|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - heywoody
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 58
151
« on: February 28, 2015, 14:04 »
Just curious, why pull thumbnails?
152
« on: February 28, 2015, 11:00 »
Yeah they smell a bit like getty which are normally reported under PP as "Getty" - the bit that's similar to getty is that the date is reported without a timestamp (present on all other sales).
153
« on: February 28, 2015, 10:46 »
Just noticed a number of additional PP sales @ $0.19 a pop all on 19th Jan and with the site listed as "Partner Portal" - is this something new?
154
« on: February 24, 2015, 17:31 »
I've had a few sales with untypical Alamy content. My keywords are in IPTC in relevance order anyway and I just copy and paste to the 2 main boxes, not a huge deal. View on Alamy just mean a thumb of you image appeared in a search. I would say marginally worthwhile uploading and view any returns as a bonus.
155
« on: February 15, 2015, 17:17 »
Section 5
Could you quote the specific part of that which you are saying they are in breach of ?
I am not a fan of current iStock for various reasons - but I cannot see any reason to believe that they are in breach of the contract.
OK In steps. Section 5 of the agreement defines royalties as follows: No payment will be made unless a minimum of $100, after Royalty Deductions (defined below), is due to you in accordance with the rate schedule [/size] (the Rate Schedule). Royalties are paid on License Fees which are (a) the amount charged by iStock or a Distribution Partner to each of their Clients (or in the case of certain Distribution Partners, the amount charged by iStock to those Distribution Partners for royalty free licenses);
The rate schedule says:
For files licensed using on a Pay As You Go basis, the royalty rate is applied to the net amount paid to download your image. In the case of a file licensed using iStock Credits, the contributor's royalty is applied to the net price of iStock credits used to license a file. iStock Credit prices vary depending on when they were purchased (as our prices change over time) and how many were purchased at once (as we discount bulk packages). For licenses bought with a subscription, the flat royalty is calculated based on your exclusivity and the collection your file is in.
The extended legal guarantee is sold in the same way as any other extended licence, is specific to the file in question, and is part of the nett amount charged to the customer, and should result in the same cut for the contributor.
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses
QED?
156
« on: February 15, 2015, 15:51 »
Section 5
157
« on: February 15, 2015, 14:38 »
That's a totally different nebulous argument. Your claim previously above is that they are in legal breach of contract.
What they are selling in this instance is not something which the contributors have supplied. It's like insurance.
But they are not selling insurance. What they are selling is an extended licence (listed as a type of extended licence and the sale is reported as such). Unless someone can show me where, in their contract with me, that this type of sale is an exception I maintain the view that that are in breach. You are the only person making nebulous arguments here, based on supposed intent rather than on the letter of what is written.
158
« on: February 15, 2015, 11:53 »
The argument is total bollox anyway, the image in question is 100% risk free
No image is 100% risk free from the end user perspective.
No? What percentage chance is there that the isolated tomato will take a law suit?
Suppose the image of the tomato has been stolen.
To 2 decimal places, what percentage of generic stock imagery sales of isolated objects have resulted in lawsuits as far as you are aware? The point is that they are, as far as I can tell, breaching their own supplier contract. I have some degree of experience arguing the toss on contractual minutiae but am open to anyone pointing out a legal basis for their position.
I am no fan of current iStock. But I have no doubt that Getty legal trumps your "some degree of experience".
Without question. However, even Getty legal cant stitch this sort of 3 card trick into a contract unless the bean counters who figure they can screw the contributor a bit further to trouser a few extra bucks, advise them to do so.
159
« on: February 15, 2015, 11:12 »
The argument is total bollox anyway, the image in question is 100% risk free
No image is 100% risk free from the end user perspective.
No? What percentage chance is there that the isolated tomato will take a law suit? In any case, that isn't the point. The point is that they are, as far as I can tell, breaching their own supplier contract. I have some degree of experience arguing the toss on contractual minutiae but am open to anyone pointing out a legal basis for their position.
160
« on: February 15, 2015, 10:40 »
I had a look at the supplier licence agreement as this is the legal basis of my relationship with IS (as opposed to any relationship they have with the buyer). Given this is reported as a sale and included as an extended licence option like any other I should be paid the 15% in accordance with their own rate schedule. I can see no wording in their agreement with me that provides a "get of jail card" in terms of their responsibilities to make the appropriate royalty payment.
You'd have to consult a lawyer about that. Most of their legalese was written to privide them maximum wiggle room.
Seems pretty clear from http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=116361&page=1 "The Legal Guarantee and the Extended Legal Guarantee both offer iStockphoto clients peace of mind that many of our competitors simply cannot offer. These guarantees attract more clients because iStockphoto is taking the risk of defending the content we are so proud of and legally confident in. Since the risk to protect our clients belongs to iStockphoto alone, the revenue from the Extended Legal Guarantee goes only to iStockphoto."
