Posted Sun Apr 7 2:47PM
I have a question about keywording. Of couse its important to keyword well and accurate. But lets say an image has incorrect keyword, for example the wrong name of an animal or wrong name of some injury or condition and a buyer buys that photo thinking that it has to be right if its on the site and then uses the image and finds out it is wrong. Can then the uploader be held responsible for that if the is some kind of "lawsuit" after that?
Posted Sun Apr 7 3:25PM
I'm not aware of that ever happening on iStock and as far as I know, it is not promised anywhere that the keywords are legally binding.
Posted Sun Apr 7 10:23PM
yeah, i have searched and never found anything about that either. with so many wrong keywords out there i guess that it should be in the agreement for buyers that the buyer "buys at own risk or something like that. i have never ever heard of anything like that happen too anywhere. anyone know better than me?
Posted Mon Apr 8 12:12AM
If a buyer makes a purchase and then uses the image in a situation where a lawsuit arises, it's not unreasonable to ask 'Did the buyer check up on the image before using it?'. This is stock imagery, and not specialist imagery.
In the ordinary way of things, if a buyer discovers that their bought image was wrongly identified, then I'm confident that iStock would refund the purchase. That's what I would expect, in the name of good customer relations.
In the past, this has been an area of difference between iStock and Getty. As I understand it, Getty images are keyworded by Getty people. iStock images are keyworded by the image-maker.
When it came to the question, 'Would you like someone else to keyword your uploaded images', I was strongly against. A lot of my images are, to some degree, specialist. I am confident that my identifications, all in all, will be more reliable.