New user agreement

Displaying 1 to 15 of 15 matches.
brightlady
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 4:13PM

We are asked to agree not to...
...publish, post, distribute or disseminate any defamatory, infringing, obscene, pornographic, sexual, indecent or unlawful material or information.

(emphasis mine)

Surely you don't mean that.
If you do, someone's going to have to do a lot of site content weeding.
Whose definition of "indecent" will be used?


And you had to know that one of us "judgmental", "prudish", blahblah types would ask about this.



PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 4:26PM
The way I read the agreement, it's a get-out clause. Ergo, if any legal problem arises on the basis of obscenity the site is entitled to say it is the supplier's fault, not the fault of iStock.
Therefore, the supplier is liable. It is up to the suppliers to weed, not the admins.

What's slightly more scary is the liability suppliers accept for abusing or allegedly abusing the site. This makes an allegation by istock equivalent to a conviction and, in my view, should not be in the agreement. But its not a big enough quibble to merit rejecting the agreement (well, I don't think so, anyway).
upsidedowndog
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 4:27PM
Bright, that's standard for virtually any contract of this kind - it's a "cover your ass" statement. I think you'll find that something similar to this could be found in the ToS of just about any RF stock site.

The definition of what is indecent, sexual or pornographic varies from country to country (or state to state even in the U.S), but the broad spectrum is basically the same and allows iStock to legally cover the worst of the worst or any obvious defamatory usage.
brightlady
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 4:43PM

I realize that it's a standard CYA inclusion. Indecent and pornographic are perfectly understandable, but sexual? I've read through several RF user agreements and found obscene and/or pornographic, but not sexual. What's wrong with an image being sexual? I'd guess that at least 25% of iStock images could be classified as sexual in nature. iStock obviously shouldn't accept any images that would violate its own agreement. If the user agreement is going to say that this type of material is unacceptable and could violate the user agreement, then pornographic, indecent, and sexual images would have to be rejected.

See what I'm saying? Sexual is not at all the same as obscene or pornographic and it's a mistake to include it in the agreement.

(at least I think so)
braclark
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 5:07PM
did you guy really read those things?

I just wanted to find the new features.
PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 5:31PM
Um. Yes. It's a good idea before signing up to something. The Soul-transfer clause, for example, may worry some people though it seems to be OK for atheists.

I must confess, though, that I found it rather amusing that we had all got so excited over the prospect of being able to spend an hour reading detailed legal agreements. (And did they have to repeat so much of it in the two separate forms?)
sakaasa
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 5:47PM
There is a difference between sensual and sexual material. Erotica is not necessarily sexual.

I do not see a bare breast, buttocks or even a "deflated" male organ as sexual. However, the male organ verges on the same level of exposure as the female gentalia, so stricter evaluation of what can be depicted visually is necessary. I think they could all be described as sensual and erotic depending on the pose.

That said, I believe the word "sexual" is a necessary inclusion and that its inclusion does not give rise to a re-evaluation of the iStock library content.

The opinion of this person anyway
Sirimo
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 downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 6:50PM
That has, to my knowledge, always been in the agreement. The standards by which it is decided have not changed.
PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 7:04PM

That has, to my knowledge, always been in the agreement. The standards by which it is decided have not changed.

You're referring to the soul-transfer clause, right?
dsteller
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 7:09PM

That has, to my knowledge, always been in the agreement. The standards by which it is decided have not changed.


yep. it was in the old one.
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 7:24PM
So, if someone takse a picture of a trademarked object, upload it, and it passes inspection, then later the owner of the trademark finds out iStock has been selling it and sues iStock, then the person who uploaded the photo will have to pay iStock's legal fees?



That does make me pause, because elsewhere in the agreement I think it says something to the effect that iStock does not guarantee that all photos uploaded will be inspected. Essentially, they won't guarantee to catch hard to find logos that you may have accidentally left in, and if they get in trouble for it, you get to pay the bill.


I can fully understand why they would have this kind of a clause, but if you are extra dilligent in researching copyrights and trademarks on the photos you upload, it shouldn't really be a problem.

Sirimo
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 downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 7:24PM

means if iStock gets sued and your photos are mentioned as a reason, iStock will come to you for their legal expenses. That's certainly more liability than I can risk for a hobby that nets me just a few hundred per year, max.


Well don't sell images that will get you sued ! Surely that's common sense ? It would seem to me, to be there to cover stuff like - Photographer fakes model release, iStock gets sued. iStock wouldn't be liable you would be, but that should be obvious it's your fault.
PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 7:37PM
C'mon guys, everyone gets sucked into this legalese and gets paranoid over it.

Life is not 100% risk free and it isn't 100% responsibility free. But there is also REALITY.

What is the REAL number of litigations over photos? What is the REAL risk of an oversight getting you shredded?

If the risk of litigation over a pic that neither you nor iStock noticed anything wrong with is going to make you give up, then you had better never leave your home again because of the danger.

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 7:56PM
I seems to me that people are freaking out over stuff that was ALWAYS in the user agreement.

I read the agreement when I signed up, and I read the new agreement and there was nothing that really stood out as different or outrageous in the new user agreement or significant stuff that wasn't there before.


everyone gets sucked into this legalese and gets paranoid over it.
PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 4, 2005 7:56PM
EM - I guess we live in different worlds. I don't have an iota of cover for any legal problem.

I was going to point out that on the reverse side of the coin, iStock defends against liabilities by all possible legal means, so the liability you might encounter if something went wrong is offset by their restrictions on responsibility ($5 in one case and $1,000 in another). At least, that's how I read it but I am not a lawyer.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 15 of 15 matches.
Not a member?Join