thanks Jonathan. I know a lot of modelling agencies won't work with stock photographers at all. but obviously there are a lot of great models that don't have a problem working in stock images. hopefully these types of issues are few and far between. other than these two examples, I've actually never heard of it--first-hand--happening to a colleague. the example I always use is the Friends episode where Joey models for a poster company and his likeness is used on posters for venereal disease.

From iStock, there was the one of the family being used in a British National Party (fascist/racist political party) flyer, a girl being used in posters for a more moderate Northern Irish political party - cleverly and amusingly, a rival party used the same image on their posters, with a slogan saying something like, "I changed my mind!" (both against the ASA), the old man outside the shed, and the woman in a restaurant used to illustrate an article on call girls, very unfortunately published in the city where the woman, an educator, lives, but not with a comment like 'posed by a model', which is required. (Content License Agreement 4.7(b).

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:38

Quote from: aeonf on January 02, 2011, 07:28

Quote from: Gannet77 on January 02, 2011, 07:24

And be aware, as also mentioned, that as an exclusive, you're not permitted to sell rejected content elsewhere, even as RM, without permission.

As far as I know, you are !

Not according to iStock support.  I've asked.

I remember this having been discusse din the past, and Gannet77 would be right (unless something had changed). It sounds silly, but that was IS' rule.

Exclusive ASA 7.2
"You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties. "
IIRC, JJRD said a few months ago that they were going to review this clause, but either they have not done so, or they reviewed it and decided to retain it.
That said, I've always had permission when I've asked. In fact, the last time, the IS support person suggested I should try all my content RM first, then uploading any RM rejections to iStock (!) as that would be easier all round. Very surprising answer, I thought.

This is from the iStock ASA:
10.3
"The Supplier agrees that  iStockphoto shall have the right to determine whether and to what extent to proceed against a licensee or other third party (an "Infringer") for any violation of the Content License Agreement, or other license agreement or alleged infringement of other rights of the Supplier. The Supplier hereby releases iStockphoto from any and all claims the Supplier might have, either directly or indirectly, arising out of or in connection with a determination by iStockphoto to proceed or not to proceed against any Infringer in any instance. iStockphoto hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal or enforcement action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate iStockphoto for lost licensing fees or statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery (including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by or on behalf of iStockphoto in connection with such action, be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above. In the event iStockphoto elects not to proceed against an Infringer, the Supplier shall have the right to proceed against such Infringer for such license violation or infringing action. The Supplier hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate the Supplier for lost licensing fees or include statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery (including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis), be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above. "

Just noticed on the 'losers' thread on iStock Sean posted an extract from the ASA, which said, inter alia:
"The parties acknowledge that the Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business without notice by posting such changes on the Site."
That last bit is totally ambiguous like so much more on the ASA. It is unpunctuated, (what fun, like a school English exercise ) therefore there's no way of knowihg whether it is meant to be:
"The parties acknowledge that the Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business comma without notice by posting such changes on the Site."
or
"The parties acknowledge that the Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business without notice comma by posting such changes on the Site."

In fact, although these have totally opposite different meanings, the net result of either to the suppliers is the same. But it just shows how wide the holes they've made on their side of the ASA is, while making our side rigid and watertight.
(And strangely [not], whenever I've questioned an ambiguous clause, it's always interpreted to be in their favour)

Hi Leaf,
This question is odd since you can only answer yes or no:
Do you have any employees or do you work as a team?
Kind regards,
laflor

Although it looks like two separate questions, I assumed it was just to differentiate between people working solely on their own, and 'any other model'.

On iStock up from 2009, and even from 2008, which was much better than 2009. But the increase over previous years was in the beginning of the year. The year end, previously my best time, was relatively disappointing. Also my pics uploaded in the past 18 months are being virtually ignored, so I've very much slowed down on uploading there.
Focussing on building my Alamy portfolio, on a long-term 'wait and see'.

.  Hopefully they will be sold and the new owners will have a better long term strategy. 

Or even a long-term strategy full stop. At the moment, they seem to pick on one employee a week and give them ten seconds to think of what we can do next week, and that includes the office junior, the tea lady and the masseuse. Then the programmers get half an hour to roll it out.

Seeing as how they cannot have a solid grasp on peoples' numbers for at least 3 days ( the usual RC calculations ), plus the fraud RC removal, plus the Vetta and audio RC additions ...

