we have uploaded to iStockphoto on the 3rd of May are concerned. Please delete all of them, as the data in the model release is not correct. If these images are published there is no valid MR attached to them. I believe I do not have to tell you about the legal requirements when publishing images of people... That is why we request that these images are not to be published at all.
Please note that we have done our duty by informing you about the incorrect model release. If any legal issues should occur due to these images being published on iStockphoto we want to emphasize that the responsibility lies entirely with iStockphoto.

Today  we got two different informations

1: Many of these files have been published.

Hello Rightlight-Berlin

Your file "Peacock girl" has been accepted into the main iStockphoto Collection.

Thank you for submitting your art to iStockphoto. You can view your file here:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=24215523

Sincerely,
The iStockphoto administration team.
Please note that the file will be available within 24 hours.

2: A mail in many cases regarding these images that these files can not been published because of incomplete MR

Dear Axel Lauer

We regret to inform you that image # 24214622- (Peacock girl) has been deactivated from the iStockphoto database of Royalty Free Images.



Reason for deactivation:
The model release does not comply with iStockphoto legal standards since it is missing the following information:

1. Model�s telephone number
2. Model�s email address

Note that when a model does not have complete contact details, like it is the case for homeless and nomad people, just as examples, that person must be photographed while holding the model release and that image has to be combined on the release.

Please provide a new release containing the required mandatory information and contact [email protected] to have this file reactivated.

Thanks for your understanding.

Perfect , we thought. Finally they realized that they are not permitted to publish these files and they delete or deactivate them
Great

But i was wrong.
We replied like this to their last mail

Thats great because we informed you more than once that we dont allow you to publish these files.
Obvious you were willing to publish them anyway.

Now you stated yourself that it would be illegal to publish them.
So make sure that not a single image of this model will be published!!!!

And now guess what happened???
Read yourself what IS ansered:

Hi Axel,

You are welcome to cancel these uploads within your my upload page as
stated in our pervious discussion.

If the file is approved you can also deactivate this on your account by
navigating to the file close up page and selecting deactivate. As a
reminder it is your responsibility to ensure legal permission prior to
uploading.

Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Maybe i should inform the model that IS sells without having a proper release and with the perfect knowledge about missing MR and watch how IS is been kicked its ass.


But we all (my employees and me too) are so pissed about that "company" that we decided to give them the axe..


Here is our "farewell-mail" to them..

I dont need to deactivate because you stated that images with incomplete MRs are not allowed to be published on istock.
We informed you several times now that you do not have a proper MR.
Now your team proofed that you are aware of it!!!

If you really want to cause a legal issue go ahead!
And obvious you really try your best to become the "Titanic of Stockagencies" (in two days you can read a post in our blog about our experience with IS, titled exactly like this)

Just to mention only a few things....
-the way you treat your contributors (see Sean Locke)
-Google Drive Scandal
-you behave absolutely arrogant and ignorant
-you are the biggest exploiter under all agencies

So buzz of and delete our account!!!!

@tickstock
do you have something reasonable to contribute or are you just one of these "jokers" who need to fuck up every thread??

Hi ,
we just noticed that a many of our images does look on their site about 1 - 2 stops darker than ...
a: on other stocksites
b: on our site
c:  on our calibrated systems

They look horrible -strange colours, much to dark.....just b������....

Compare yourself:
Yay http://www.yaymicro.com/portfolio.action?search.offset=0&search.limit=50&search.numResults=1302&search.filterExplicit=false&search.sort=date&search.advanced=true
Deposit http://de.depositphotos.com/portfolio-2062725.html?14cnnz

We always develop images , export them and then load them up to agencies.
Means i can say that it is not a error on our site.

Do you have an idea what could have happened ?
regard axel

@Shady Sue
If people dont want to understand the dont want to understand.
Or sometimes they are on the payroll of the company they are defending so hard.

Good Night

I have to jump in and remind a few people here that iStock is not some cuddly toy that just loves everyone back either.

First, I don't encourage disrespectful treatment of agencies but most (!) of us have expressed clearly our dislike towards iStock in the past.

Axel, doing business from Germany, who IS most likely German, is nonetheless still dealing with a language and cultural barrier. How do I know? I'm German and I'm working in microstock for over 8 years now from the US.

Despite trying to understand different business practices it is sometimes unexplainable how some decisions by certain agencies are made. In any situation, misunderstandings can be the cause.

I get the feeling that Axel did not accurately state the issue at hand, which is not something he did intentionally in order to confuse anyone.

I can see how utterly frustrating it is to fight for image approvals that simply do not require MRs - ALTHOUGH this is at the discretion of the agency!

I believe Axel has had such issues in the past regarding MRs or PRs for images that are quite generic and I can see that it is aggravating, especially if these kinds of images are your bread and butter.

So here is what I see is happening (I hope this is correct and probably helpful for others to understand):

- Axel uploads an image to IS which gets rejected due to a missing MR/PR.

- Axel contacts the same person he has been dealing with at IS previously. That's something I do as well if I have a contact at an agency who helped me before - to speed things up.

