Author Topic: iStock Exclusive: Selling "similars" on other sites? (Read 13876 times)

oxman · « **on:** March 22, 2014, 17:37 »

I just read my exclusive contract with iStock and could not find any mention (or restrictions) about selling "similar" images at other sites.

Let's say you shoot a wine glass from a variety of angles and lighting and submit some to your exclusive IS account and submit OTHER variations to Shutterstock..etc. Any problem with this?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2014, 17:47 »

Yes, if you're selling the image as RF. You are exclusive for that medium (photos, for example) for all RF sales.

cobalt · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2014, 18:44 »

With istock you have full artist exclusivity, not image exclusivity.

Fotolia, gettyimages,stocksy, etc...all have the option to just send them a series of images exclusively, but istock only offers artist exclusivity for all RF work.

But you can upload RM anywhere else.

oxman · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2014, 18:54 »

Thanks Jo Ann

From ARTIST'S SUPPLY AGREEMENT (EXCLUSIVE) iStock

Grant of Authority
The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor to sell, license or sublicense Exclusive Content to third parties worldwide and to collect and remit funds in connection with those endeavours on the terms set forth in this Agreement.

So as an exclusive Supplier, I submit Exclusive Content for iStock to sell. It does not say I shall shoot ONLY FOR ISTOCK. They don’t own WHO I shoot for — only that I submit Exclusive Content to them and no other distributor.

It appears (for example) I could shoot Exclusive Content for IS on Monday and shoot general (non-exclusive) RF for Shutterstock on Tuesday.

(OR) Submit “similars” of my IS shoot to Shutterstock.

cobalt · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:02 »

Why don´t you write to contributor relations or ask on the istock forums?

If istock has changed their contract and now allows exclusive images instead of artist exclusivity for RF, this would be a major revolution in the industry.

All the exclusives I know would love to be able to upload RF images elsewhere, but nobody dares to break the contract.

From their contributor FAQ:

http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

"What does full Exclusivity require?

Once you become an exclusive artist, you can sell your images, videos and audio files on the entire Getty Images family of sites, and increase your royalties through our iStock partner programs.

Does that cover all of my files?

Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:

Rights-managed files with other organizations
Personal portfolio sites
Work for hire/editorial work contracts
Prints for sale

Are there other restrictions?

Images, video or audio files may not be sold on the artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
Artist may not give away files for free, from their own or any other site.
Rejected files may not be sold elsewhere

"

oxman · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:06 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 22, 2014, 19:02

Why don´t you write to contributor relations or ask on the istock forums?

If istock has changed their contract and now allows exclusive images instead of artist exclusivity for RF, this would be a major revolution in the industry.

All the exclusives I know would love to be able to upload RF images elsewhere, but nobody dares to break the contract.

Good idea to contact CR.
But I am just going by the ASA and it does not state that a submitter cannot shoot for other agencies. It ONLY refers to Exclusive Content to IS. Maybe I am missing something but that is how it appears to me.

cobalt · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:12 »

Well, if you can get a clear reply from contributor relations that you can sell RF photos elsewhere....it will lead to a flood of images from artists that are now exclusive to istock and literally begging istock to allow exclusive images. It has been asked for many,many times and they have said again and again they are not going to do it.

But good luck.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:19 »

I'm not sure how much more clear they can make it:

"iStock wants to be your exclusive online, royalty-free, stock media agent. We don't want to share you ... [puff]..."

...

What does full Exclusivity require?
Once you become an exclusive artist, you can sell your images, videos and audio files on the entire Getty Images family of sites, and increase your royalties through our iStock partner programs.

Does that cover all of my files?
Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:
Rights-managed files with other organizations
Personal portfolio sites
Work for hire/editorial work contracts
Prints for sale

Are there other restrictions?
Images, video or audio files may not be sold on the artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
Artist may not give away files for free, from their own or any other site.
Rejected files may not be sold elsewhere

http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

oxman · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2014, 19:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 22, 2014, 19:19

I'm not sure how much more clear they can make it:

"iStock wants to be your exclusive online, royalty-free, stock media agent. We don't want to share you ... [puff]..."