I think they'll hit it anyway, and say they'll adjust later, knowing it's almost impossible for us to know what's really due to us.
If I'm wrong, it's the first nod to consumer sensibilities we'll have had in months, though it will only affect the people 'on the cusp'.

I'll be sticking on 30%, but as I'm within 400 dls of turning gold, it will soon be falling from what I should have expected.

I'm already uploading much less, especially since my old files are vastly outselling my newer ones - even the ones which wouldn't pass inspection nowadays - go figure! On current showings, that won't change. I happened to catch a new file last month which had sunk to position 83 in a best match search less than 24 hours after appearing in my portfolio - and now people are reporting files not even getting into their ports.
Ethan and Duck will get a well-deserved rest when my canister turns gold but my royalties don't, as I'll almost stop wiki-ing, suggesting bulk wikis and bombarding their in-trays!
I'm guessing people won't help others so much on the forums, as everyone is now directly a rival, not just for sales but for percentage rates, as only a certain percentage will reach each level. Previously helping someone in a different genre had no adverse effect on your own progress; now it does.
But it's not just the cash grab: they just seem to be totally incompetent at everything they do. They don't seem to have any plan, far less a long-term one.  They've heard of buyers, but want no truck with them.
My year started OK: dls down, $$$ up, but my end of year is bad: this month will be over 20% down on last Dec and much more compared to Dec 08 for $$.
I'll be keeping a watching brief on editorial, but to be honest, I can't imagine any local situations selling in numbers which would make micro prices worth it. Different for contributers in big cities, probably.
In Pollyanna mode, things can only get better, but realistically ...
So ... continuing to focus, optimistically, on RM/editorial at Alamy. May start looking at other RM agencies with a more local/specialist focus.

Quote from: SK on December 30, 2010, 10:08

What we are experiencing at iStock is incompetence and gross mismanagement. As CEO of a technology company, the Board would fire my as* in a heart beat if I ran the business and produced a website with the magnitude of problems and lack of testing and Q/C we are experiencing. On top of all the issues they close the shop and take a vacation. This is either total incompetence or just plain arrogance. I don't see a long term future with iStock.

This is one of the things that frustrates me the most.  Before going into the programming end of development, I spent a few years in QA as a tester and then managing the QA function.  I see some of the stuff that gets rolled out here where basically it's the buyers and contributors testing it, and so obviously broken, that I'm just mind-boggled that it got put into production in that shape.  It bugs me when people say "well those things will happen in all companies" -- not to this extent and repetition, and not without heads rolling.  I'd have been let go in a heartbeat. 

Oh, who knows, he might be on a big golden goodbye deal like Fred the Shred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin
The salient points are:
"Sir Frederick Anderson Goodwin CA, FCIBS, (born 17 August 1958) is a chartered accountant who was formerly chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS).
From 2000 until 2008 he presided over RBS's rapid rise to global prominence as the world's largest company (by assets - �1.9 trillion),and fifth-largest bank by stock market value and its even more rapid fall as RBS was forced into effective nationalisation in 2008.
On October 11, 2008, Goodwin officially announced his resignation as Chief Executive and an early retirement, effective from January 31, 2009 - a month before RBS announced that its 2008 loss totalled �24.1bn, the largest annual loss in UK corporate history. Following the February 2009 disclosure of his approximately �700,000 per year pension award from RBS he was the subject of widespread public, political and media criticism."
and
"...Around this time he gained the moniker "Fred the Shred" from City financiers, reflecting a reputation for ruthlessly generating cost savings and efficiencies"
Basically Fred's in clover and doesn't GAF about the detritus (ordinary bank employees) left in his wake.

When i checked the iS forums this morning there was a thread made by a contributor (whiteway) who also had 'fraudulent transactions'. He posted that when he googled his name  today he got A LOT more hits than usual, all leading to what google calls 'attack sites' (if i recall the post correct).
Wanted to see the replies but there's no sign of the thread anymore... Ho ho ho indeed.

I've had that since not long after I joined, on many sites, with the same surrounding text in several. It's probably done by a harvesting bot. I previously got it from Usenet and/or my personal website. I'm even down as having written user testimonials on things I've never even heard of, at least twice with my name and istockphoto underneath (randomly harvested, nothing to do with photography).