question about new agreement

Displaying 1 to 10 of 10 matches.
judywatt
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 4:25PM
I read the agreement and it says that it does NOT apply to rights-managed images that we might be selling on other sites, correct?

Yet if I answer "yes" to the question of whether I have images for sale elsewhere, it won't let me apply.

The only images I have elsewhere are rights-managed images, not RF images.

The question doesn't ask what KIND of images we have for sale elsewhere, yet the agreement states it's OK to have rights-managed images for sale elsewhere, if I read it correctly.

So should I just answer "no" to that question?

zerocattle
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 6:19PM
I think that's right, but you shouldn't listen to me. Instead call or email Support for help with the contract.
judywatt
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 7:51PM
Thanks, I'll do that if an admin person doesn't answer it here. I thought it might be good to post the question in case a lot of other people wondered about the same thing when they were going to apply.

I think the question just means do we have any RF images for sale elsewhere, but that's not exactly what it says, so.... well, in my other life I spent about 20 years reading law books for a living, so I tend to read things like that very literally and not assume that they mean something other than what is actually written.

(Edited on 2005-01-05 07:52:46 by judywatt)
JynMeyerDesign
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:31PM
Okay, so what about Rights free photos that are up for USE elsewhere, but not sale?

for example, a site that lets you upload your photos but doesnt charge for people to use them?

-Jyn
nano
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:38PM
If you mean royalty free Jyn, I believe that they must be taken down from a free for exchange site (no monies charged) or deactivated in order to qualitfy as being exclusive.
JynMeyerDesign
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 12:23AM
Nano, I'm talking files that are not used on istock photo- is that the same thing your talking about?

One photographer, some images not being charged for over on this one site, other images being charged for on iStock photo- none duplicated.

-Jyn
upsidedowndog
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMask of the Diablo Azul - Member has won between 1 and 3 Steel Cage matches
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 12:57AM
Jyn: The new License Agreement is very clear on this - if you sell your photos as an "exclusive" photographer with iStock you can not sell or give away your images in any Royalty-Free capacity anywhere else - it defeats the purpose of iStock being able to say "This photographer sells Royalty Free images exclusively through us". The exclusivity agreement is per-photographer, not per image.

Rights-Managed, on the other hand, which is a whole different market, is acceptable, but the images cannot be the same as those on iStock - if you sell a photo outside of iStock as Rights-Managed (say for special exclusive use by a client in a poster) then that photo must be deactivated on iStock. (Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I think it's right)

bradleym
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:30AM

Rights-Managed, on the other hand, which is a whole different market, is acceptable, but the images cannot be the same as those on iStock - if you sell a photo outside of iStock as Rights-Managed (say for special exclusive use by a client in a poster) then that photo must be deactivated on iStock. (Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I think it's right)


Correct. Rejected istock images may be distrubuted independantly of Istock as rights-managed. But images here on Itsock may only be distributed as Rights Managed if they are deactived here first.
StanRohrer
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:04AM
To the topic of converting RM to RF or RF to RM....

If an image was ever sold as Royalty Free (e.g. iStock), it is not appropriate to attempt to sell it Rights Managed. Royalty free indicates the photographer has given up the right of control that is expected in Rights Managed sales. An RM buyer wants to know that, for example, his competitor is not using the same image for a competing advertizing campaign. If the image has ever been released as RF, then the photog or agency cannot know the uses of the RF image and is no longer in control of the user and usage of the image for RM sales.

RM images can go RF, though ethically all RM sales and use periods must be well expired before the transition so as to avoid any use conflicts.

RF images cannot be ethically converted to RM because there is no track record of the RF users and use periods (RF is unlimited use). Converting RF to RM could be serious grounds for a law suit if, for example, a company uses rights to the RM image in widespread advertizing and their competitor, having bought the image earlier as RF also continues to use the image. The granter of the RM lisence will be in trouble for lack of Rights Management control.
bradleym
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:37AM

To the topic of converting RM to RF or RF to RM....

If an image was ever sold as Royalty Free (e.g. iStock), it is not appropriate to attempt to sell it Rights Managed. Royalty free indicates the photographer has given up the right of control that is expected in Rights Managed sales. An RM buyer wants to know that, for example, his competitor is not using the same image for a competing advertizing campaign. If the image has ever been released as RF, then the photog or agency cannot know the uses of the RF image and is no longer in control of the user and usage of the image for RM sales.

RM images can go RF, though ethically all RM sales and use periods must be well expired before the transition so as to avoid any use conflicts.

RF images cannot be ethically converted to RM because there is no track record of the RF users and use periods (RF is unlimited use). Converting RF to RM could be serious grounds for a law suit if, for example, a company uses rights to the RM image in widespread advertizing and their competitor, having bought the image earlier as RF also continues to use the image. The granter of the RM lisence will be in trouble for lack of Rights Management control.


Fair point but.... There have been several examples in the past of istock RF images being deactivated and then sold as RM. As long as the prospective buyer understands how and where the the image has been distrubuted in the past then it's up to them to decide whether to proceed with the sale.

One more point - RM doesn't necessarily mean an image becomes exclusive to the client buying it (although it can do). RM merely means that an image's usage is managed - The client requests a certain use (and duration of use) and the 'manager' of the image then sets the price for such a usage.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 10 of 10 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)