Its pretty clear that that is their position on the matter and my follow up message on the forum to the one inevitably locked, was deleted. That said, their legal obligations are detailed in the contract, not in FAQs or form responses by moderators so I emailed them as follows: Dear sirs, The background and iStocks position on this matter are outlined in the following forum thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365475&page=1I would like to formally request either of the following: 1. Please point out the provision in my supplier agreement with iStock which absolves you from paying royalty in this case in accordance with the rates schedule or 2. Please credit my account as per your contract with me. [size=78%] [/size]Regards,
161
« on: February 15, 2015, 10:10 »
I had a look at the supplier licence agreement as this is the legal basis of my relationship with IS (as opposed to any relationship they have with the buyer). Given this is reported as a sale and included as an extended licence option like any other I should be paid the 15% in accordance with their own rate schedule. I can see no wording in their agreement with me that provides a "get of jail card" in terms of their responsibilities to make the appropriate royalty payment.
162
« on: February 15, 2015, 07:35 »
Further thought, could be wrong here but, if memory serves, isn't this one of the situations covered by the SOD licence at SS and for which the contributor gets a nice chunk of the action?
163
« on: February 15, 2015, 07:10 »
Yes, probably an extended legal guarantee - someone else asked about it here - exactly a year ago, as it happens: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359256
That thread didn't last too long and expect the same will happen to mine if it isn't deleted altogether. This sort of thing can only piss people off, even the few remaining fan boys. The argument is total bollox anyway, the image in question is 100% risk free and they are extracting multiples of the original sale price and not even passing on the paltry 15%.
164
« on: February 14, 2015, 07:32 »
That seems to be it ok - not an EL, not even a sale. Why . then, is it reported as such?
165
« on: February 14, 2015, 06:10 »
It's for real at the moment at least but assume there's a bug - posted on IS forum and may get an explanation..
166
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:57 »
Beat this if you can..
167
« on: February 12, 2015, 15:55 »
If you can get past the extra work in uploading and the IP paranoia, RPI is still better than most. Can't seem to muster the enthusiasm to take my own advice though.
168
« on: February 10, 2015, 17:27 »
I usually don't do these things due to the insignificance of the earnings but do have very good stats. On the question about where was the biggest decrease over the last year, I would definitely have said DT, but, surprise, surprise, it was SS (course this was based on $ amounts rather than %).
169
« on: February 05, 2015, 15:46 »
Never read any mail from any stock agency & get the results on the site
170
« on: January 24, 2015, 06:21 »
Doesn't need to be corporate. There was an accident in the city where I work recently where a child in a pram went under the wheels of a truck and emergency services hampered by fools with iphones recording it..
171
« on: January 20, 2015, 16:50 »
Turn around and touch your toes 
172
« on: January 20, 2015, 16:45 »
I have always thought that a point would be reached where this thing would simply not be worth the effort to upload - even for the "weekend shooter" like me, never mind the pros, at which point content will start to go where it does remain viable. If I were a betting man I'd say SS will probably react first to maintain content. We're not there yet so not holding my breath
173
« on: January 20, 2015, 16:12 »
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?
which agency deal really did?
Google drive could well have done.
I'm opting into this because it might be a bit more money and I'm d'mned sure none of my images is so wonderful that 10,000 advertisers would grab it for free just because it is one of a pile available free. I'll probably get a handful selected and be able to buy a beer with the proceeds.
There may be a "devalues the market" argument, but since we all opted out of the mysterious free give-away last year and there are still enough images available for DT to go ahead with this, being opted in or out is going to make no difference to that at all.
Having what is going on explained actually removes the objection I had to secret giveaways which caused me to opt out in the first place.
Besides, I'm not in the mood today to light my brand, pick up my pitchfork and head up to the grim old Romanian castle, I've got other things to do.
Tend to agree. It's all very well to talk about licencing for peanuts but most of us went down that road by putting material on subs sites in the first place.
174
« on: January 18, 2015, 18:38 »
On the bright side, no golden handcuffs so you won't lose thousands if you spread your wings
175
« on: January 16, 2015, 17:27 »
IS is beating SS on earnings (with 10 images more on SS), not sure why, but its an interesting observation. There is not enough data to draw conclusions, but it makes one wonder. Could IS still outperform SS? Based on RPI, it seems so.
In terms of RPI I find SS and IS+PP are similar and well ahead of the rest but IS used to be 10X SS. They definitely are going down though and the fact that most income only appears monthly is not great motivation to upload.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
