Maybe he gets it but just doesn't care.

Istock may find that many people did not "settle down".;they are biding their time and/or changing direction away from stock.

@ chrisboy2004  I didn't want to quote your entire post but we you having the equipment shipped to the billing address for the credit card?  Also, your camera will probably also require a signature when it arrives.

Finally caught up on this thread.  Missed the part about the PP royalties being tied to RC even though their downloads aren't. 

Although I voted for JoAnn and not for some of the other people selectioned that doesn't mean that those selected won't do a great job representing the community. 

I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.

Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue.  If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA.  Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.

The question isn't whether Istock can be held liable for misuse of the images when legally downloaded.

The question is did Istock properly perfom the duties due the contributor as outlined in the contract?  Were they in any way negligent?  If so, then what damages did their negligence cause.

I'm not sure this is the right thread for this comment... but I'm wondering if the lowered levels is due to lower than anticipated sales because customers are leaving as a result of a myriad of missteps and incomptence? 

You need to post a link to the full size image for people to judge the technical quality.

He could have the RAWs, have taken the pictures in question and still not be the copyright holder.  They might have been a work for hire or someone thought they were anyway or, as has been suggested, the copyright could be/was owned by a previous partnership/ corporation of which he was part.

It's very possible that the situation is more of a legal "misunderstanding" than misrepresnetation and lawyers have been called in to sort through the paperwork. 

I wouldn't expect FD to be back anytime soon with answers.  Even when everything is sorted out, he might be restrained from commenting.

If they wait until after the print purchase to license the image isn't that "print on demand" which requires an EL or is forbidden outright?

I think, but I'm not a lawyer mind you, there are two different issues here.

First.  The model has no legal grounds for any suit.  The standard stock releases cover the photographer on this issue.

Second.  The photographer or agency may have legal grounds to go after the advertiser for violating the usage agreement if you know which contract is in force.  Honestly, I don't see that happening. 

Thanks for this thread.  I must have missed the courtesy email IS sent out.

Look to Vetta.  What's missing in who will/won't make the cut is that previously a Vetta download was still only one download. Now, it's significantly more.

Sorry guys, but in this case, size doesn't matter as much as you think.  Even if you have XXXL available the sales growth and volume is in the electronic media- blogs, websites, etc.; so a file that has more RC even at it's smallest size is going to have significantly more impact.

Technically you can do an awful lot in Lightroom these days.  So if you enhance colors and dodge/burn in the develeopment stage is that considered manipulation?

Quote from: gbalex on September 25, 2010, 15:12

Clearly they are taking care of their top money earnings, most of whom we have heard nary a peep from. 

I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion.  Several well established Diamonds have posted over on IStock.  Several other of the top money earners may not feel comfortable commenting in English as it's not their native language.  Because someone doesn't comment doesn't mean they like what's going on or they're getting a special deal.

If this is how they put food on the table and a roof over their family's head, they might be keeping their head low, doing damage control and calculating the best course of action for the future.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 23, 2010, 16:50
Interesting.  The date on my one post has been modified to say "September 25th".

Hello, that's two days from now.

The site had some database issues earlier this morning.  I had some problems accessing the site.  That might be the issue because all your posts on this thread I can see are dated today.

Now, if you really are responding two days before someone is posting then I'm inclined to agree you're posting too fast.    But I'm impressed by your clairvoyance.

Proof?  I see an allegation no proof.

IStock had one person officially responding to the accusation any other employees, if any, might have been acting of their own accord.

Much as we love to hate IStock these days, even they are entitled to be innocent until proven guilty.  Oh, and let's not forget the illustrator who this blogger is also maligning.  

Did my own search for "Mark Jahnon"  in Google and I only pulled up this story and reprints of this story.  I hope this blogger has more evidence than one unverified claim or he could have his own legal issues in the near future.

And if he has more evidence I'd be interested in seeing it.  Plus I'd like to know more about "Mark Jahnon"  Let's start with a link to some of "his work".

Print out those blog comments for legal proof.  You might want/need it in the future.

The commenter is giving instructions on how she stole the images by getting rid of the watermark. 

Sorry to be OT but independent's images are taking about a month?

Quote from: dgilder on September 16, 2010, 15:51
Unless you are 'Agency', they probably pay them same-day.

I expect payment timelines to be another next change on their list.  Getty doesn't pay weekly.  Their logic would be why hold our money for only a week when they can keep it for over a month like they do for the rest of the Getty contributors.

Quote from: Microbius on September 12, 2010, 15:11
The most frustrating thing is that Getty don't even seem to be able to see how terribly bad they are at running things.
They failed to run the rest of their collections with any sort of profit even with massive commission percentages, then they buy a profitable company and think they can make it more profitable by running it the same way as their other, poorly performing, collections what

LOL

Please-  (Sorry for the rant.  After 20 years in sales it's a pet peeve)

We collect royalties.  We pay IStock commissions.  IStock is commissioned to sell our work.  We are the artists/tradesmen/whatever who created the product.

And yes, this is a small but important distinction.  We are suppliers.  We are not employees or even "like employees".

Yes, IStock is making this decision based on "Greed".  Just like when I went independent several years ago and then exclusive this year, those decisions were based on "Greed".  

Their perception is that unless you have truly unique content, moving your images off IStock will problably not impact them as the buyers will operate on the "equivalent option" principle and purchase the next in line just to get the job done.

Where they fail is the targets themselves are out of line and many of the "casual contributors" are also their customer base.

Quote from: Xalanx on September 11, 2010, 20:07

Quote from: Maui on September 11, 2010, 19:58

Quote from: holgs on September 11, 2010, 18:04

Quote from: fullvalue on September 11, 2010, 17:37

Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF.  Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.

Brilliant idea.  

I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.

First, unlike changing payment terms that would require a whole new contributors agreement and who is going to sign a new contract with IStock now?.  Second, I believe singling a business out like that for exclusion would be illegal but not being a lawyer, I can't be certain.

It seems to me that this would be a very good idea - not only for IS exclusives, but generally.

And what makes you think istock won't change their agreement to "you may upload to any RM site, EXCEPT for this one you created"?

First, unlike changing payment terms that would require a whole new contributors agreement and who is going to sign a new contract with IStock now?.  Second, I believe singling a business out like that for exclusion would be illegal but not being a lawyer, I can't be certain.

Quote from: holgs on September 11, 2010, 17:25
I think I'm caught up on the latest on the threads about the latest changes - to sum it up, IS haven't changed their position, and the vast majority are still unhappy. Both exclusives and non-exclusives.

At the moment we have:
- an Avitar campaign going
- a petition thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1
- people contacting buyers
- people twittering / blogging
- individuals cancelling exclusivity
- individuals deleting portfolios
etc. etc.

KK's last thread is titled: "Where we go from here". To me the line that stands out is: "Tuesday was iStock's "bridge" day, and we crossed it full on." It sounds like they not only crossed it, but burned it down behind them.

To make any change this time we're going to need more than a pettition or new avitars. Rather than everyone running in different directions we really need to come up with a co-ordinated and professional response to this from both exclusives and non-exclusives.

Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF.  Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.