Opinions vary because it's not really a settled area. The typical case is one founded in trademark/copyright law were the owner of a famous building trademarks the building or in the case of a building where there is one best vantage point then they copyright that specific view. I think the best case that has discussed this is Rock and Roll Hall of Fame v. Gentile.

The most worrisome developments have been in the torts area. See the link below:
http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/12/property-release-requirement-put-to.html
I wouldn't be that worried in this particular case because the plaintiff's compliant on its face doesn't even allege the basic elements for invasion of privacy and conversion so they should lose on summary judgment for those, leaving only the physical trespass.

To be honest, I'm not really worried about property releases except when there is a statue or some other art in the photo.

BTW: If you shoot animals in a zoo, you normally need a release also or you shoot cut outs, that nobody can identy which zoo it was.

I have to disagree with this. Just because many zoos (like the San Diego Zoo) claim you can't sell the photos doesn't mean that's true. I haven't seen any zoo successfully assert these claims in court. Instead they use intimidation tactics similar to the RIAA, and even less successfully because they have absolutely no legal foundation.

Yes, it's a very nice shot, but that's not nearly the same person who frequents this site. You've mixed up YinYang with yingyang0.

Correct. Yinyang is a much better photographer than me (and it's correctly spelled). 

This is no different from how Getty Images operates.  So in that regard it's nothing new for us. 

If it's going to be like the warranty offered by Getty on its RF stock then I think it's a step in the right direction. It is definitely a way differentiate the site.

The only difference though is the sub program is like IS's, which is an improvement.

I noticed a few differences, some of which are good for contributors and some that aren't.

1) The contracts are bilateral, requiring contributor's approval before they go into effect.
2) It appears They are actually warranting that customer won't get sued and are basically requiring contributor's to indemnify both the site and the buyer (this is a big change!). Without seeing the actual contracts it's impossible to tell if this is really what they'll do, but from the FAQ info this appears to be the case.

It looks to me like a new version of SS since it is an image/day subscription service and they separate the contributors (a subdomain of "submit") and the regular site for the buyers. It's strange that former Getty execs would start a micro using the business model of their former competitors.

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 13, 2008, 17:19

Quote from: averil on September 12, 2008, 20:55

Non-exclusives on istock generally can't upload their entire portfolios due to upload caps. Hence, although buyers have greater choice of exclusive imagery,they have less choice of non-exclusive imagery than they have on other sites.

Non sequitur.

How so? Seems logical to me.

Well the argument doesn't hold up because the other sites don't accept everything so just because you can submit more photos at another site doesn't mean they will be accepted and produce a greater choice of non-exclusive imagery. It's also worth noting that most people don't use up there entire upload limit every week.

Most of averil's points have been directed at why it's better for contributors to be non-exclusive and then from that draws conclusions about the buyers. The fact is that exclusive content for buyers at iStock is a huge advantage (it's why some of the others have started copying it). Buyers are able to know exactly how many times that image has been sold and know that is the only site that the image has been sold from. That's a feature normally only seen in the much more expensive RM licenses of the "big boys".

... it seems to me that the open architecture approach of IBM is what allowed it to win out in the end. istock's exclusivity program attempts to lock photographers into istock alone. Sure, the quality is great, but seems that many contributors find lack of commitment to be an advantage.

The open architecture of IBM was a benefit to the buyers! Here you're talking about an arrangement on the seller side. There's nothing about iStock's approach that locks buyers into anything. In fact, for the buyers the exclusive content is an added advantage, not a disadvantage.

The quality of photos for a startup is impressive, but the lack of restrictions in the license did surprise me.

http://www.affordable-stock-photography.com/license.html

Who are you, and why are you speaking for Sean?  And who are you to call a buyer a "sucker?"  Or to make the call on what is, and what is not, stock?  I'm looking at your iStock portfolio right now.  You've been there a few years and I don't see a whole lot of downloads.  It just amazes me when someone with industry knowledge posts something cogent, and is immediately followed up by a rebuttal from someone who really hasn't done much of anything in stock.

Thanks for you thoughts Dan. Unfortunately I've never claimed to by a photographer, I just don't have the time. I uploaded to iStock for research purposes for my day job. It is the same reason I monitor the forums, I get to bill for reading the posts here.

Now to respond. I wasn't speaking for Sean, I was correcting stock shooter's misinterpretation of what Sean said. I also didn't call the buyer a sucker, you should go back and read what was actually posted before going off on people you don't know. As for who I am, I've been around the stock photography business since the early 80's and have represented some of the biggest names in the industry. What amazes me is when someone that is new to the industry makes judgments of a person based on a link to one website, and then interjects with personal attacks. Please take Sean's advice and relax.

You know your little sarcastic quips all over the different forums are getting old dude. You're not nearly as witty or in insightful as you think, just obnoxious.

how many times would that image (that I provided the link to in my previous post) have been downloaded on the micros? Not many I would think...You�re free to slave away to make Bruce a rich guy but don�t call me a sucker because I know there are other avenues for licensing imagery than iStock.

First I find Sean to be funny the majority of the time. Second, he wasn't calling you a sucker. He was calling the person that paid $8,000 for a tourist snapshot a sucker. Third, you're correct it wouldn't have been downloaded on the micros very often and it is highly likely that it would have been rejected by many of them as "not stock". Finally, Bruce sold iStock for $50 million a few years ago and is now a salary worker at Getty (which is now owned by a hedge fund), so Sean's sales aren't really making Bruce richer.

Nobody pays by cheque anymore in North America.  Even in the early 90's I worked as a slave at a big insurance company and we were going electronic:  they estimated then that it cost their company around $25 to write each cheque. 

When I've had real jobs, just about all real "business" went by wire transfer.  They wrote cheques for expense accounts, and purchase orders.

I can assure you that in North America people and companies still use checks. Since you used the term cheque you're probably Canadian so you should know that not only do Canadians still use checks but they're actually adopting other forms of payment at a much slower rate than anywhere else. Since I still have a real job I can also assure you that the only business transactions conducted using wire transfer in North America are large transactions. The average FedWire transaction is about $3 million.

I live in Macedonia, and it's not a small amount of money in question. I sold the pic for 260 euros. Anyone know a place where I could download billing  forms specifically suited to photography ?  The ones I found on the net are way too general. Thanks

Wire transfers aren't normally used for amounts less than $10,000 and normally are used for amounts in the $100,000+ range. Why pay a fee for using a wire transfer when there are free and easier ways to collect payment?

Normally you just send them an invoice and they send you a check. I've done business with many magazines, including European ones and I've never considered giving them my banking information. I use a modified version of a microsoft Word invoice template.

God help me if someone sends in a photo of their stained underwear or belly button with lint inside.

Darn it. I had the tighty-whities with tire tracks all keyworded and ready to go. 

They are supposed to be opening it up for silver level exclusives some time this fall. I think it was one of the "prestige" announcements a few weeks back. I will see if I can find a link for you.

There is a thread on the subject but it's in the exclusive forum.