...

What does full Exclusivity require?
Once you become an exclusive artist, you can sell your images, videos and audio files on the entire Getty Images family of sites, and increase your royalties through our iStock partner programs.

Does that cover all of my files?
Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:
Rights-managed files with other organizations
Personal portfolio sites
Work for hire/editorial work contracts
Prints for sale

Are there other restrictions?
Images, video or audio files may not be sold on the artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
Artist may not give away files for free, from their own or any other site.
Rejected files may not be sold elsewhere

http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

Sue, Yes i have read all that but the ASA does not clearly state what they summarize in the above.

Please extract from the ASA where it clearly states a submitter cannot shoot RF for other agencies.

EmberMike · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2014, 20:00 »

Wait, Simon aren't you already selling images at Stocksy? I just assumed you weren't exclusive anymore when I saw your Stocksy work back when the site launched.

oxman · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2014, 20:03 »

Quote from: EmberMike on March 22, 2014, 20:00

Wait, Simon aren't you already selling images at Stocksy? I just assumed you weren't exclusive anymore when I saw your Stocksy work back when the site launched.

I am not Simon and don't have any other active contributor accounts.

EmberMike · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2014, 20:13 »

Quote from: oxman on March 22, 2014, 20:03

Quote from: EmberMike on March 22, 2014, 20:00

Wait, Simon aren't you already selling images at Stocksy? I just assumed you weren't exclusive anymore when I saw your Stocksy work back when the site launched.

I am not Simon and don't have any other active contributor accounts.

Whoops. Sorry. Somehow assumed you were simonox. oxman, oxley, etc.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #12 on:** March 23, 2014, 00:00 »

Quote from: oxman on March 22, 2014, 19:32

Sue, Yes i have read all that but the ASA does not clearly state what they summarize in the above.

Please extract from the ASA where it clearly states a submitter cannot shoot RF for other agencies.

The restrictions are in section 1c, where you appoint iStock your exclusive agent for content defined in section 2, Provision of Exclusive Content, section a. Except for the excluded types of work listed in section 2a(1) through 2a(5). The wiggle room would be if you could get them to make an agreement on content that wouldn't be exclusive (2a(5)) - I assume that's how Yuri and the other non-exclusive exclusives got their deal.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2014, 01:56 »

Honestly, isn't this bit clear enough: "The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor"? Or have people started imagining the word "exclusive" is some sort of meaningless noun for members of an iStock club rather than a word meaning "forsaking all others"?

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:30 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 23, 2014, 01:56

Honestly, isn't this bit clear enough: "The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor"? Or have people started imagining the word "exclusive" is some sort of meaningless noun for members of an iStock club rather than a word meaning "forsaking all others"?

True, and from the section on the other page I quoted above, but which is NOT part of the contract, it is definutely 'strongly implied'.

But you would have thought they'd have put in, "The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive RF distributor".
Paragraph 1a is a real mess: it doesn't even read correctly as prose, far less make any clear, unambiguous sense. The whole contract needs to be rewritten.

Some of the statements on the two pages, the EASA and the page headed "Exclusive Program" seem to contradict each other, but we can bet that they're carefully worded so that they can interpret them whatever way they wish.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #15 on:** March 23, 2014, 07:59 »

Quote from: oxman on March 22, 2014, 19:32

Sue, Yes i have read all that but the ASA does not clearly state what they summarize in the above.

Please extract from the ASA where it clearly states a submitter cannot shoot RF for other agencies.

Actually Section 1.c. says: "The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content (as defined below) produced by the Supplier on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. "

"exclusive agent" is pretty unambiguous in my opinion. If you stop reading the Exclusive ASA at this point, it actually says you are not allowed to have any other agent at all for anything anywhere.

Then this is clarified/limited in Section 2.a when they specify for what type of files you appoint iStock as exclusive agent and which types of works are not covered, and those include work for hire or Rights Managed content. But beyond those mentioned, you are not allowed to license any content (of the same type of content) through any other agent at all.