- During the conversation between Axel and his contact at IS, apparently Axel argued why he requires a release for that specific image "providing" critique to IS, which we all know can be quite "unhealthy" in terms of continuing a working relationship with IS.

- Since the issue about the MR/PR was somewhat negligible, IS got ticked off and is now trying to find irregularities in his account in order to get him booted (Axel's words - NOT mine!).

- This lead to the communication about whether he is uploading content that may not be his as he is running a business in Germany employing other photographers.

- IS is inclined to assume that Axel is uploading content that is not only his work, which most likely can only be legally "contained" by having Axel fill out a PR that explicitly states it is all his work OR asking the photographers he is working with, if any of the content belongs to them (which is unfeasible).

- So in the end Axel feels discriminated against because, despite uploading as an individual to IS, IS now assumes he is uploading other people's work.

I hope that this is a rough run down of the issue. I may very well be missing points.

But still, as we all have signed contracts with our agents, I don't understand why some agents still treat us like garbage. If IS is sooooo concerned about the legal implications of Axel uploading other people's content why don't they just sue him then? No, instead, they give him the runaround.

It does go without saying however, that he is free to leave IS any given time.

I just want to point out that it happened to me as well in the past where I was treated like a criminal by several agencies and it took an awful lot (and lots of time) to sort things out.

It's a very uncomfortable feeling, knowing you haven't done anything wrong and being accused of something.

If I got facts wrong, please disregard this message. 

Take it easy fellas.

@Click_Click
Thank you very much for you help.
You interpretation is pretty much what happened and i really thought that i wrote it down in an understandable way but probably i didnt.
Like  i said very often - i really do not care about rejections!!
But i do care (and i become deeply desperate) if rejections are stupid, irrational and if "supporters" behave like napoleon when you complain

OK, in these cases i really become sarcastic and ironic which is not the best way to solve problems and that might have led to the topic we are talking about in this thread.
But i am to old to learn how to do the perfect kowtow.

regards axel

@ Shady sue
What is so difficult to understand here?
I was in a conversation with her months ago about general technic topics  (FTP/CSV/Video-Resolution etc) because i have to offer over 40.000 images and i asked about special agreements like i have with other major stockagencies too.

The last two days we had a conversation about some rejects but these rejects are not the topic.
At the end of that discussion i gave some critics she maybe did not like and then she react with digging out "issues" that might lead to closing my account. (See this whole thread!)

Thats soooooo simple to understand!!

@tickstock
Thats not a question:

"First, the account needs to be set up under the company name, and an ID
file is needed from someone within the company with authority to make
company decisions (ie a CEO, Owner,  Manager, etc)"

It really needs?
I am not free anymore to make the decision if i want to setup the account as a private person or for my company?
Istock decides what i have to do??
Do they pay my taxes then??

If they really want to help me avoiding copyright issues (like Misses N. said in her mail) , why then is she trying to push me into an companyaccount??
Specially when i decided to make up aprivate account to avoid copyright issues?

isnt that a bit "contrary"?

@shady Sue
This thread is not about an rejection issue.
The rejection was just the former conversation with Misses N.
So please leave your remarks to therejections and contribute to the actual topic.
thanx

And one thing more....
My istock-account is not a companyaccount.
It is the account of "private" A.Lauer

What for does istock accuses me?
For having a businesslife?
For not having chosen a companys name which is so different that nobody knows its me?

I think maybe you'll need to quote exactly what she said.
Just to clarify - you got a rejection for needing a release when none was needed, but instead of contacting Scout, you wrote to CR?

At this point i was not familiar with the scoutsystem.
I was in contact with Misses N before about other topics.
It happend like that but this is not the point.
The point is that you do something "bad" (critic) and right away there comes the "slight announcement of a sanction" or better..... they let you know hat they have the tools to give you a hard time.

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 24, 2013, 15:15

Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2013, 15:14

Then there shouldn't be an issue.

I know that there shouldnt be an issue but she makes up one.
Thats the scandal.

What's the scandal?  After you told her you created all the images did she make some threat or something, it looks like a misunderstanding.  Maybe the language difference is causing problems her response doesn't sound threatening to me.

Do you know that you can kill with paper?
Same with documents!
If you upload as a single photographer for weeks and months, than you give a critic and suddenly you are suspected to upload images of other people and are "threatened" with crazy documents to fill out it really looks a bit "fishy", dont you think?

But i hope its a misunderstanding and thats why i sended this email to Misses N:

"Dear Misses N,
i am pretty sure that you are willing to get that - i hope it is a misunderstanding - cleared.
Therefore i just started a thread and i invite you heartedly to state your opinion and view there.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/bullied-by-istock/
Of course i will repeat there as well.
So other people, who maybe stumble into similar kind of misunderstandings, can see that Istock is doing its best to get these kind of trouble out of the way.
I wish you a nice evening and maybe i can read your statement tomorrow in the morning.
I wish you all the best
Regards
Axel Lauer"