Has anyone ever enforced the 500,000 limit?

i found that one of my images made the cover of a national magazine.  The media kit for the publication claims a 2008 circulation of 690,000.  The buyer didn't purchase an extended license.  I've sent an email to ce@istockphoto.com informing them of the violation. The license states that the fine for this is $.01 per each violation in excess of 500,000.


I just wondered if anyone else has ever caught something like this and, if so, how did it turn out?

Interesting. I've never read of a similar case yet, so would be very interested to see how this turns out. TBH though - I would probably just expect iStock to get the client to buy a retrospective EL, rather than fine them. Although $1900 would be sweet. Not sure what cut you'd get of any fine though.

Yes, please report back on the outcome.

You won't get the penalty money, but you will probably get an EL, after the fact.

Congrats for making the front cover, anyhow.

Y'know, I'm not sure if that is an annual number or a weekly distrubution.  The press kit doesn't clarify it. 


Here's the image:  http://www.theonion.com/content/magazine/natural_childbirth_how_morally


(the model wasn't overly thrilled with its usage, btw)

Wikipedia says "The Onion is an American "fake news" organization. It features satirical articles reporting on international, national, and local news as well as an entertainment newspaper and website known as The A.V. Club. It claims a national print circulation of 690,000[1] and says 61 percent of its web site readers are between 18 and 44 years old per the 2008 media kit." Type: parody newspaper Format: tabloid

Doesn't that negate the need for an extended license, since the photo is apparently being used in an "editorial" setting? (BTW, nice picture!)

Usually a newspaper's distribution numbers are stated on the masthead per issue in the manner of "250,000 daily circulation".

Also, according to Wikipedia, The Onion's printed edition is distributed free in Madison, Milwaukee, New York City, Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Denver/Boulder, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin, and Washington, D.C..[7] It is also sold in bookstores worldwide, including the United Kingdom, and is available by mail through paid subscription.

It will be very interesting to see how everything comes out.

Have you actually seen this photo on the printed magazine, or is this just another one of thier parody-of-a-front-cover which only appears in their web site?

Actually, I think you've got that the wrong way round.


It is adverts that are exempt from the EL requirements.



The license reads:

[li]either individually or in combination with others, reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content, in excess of 500,000 times without obtaining an Extended License, in which event you shall be required to pay an additional royalty fee equal to US $0.01 for each reproduction which is in excess of 500,000 reproductions. This additional royalty does not apply to advertisements in magazines, newspapers or websites or to broadcast by television, web-cast or theatrical production.[/li]

(Edited on 2008-05-19 08:29:26 by kelvinjay)

The models in the image were told about it by someone who has the actual magazine.

 


 



(Edited on 2008-05-19 12:57:27 by mocker_bat)

According to the content license agreement the company must notify IS of any print runs over 500,000. Then IS will bill for the overage and it will be paid within 30 days. I don't know when they purchased the license but they may not have sent in their final print figures yet.


You would presumably get your standard royalty percentage of any invoiced overage. I can't find it now but one of the agreements/contracts pointed out that in cases of conflict with a buyer, where the buyer was sued for misuse and monetary damages awarded to IS, then you would get your royalty share of any net monies won. (Award - Lawyers fees) * your royalty percentage.

We have complained about this in the past as well. Also, that the number is too high to start with for non-ad usages.



Again, iStock will only go after getting an after the face EL, to keep the buyer happy.

Many people seem to have complained about The Onion using thier photos. Or at least the models were not happy.

/
/

 Yeah, I can understand why the models here wouldn't be happy. But isn't that the Photographers responcibility to explain to the models that their images may be used in a thousand ways they may not like? I don't think you can blame the Onion for using a Stock image for whatever means they desire. That is, as long as they paid for it!

They are a very popular satire based news site. I think anyone who can't handle being fodder for satire is going to have an issue. They can be pretty funny some days. 

Agreed. 


I'm still waiting for a response from ce@istockphoto.com btw...

The CE department checked into it and just got back with me.  The final word is that while The Onion prints a weekly edition, this particular magazine is not printed but rather just a mock-up for the web.


I will say that I am pleased with the response of iStock in looking into this.

I love The Onion. It is hilarious.  However, it is upsetting if they did not buy a license when they should have.  As far as the models are concerned, while I understand how they may feel, they signed a release and therefore presumably understood that they had no editorial control over the photo. Comes with the territory.