Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

Exclusivity Application?

First pagePrevious pageof 2
Displaying 21 to 33 of 33 matches.
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:50AM
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?).


Wow, it's like we share the same Dictionary of Paranoid Projections, lol...

That's exactly what's worrying me. Not the current situation, the possible future and the ambiguousness of the "code" statement. If a "snippet" was defined more closely I wouldn't have issue.

i.e. is a "snippet" Actionscript? JavaScript? A full function of x lines? What is the originality criteria for it?

The "reserves the right" part re: declined Content reads that having something rejected isn't necessarily a permanent state, and even if your Content isn't accepted for the main library, there may be other opportunities you can take advantage of.

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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:03AM

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.


The 'parties' referrers to iStock and the photographer. In the same way that iStock can sell exclusive artists content through other distribution methods or partners, they can also sell non-accepted images through other methods as well but in both cases only after agreeing a rate schedule with the exclusive artist. If you didn't agree to the rate schedule then the accepted or non-accepted images wouldn't be sold.

How would this work ? And what's it for ? I have no idea, but I can think of a few very interesting possibilities.

This is my interpretation of the information and not an official statement by any means. iStock's not going to burn any of it's artists, and if things ever changed and you don't like the deal then you could always leave the exclusive deal.
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 10:29AM


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. :biggrin: ;)

(Edited on 2005-01-06 01:51:32 by swalls)


Oh come on, Stephen.... for heaven's sake - this is an argument which has been rehashed over and over and over again for more than a month. I'm not suddenly making a revelation here. Exclusivity is what it is - it's by artist and that's what iStock has determined is the criteria - if you are exclusive to iStock you are exclusive to iStock and no selling your RF images elsewhere. If they had decided it to be by image then it would be by image, but it's not, end of story.

What gets my goat (no pun intended dscott) is when people try to argue the bloody point after it's been announced, discussed repeatedly and then now, implemented as official policy. iStock, for all of it's community input, is not a democracy, it's a business, and the owners have decided what they want exclusivity to be and if we don't like it then we don't have to join up - Bruce didn't *have* to even ask our opinions on the subject beforehand, but he did - he got input from the community.

Jyn's argument against it is absolutely pointless - (paraphrased) "if I could upload my rejects somewhere else I'd be sign up in an instant" - there is NO POINT to exclusivity if you can sell/give away your images somewhere else. I don't see why this very simple concept is so difficult for some people to understand.

This is why I'm banging my head against a brick wall...
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 10:35AM
*thump* *thump* "hellooo, mcfly!"

seriously, iStock is just wanting exclusive artists. you (not just your work) can be exclusive or not. It is that easy. If you don't want to be, or you change your mind, then iStock is making it EASY for you to be or not to be (to be or not to be....that is the question...ha!). Anyway, most agency contracts are extensive and semi-freaking permanent (last years...not months and days).

jamirae
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:35AM
iStock's not going to burn any of it's artists, and if things ever changed and you don't like the deal then you could always leave the exclusive deal.


exactly. there is an "out" and if you decide to go exclusive then later decide that it just isnt working for you, then give your notice and go back to non. seems like a lot of people are running around in speculation paranoia and others (like UDD) are banging their head against the wall! now move over UDD so I can get a piece of that wall....

nano
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:38AM

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.


I picked this piece up and mentioned it in another thread 2 days ago. Sure, it worried me too.
It certainly opens up the door for other opportunities like Simon said.
I had suggested a bargain basement months ago but this may not be the direction so we need to think a bit more.

So many have wondered aloud what to do with rejected images that are not suitable for istock. Primarily the +too many of that are good images not necessarily the ones with flaws. Pure speculation on my part, please, but I think there is consideration being given to an alternative that could provide an answer to posting them to another competing site.

The key wording is that it will be structured and agreed upon by both parties. I really don't think istock is looking to burn us. They are always on the lookout for opportunity, just don't move on things immediately without research and thought. There are tons of great things in the works. You can choose to wait that out if you like. That option has also been granted to you.


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 10:47AM

I really don't think istock is looking to burn us. They are always on the lookout for opportunity, just don't move on things immediately without research and thought. There are tons of great things in the works. You can choose to wait that out if you like. That option has also been granted to you.


Wise words. iStock will not and cannot burn us with out losing out.

They think things through...immensely. That's what they do best.

You can always opt out.

There are huge things in the works that will benefit us all.
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 10:49AM
Simon, is there any word on removing the "video","audio","code", etc. part of the agreement?. Since istock does not deal in that, it effectively prohibits someone from distributing those types of media completely. Right?
fangedfem
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 11:06AM
I had to say no to this exclusivity thing. It seems that you cannot give away images that have absolutely nothing to do with iStock to friends etc and I do this with images that do not meet the standards for selling. That is something that I will not stop doing (I like helping out fellow artists and friends)-- its pretty silly not to be able to do that imo. I like helping others out more than making a little more money =|

(Edited on 2005-01-06 11:11:41 by fangedfem)
jamirae
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:10AM

I had to say no to this exclusivity thing. It seems that you cannot give away images that have absolutely nothing to do with iStock to friends etc and I do this with images that do not meet the standards for selling. That is something that I will not stop doing-- its pretty silly not to be able to do that imo. I like helping others out more than making a little more money =|


and isn't it nice that you have the option to do this? stay non-exclusive and continue as you were with iStock, yet you still benefit from an increase in the prices thus, an increas in royalty.
fangedfem
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 11:13AM


I had to say no to this exclusivity thing. It seems that you cannot give away images that have absolutely nothing to do with iStock to friends etc and I do this with images that do not meet the standards for selling. That is something that I will not stop doing-- its pretty silly not to be able to do that imo. I like helping others out more than making a little more money =|


and isn't it nice that you have the option to do this? stay non-exclusive and continue as you were with iStock, yet you still benefit from an increase in the prices thus, an increas in royalty. :)



Yes yes, all in all nice I am not complaining about that aspect at all, I am grateful. It just seems a bit unfair that some should be kept from advancing merely because of something like that. Not a biggie-- just my thoughts
kopperhead
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 Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:03PM


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.


I guess I look at things so very simply, my train of thought went like this.....

rejects
can't sell them elsewhere
istock might do something else with them
what??....(themed CD's; a subscription service maybe)
I would have the opportunity to agree in any case...
OK



(Edited on 2005-01-06 02:06:18 by kopperhead)
hidesy
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:36PM
You can please all of the people some of the time...

People get upset about not being able to potentially sell rejects... then they get upset because istock is obviously trying to work out something to cover that contingency...

I'm glad I don't have to make the sorts of decisions istock does.
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 2
Displaying 21 to 33 of 33 matches.
Not a member?Join