Can you please provide the links to the public Twitter posts?

It has been increasingly common that only istock was credited and not contributors. If we don't do anything about it, our "assets" will depreciate even more as the time goes.

It's long overdue that we set up a trust fund to defend our intellectual property rights to fight any abuse from any agencies.

Isn't that part of the agreement you signed? That they can use your images for promotional purposes without crediting you or paying you royalties?

That is part of the agreement I thought, although there are lots of credited tweets and tweets promoting artists.

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 27, 2015, 07:44

Isn't that part of the agreement you signed? That they can use your images for promotional purposes without crediting you or paying you royalties?

I was browsing some books in a bookstore a couple of days ago and saw only istock was credited and not contributors. I would not have minded promotional uses but we are increasingly not credited in any use.

The licence requirements for editorial usage (not only editorial files) are "You must give credit as follows:"�iStock.com/membername", but I see uncredited found editorial in-uses far more than credited ones. And far too many designated editorial files being used commercially  . It just shows how many people don't read the licensing agreement, or just ignore the restrictions. And with iStock, the licence agreement link is right under the download button. In most other sites, it's actually quite tricky to find the licence agreement at all.
Still, it's interesting and very disappointing that iStock choose to ignore their own licensing agreement (apart from anything else, it would set a good example), although I guess they could argue that that's a commercial use. Still, as the OP says, it's about respect, or lack of it.
I remember seeing old print magazine ads where they had the number of the file and the member name (usually LiseGagne) on images used, but that was before Getty was 100% all over iStock.

The photos I saw in that book were not editorial use. It was a travel guide with landscape shots. Contributors from some agencies were given credit while others definitely including istock did not get any mention, but istock was credited.

A travel book with landscape shots is editorial.
"Non-commercial uses relating to events that are newsworthy or of general interest"

Quote from: ShadySue on May 27, 2015, 08:26

Quote from: Freedom on May 27, 2015, 08:15

The photos I saw in that book were not editorial use. It was a travel guide with landscape shots. Contributors from some agencies were given credit while others definitely including istock did not get any mention, but istock was credited.

A travel book with landscape shots is editorial.

Yes, you are right. However, I remember Dreamstime contributors got credited and istock not.

That is the fault of the publisher.

BTW (irrelevant to your example DT via iS) when googling my name +iStockphoto, I often find myself in a list of credits, the credit isn't always near the photo (which usually means I can't actually find which image was used).

Some publishers credit the agency and the photographer and some just credit the agency and most agencies - both traditional and micro - seem to not bother enforcing the requirement that the credits include the photographer's name when the use is editorial. It's really frustrating. Dreamstime seems better than most about enforcing the requirement that the photographer be named.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 27, 2015, 08:39

Quote from: Freedom on May 27, 2015, 08:29

Quote from: ShadySue on May 27, 2015, 08:26

Quote from: Freedom on May 27, 2015, 08:15

The photos I saw in that book were not editorial use. It was a travel guide with landscape shots. Contributors from some agencies were given credit while others definitely including istock did not get any mention, but istock was credited.

A travel book with landscape shots is editorial.

Yes, you are right. However, I remember Dreamstime contributors got credited and istock not.

That is the fault of the publisher.

Agreed, though Dreamstime does seem better about this than the others in my experience.

BTW (irrelevant to your example DT via iS) when googling my name +iStockphoto, I often find myself in a list of credits, the credit isn't always near the photo (which usually means I can't actually find which image was used).

Most travel guides have a few pages at the end with the credits and with a notation as to the page the image is on. This seems to be standard for both US and UK publishers, in my experience. Did you just see a list without the pages?

I think we've got lines crossed.
I didn't say anything about Dreamstime, I have no experience of DT.
Most books online have only a few pages, as a sample, that's fair enough.
Often the pages are shown without the photos, for copyright reasons.  This is a Good Thing, even if it means I don't see my 'in use'.
LonelyPlanet credits the agency and tog directly under the images, or at least I've found mine so credited on two different LP books.

Gio remember also that they usually publicize in their social images of ex exclusive become now signature where they get more being you indie.. Btw it is a nice picture!

bye bye ismoke, just pulled the plug, 3k+ stils and 1k videos, this place does not worth our attention anymore