Exclusivity restrictions ?

First pagePrevious pageof 4Next page
Displaying 41 to 60 of 75 matches.
Jamesmcq24
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 8:16PM

I can't say conclusively, but I'd assume not. iStock doesn't deal in PHP scripts. If you want a more definitive answer I'm sure support will help out.


yeah I think the problem a lot of people are having with the agreement is that some parts can be far reaching and are somewhat unspecific

Now, it's unlikely that iStock would have a problem and sue someone over one of those far reaching options, but technically they could.

That said, I've agreed to be exclusive and am eagerly waiting

(Edited on 2005-01-04 08:21:50 by Jamesmcq24)
titaniumdoughnut
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 8:23PM

Now, it's unlikely that iStock would have a problem and sue someone over one of those far reaching options, but technically they could.


yeah, thats exactly what is freaking me out.

thanks for all the help mr. simon.
MUnderhill
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 9:04PM

My concern is about what future "Content" will be included in the exclusivity.

Photos are fine, illustrations, fine. But code? No dice.


I agree. They're gonna hafta pay me more if such is the case.
dgilder
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 9:09PM


Now, it's unlikely that iStock would have a problem and sue someone over one of those far reaching options, but technically they could.


yeah, thats exactly what is freaking me out.

thanks for all the help mr. simon.



I've got a very detailed support ticket in with the ambiguities surrounding the scope of "Exclusive Content" outlined, I'll post info in this thread when they get back to me.
QShot
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 5:46AM


It does cover it. Flash files can include both action script(code) and movies.


but how far does the code snippet reach? If I was to sell or give away PHP scripts for example, would that be a violation?


That is the problem - if they don't specify 'exactly' what is included, then you could assume that 'everything' is included that is not specifically excluded - and one day they 'may' sell PHP code - who knows ?
Jamesmcq24
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 7:17AM

That is the problem - if they don't specify 'exactly' what is included, then you could assume that 'everything' is included that is not specifically excluded - and one day they 'may' sell PHP code - who knows ?


yes, but what I was saying is that while iStock could technically argue against someone doing that, they have no reason to, especially since it's very easy to simply not go exclusive.

iStock wants people to go exclusive, and it would be a very bad business decision if they were to start sueing people based on stretches of intricate meanings of legal agreements, especially since they don't even deal in PHP code or the like.

Just because they might be somewhat able to do something by stretching meanings, doesn't mean they are going to, there's no benefit to them in doing that. It's a bit troubling that the implications are there, but you'd be surprised how far most legal contracts can be taken, anything can be argued by a good enough lawyer
dgilder
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 8:40AM
anything can be argued by a good enough lawyer ;)


Exactly why many of us have taken issue with the language in the exclusivity agreement. We can't afford a good enough lawyer, and the best way to defend against that is to make sure what we agree to is very clearly defined.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 8:46AM
It's also not too hard to clearly define things. I don't know why some things end up so ambiguous sometimes. If we humble image people can see problems, you'd think the lawyers would see them too.
tsmarkley
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 9:26AM
I was truely disappointed that I don't qualify for exclusve. I would have gladly signed up for this even without the bonus level of 500 downloads. I think the opportunities for expanded marketing, expidited processong, etc... are worth the "price of admission" to this program. So if ISTOCK would reconsider for
bradleym
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 10:34AM
Question: If I were 'exclusive' and had an image that was either rejected by IS or I chose not to upload to IS, what are the restrictions on what I can do with that image?

Can I...

1) Use it myself commercially (ie a leaflet)?
2) Give it to a friend to use on their website?
3) Give it to a client who request a certain type of image for their brochure?
zerocattle
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 10:41AM

1) Use it myself commercially (ie a leaflet)?
2) Give it to a friend to use on their website?
3) Give it to a client who request a certain type of image for their brochure?


1. yes
2. no (you can sell it privately as rights managed*)
3. no (you can use it in their brochure or sell it as rights managed*)

* according to the contract (see later posts), this may apply only for images that were not put through iStock's inspection process. iStock does not handle rights managed images.

(Edited on 2005-01-05 01:26:12 by zerocattle)
mict
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 10:45AM
1) yes
2) yes - if it is rejected - its not a RF-stockimage
3) yes - if it is rejected - its not a RF-stockimage -
you my sell it your customer
4) yes - you my sell it as RM-Image on an other website (if they take it)


(Edited on 2005-01-05 11:02:26 by mict)
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 10:51AM


2) Give it to a friend to use on their website?


2. no (you can sell it privately as rights managed)


That sounds bizarre.
zerocattle
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 10:54AM
You can give it as rights managed*, too. Just not as stock that they can reuse. If it's covered under custom work, even better. Or if you turn it into something for them, super.

* according to the contract (see later posts), this may apply only for images that were not put through iStock's inspection process. iStock does not handle rights managed images.

(Edited on 2005-01-05 01:27:46 by zerocattle)
mict
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 10:56AM



2) Give it to a friend to use on their website?


2. no (you can sell it privately as rights managed)


That sounds bizarre.


theoretically:
2) yes - if it is rejected - its not a RF-stockimage -
give it to a friend to use on their website?
apletfx
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:02AM
Not sure how istock would view this. but if the the image was similar to something else that was already online (say as part of a series) then you could not sell it to your client or give it away as stock period. They mention in the aggreement that even if a file is rejeted by IS it cannot be sold elseware.

At least that's my take on it
mict
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:03AM
>> it cannot be sold elseware

not as RF-stock
bradleym
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:14AM

Question: If I were 'exclusive' and had an image that was either rejected by IS or I chose not to upload to IS, what are the restrictions on what I can do with that image?

Can I...

1) Use it myself commercially (ie in a leaflet)?
2) Give it to a friend to use on their website?
3) Give it to a client who request a certain type of image for their brochure?


As I suspected... no one seems to know.

Admins - could we have a clarification on this?
zerocattle
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:31AM
er, Brad, you got the same answer three times, how is that not knowing?

2&3 are not clear usages -- if you're giving it to your friend ONLY for their website, it's rights managed. Ditto to your client. If you're giving it to your friend/client for their use in whatever they pleased, it's royalty-free and not allowed.
bobbieo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:38AM

er, Brad, you got the same answer three times, how is that not knowing?


The answer x3 did not come from an admin. It came from peoples interpretations of the contract.

Brad, I would contact support directly for absolute clarification.
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 4Next page
Displaying 41 to 60 of 75 matches.
Not a member?Join