To all of you that currently, or plan to, use models in your photos.  SUBMITTER BEWARE!

Here is a story that you might find helpful.

====

A photo of an elderly gentleman sitting in a chair was used in an ad for a strip club.  In the ad, he is shown holding dollar bills, sitting in front of a topless girl that is stripping, with sex toys everywhere around him.

The photographer of the image was very concerned for the elderly man, since she thought that iStock would protect her images from "sensitive" situations such as this, and never thought that iStock would allow something of this nature.  She asked that they remove the image from the design, but it was denied.  She was very disheartened by the whole thing and has decided to remove the image from the site for future purchases.

Many other photographers, including some of the major players, have decided to join suit and remove their images with models.

Some of the major issues seem to be the following:

1. The IS TOS (Terms of Service) (@ http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php) state that it is prohibited to use an image of a model in a manner that (a) would lead a reasonable person to think that they endorse a business, or (b) depicts them in any way that would be offensive or unflattering.  The ad obviously violates both.

But IS has decided to provide a lot of legalese that basically says that the TOS are ambiguous at best and that they are the only ones that can decipher the TOS and decide whether the use of an image is breaking the TOS.  This has upset a lot of people.

2. If the TOS don't protect against this sort of situation, then what does it protect against?  If a child were placed in the ad instead of an elderly gentleman, would IS have stepped in?  Is topless not enough?  What about bottomless from the rear?  What are the constraints?  Once again, IS has evaded the question with a bunch of legalese.  So nobody now knows how an image can or can't be used.  Basically, the TOS is worthless.

3. Even if an image is obviously breaking the TOS, how can IS even enforce it?  With IS in Canada, photographers around the world, and buyers everywhere in between who has jurisdiction?  For example, if an image of a model's face is placed over a nude body and then placed on a porno site in another country, how can it be enforced?

4. There are images in the IS database that are insensitive in the first place.  Images of sexual body parts, homosexuals kissing, etc.  How can an insensitive image be used in a sensitive way?  Once again, no answer from IS.

IMO, iStock should have stepped in and at least tried to go after the buyer to remove the image.  This would have showed that they truly do care about their "community" of photographers.  Their silence on this shows their true colors.  The TOS is there to protect them and nobody else.

This whole topic has obviously opened a lot of eyes to how IS operates.

And to top it all off, IS has locked the thread.

To view the original image, go here:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38581&page=1

Here is the ad:

http://www.istockphoto.com/design_spotlight_fileview.php?size=3&id=6588[/img]

Here is the website that used the ad:

http://www.electricdisco.com/index.php?page=home

amanda:

1. I was not talking about locking old threads, nor threads that are extremely inflamatory towards iStock, but rather normal threads that question some things at IS. �It seems you can't question anything there.

2. VOX is a failure for a variety of reasons:

a. Because they didn't include their "community" at any part of the process. �They didn't ask contributors how they would feel about larger than normal thumbnails with the watermark moved out of the way (making it easy to pirate the image). �They didn't ask how photographers would feel about their models being inserted (for FREE mind you) on a controversial blog. �And ultimately, they didn't provide an easy way to opt-out of the VOX deal (you have to opt out of all "Promotional Use").
b. People found out about the deal (thru the grapevine). �When they tried to discuss it on the IS forums, the thread was locked more than once.

I'm not sure how you can feel that a business deal with bloggers is going to gain you much.

3. �As far as Peebert is concerned:

If IS "is a business" (as you so aptly put), I can't understand how they can let a person with such a foul mouth run their storefront. �Don't they understand simple etiquette and business practices? �I wonder how long a person with such a foul mouth would last at the IBM forums, or even working at the local fast food restaurant?

Are they trying to run a family business or a business down in the red-light district?

I didn't have to search hard before I found a thread started by Peebert titled "Does anybody give a hot slice of crap about the Summer Olympics?" �Not only does he use his normal barrage of curses in this thread, but he also manages to disparage Christianity as a sidebar.

4. I'm glad that you agree on at least one issue.

5. For a site that sells per image sales, a 20 cent commission is the lowest in the industry. �The only reason they do it is because they can. �If they truly cared about the "community", then they might want to try and help out some of the artists that are tyring to make ends meet.

And you shouldn't compare SS, because they have a totally different model (subscription based vs. per image). �But even if you do, SS still wins.

But the bottom line is that all of the microstock sites need to raise the bar.

IS is currently one of the biggest, but mark my words that they will fall.