Exclusivity Application?

of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 33 matches.
emily2k
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 7:52PM
Dose it mean that artists cannot sell their images which not be uploaded to istockphoto or istockpro via other channels? Even the images rejected by Istock? Can artists contribute their images to newspaper or magazines?
blackwaterimages
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 8:13PM
I'd search the forums... these questions have been asked and debated for a month now -particularly over the past 24 hours...
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 9:06PM
There is a funny bit of language in the exclusivity agreement that could be read two ways. The intent appears to be that you would be able to sell iStock rejects ( and even non-rejected images ) under editorial or rights managed licenses. However, the language could also be read to say that once you submit it to iStock, you can not sell it as rights managed or editorial, etc. There are a couple of support tickets open with people asking for the language in the agreement to be clarified a bit.

(Edited on 2005-01-05 09:07:51 by dgilder)
JynMeyerDesign
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:29PM


See, if i could upload the pictures that are rejected to other sites? Wham! I'd be on the exclusivity agreement in a heartbeat.

But I just do too well with all the photos that arent fit for istock photo but are elsewhere. I just cant sign that away when my photos help a lot of non profit organizations.

-Jyn
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 1:22AM
See, if i could upload the pictures that are rejected to other sites? Wham! I'd be on the exclusivity agreement in a heartbeat.


Aaargh! But that defeats the whole purpose of "exclusivity"! How on earth can iStock claim to have a photographer who is exclusive to them if they can go and sell or give away their photos elsewhere?!? They might as well just not bother with this at all... the system would basically be the way it was before. How many times do we have to go over this?? (bangs head against brick wall...)
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 1:43AM
Wonder if iStock is thinking of having a "bargain basement" or freebie pot for the borderline rejects - or even for older or donated images.

Of course, those who want to sell their rejects on other sites can forget about the Exclusive Member agreement, because you can't do both.

swalls
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 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 1:47AM


Aaargh! But that defeats the whole purpose of "exclusivity"! How on earth can iStock claim to have a photographer who is exclusive to them if they can go and sell or give away their photos elsewhere?!? They might as well just not bother with this at all... the system would basically be the way it was before. How many times do we have to go over this?? (bangs head against brick wall...)


UDD! Dog, what is up with that? Hey I respect you and your opinions. I really do but please, why can't an image be exclusive without tying up the artist? If istock allowed "exclusive" images that people couldn't get anywhere else other then istock then those would certianly be "exclusive" images to istock and the system wouldn't even be basically the same as it was before. It would be very different as it would offer images "exclusive to istock" As a business model, I understand where istock is coming from wanting to have "exclusive artists". It really makes sense but in the long run only a few lucky and very talented one's will truly benifit from this aggrement. I guess I'm saying good luck to you but don't bang your head too hard against that brick wall or you won't be able to enjoy you exclusive agreement.

(Edited on 2005-01-06 01:51:32 by swalls)
urbancow
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:46AM
Seems quite simple to me. If you want to be exclusive to istock on their terms, then sign up for it. If you can make more money elsewhere by selling rejects etc, don't sign up for excusivity. You win either way don't you?

kickers
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 4:33AM
I don´t really know what´s the problem with those restrictions. I´ve signed up because I´m completely with istock. I don´t care if I mustn´t sell audio files, rejected images or code(?) elsewhere. If I´d like to sell that kind of stuff, I´d do it at istock. (Except the rejected images of course *lol*). If I find another site where they pay three times the money, I cancel my exclusivity.

The decision isn´t that hard in my eyes. Are you completely with istock or not. That´s what it says "exclusive".
sdominick
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 4:42AM
There actually is a quote about rejects in the agreement that I would like someone to elaborate more on. It's under Mangaing Exclusive Content:

iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.

Andyd
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 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:23AM

Wonder if iStock is thinking of having a "bargain basement" or freebie pot for the borderline rejects - or even for older or donated images.


or how about charity stock where rejected images can be put for use at low cost and the money collected go to a charity
jtyler
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:28AM

iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.[/b]

[/quote]

That's an interesting tidbit. It sounds like it would pave the way for the above suggestion of a "bargain basement" type outlet. I would be interested in clarification of that also.
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:55AM


Wonder if iStock is thinking of having a "bargain basement" or freebie pot for the borderline rejects - or even for older or donated images.


or how about charity stock where rejected images can be put for use at low cost and the money collected go to a charity


I wouldn't necessarily want my rejected images sold at bargain prices, or given away, just because istock wants to. I guess you can get out of that by not agreeing to the new rate.
RedBarnStudio
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:00AM
I don't like the sound of that part. I wan't my photo's being sold nowhere unless I am recieveing the credit and a fair royalty. I'm not in this because I like racking my brain for new idea's and spending hours weeks waiting to get an approval or regection. I do it because I love photography as an art and I deserve payment for it. Nobody better be selling my photos or giving them away without my permission and proper compensation. Besides like that they could reject damn near everything and make profit from it and give the photographers nothing. I trust Istockphoto and I don't ever think they would do something like that but, that clause does kind leave the door open for interpretation.

(Edited on 2005-01-06 07:05:26 by ronbloom)
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:02AM

the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.


sounds like you'd have to agree on the new compensation anyway.
RedBarnStudio
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:05AM
It doesn't realy say what parties. the parties could be istock and the entity they are selling to.
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:13AM
The contract is between you and istok.Those are the only parties involved.
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:50AM

I don´t really know what´s the problem with those restrictions. I´ve signed up because I´m completely with istock. I don´t care if I mustn´t sell audio files, rejected images or code(?) elsewhere. If I´d like to sell that kind of stuff, I´d do it at istock.


Ahh, but iStock doesn't deal in audio files, code, or video yet, and the language of the agreement could be interpreted multiple ways on that point. One way it could be interpreted, is if an open source software developer with an iStock exclusivity agreement put a module on CPAN or gave away a program library from his personal website, he could be held in violation of the exclusivity agreement. While I don't think there is even a remote chance that iStock would ever try to do that, the language of the agreement could allow them to (what if iStock got sold and the new owners weren't so nice?).
winslow1
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:33AM

iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.[/b]


Wow, I missed this quote, thanks for sharing sdominick!
Having your images rejected is hard enough to accept, but to have a third party benefit - well that doesn't sound right at all?

My "rejected image" is also exclusive to istock, it sits there and that is it I guess.

Please clarify..


(Edited on 2005-01-06 09:39:52 by winslow1)
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:36AM
It is weird, but as we've been told repeatedly, we own the copyright on our images, and so, could withdraw them from wherever at any time. Maybe that is just pointing out that rejected images are still exclusive. As usual though, it is a confusing paragraph.
This thread has been locked.
of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 33 matches.
Not a member?Join