It also includes provisions that you are not allowed to work for someone else if the images are being sold with RF license through someone else. So you can't shoot for someone else selling "their" images through Shutterstock either.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2014, 10:29 »

Quote from: oxman on March 22, 2014, 17:37

I just read my exclusive contract with iStock and could not find any mention (or restrictions) about selling "similar" images at other sites.

Let's say you shoot a wine glass from a variety of angles and lighting and submit some to your exclusive IS account and submit OTHER variations to Shutterstock..etc. Any problem with this?

The language hasn't changed recently, and you know, of course, what exclusivity "means" at IS. Of course, it's understandable to look for a way around it, since many, including our high profile comrade, are "exclusive" and yet have work elsewhere. Unfortunately, you aren't special enough to merit that kind of personal treatment, so you will have to find a way around it if you want to submit elsewhere.

The usual option is that "you" submit to IS, while your "company" submits as an independent, and "you" shoot for the company, signing copyright to the company. MJ is talking about 2.a.1 above, which would seem to indicate this wouldn't work, but I know that some people have done it. Another option is to license RM, where the RM is basically an RF set of terms, with a restriction, like for a certain period of time.

Whether or not you "get away" with these options depends on your relationship with IS and how much they feel like not noticing or caring about what you're doing.

We all know IS plays loosy-goosy with what their terms can mean at any point, so we have this statement:

"The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content"

where it only discusses "exclusive content" and there is no definition of what that means aside from this:

"In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, one or more of (i) Photo Content"

and further reading (IMO), photo content can't become "exclusive content" until it is uploaded (it can't be defined as exclusive content sitting on your hard drive because until it is uploaded, there is no intent to license it, exclusive or not):

"The Supplier will provide Exclusive Content to iStockphoto using the Upload procedures"

So, legally, I'm not sure they can get away with claiming all of your work to "belong" to them, but if you try to argue that, they will likely just boot you.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #17 on:** March 24, 2014, 02:07 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 23, 2014, 10:29

The usual option is that "you" submit to IS, while your "company" submits as an independent, and "you" shoot for the company, signing copyright to the company. MJ is talking about 2.a.1 above, which would seem to indicate this wouldn't work, but I know that some people have done it. Another option is to license RM, where the RM is basically an RF set of terms, with a restriction, like for a certain period of time.

Well, I know there are "ways around it". But my understanding is that if you (as a photographer) sign those terms, than you (the photographer) can not shoot any content that goes for licensing at any other agency. So it would have to go the other way:

Things are different if "your company" is signing the iStock contract and employs you (the photographer) to shoot for the company. Then you (the photographer) could technically be free to shoot for other companies (you also own...) or personal accounts or your spouse. However, you would need iStock's agreement on this as the usual contributor account you sign up with is for you as a person, so you'd need to transfer that to a different legal entitiy (your company). Apparently that is a possibility as you can see a few "Copyright" holders on iStock referencing a ", Inc." or "GmbH" (the German Limited Liability company type).

Obviously, the ASA also does not keep you from helping some other photographer (e.g. your spouse or a photographer hired by a company you own) with finding models and locations, lighting, post processing, keywording, uploading. You just can't be the photographer in those shoots.

I have heard people mentioning those setups "between the lines", however I don't think anyone is talking openly about it... probably for good reasons.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #18 on:** March 24, 2014, 09:15 »

I got out of the DT exclusive because they wanted full control over EVERYTHING. You couldn't even sell on PODs.

EmberMike · « **Reply #19 on:** March 24, 2014, 09:21 »

I'm not sure it matters what the ASA says specifically or doesn't say. There is an allusion to the idea that exclusive means no selling RF anywhere else. That's really all the justification they need to boot someone.

oxman · « **Reply #20 on:** March 24, 2014, 10:21 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 23, 2014, 10:29

Quote from: oxman on March 22, 2014, 17:37
I just read my exclusive contract with iStock and could not find any mention (or restrictions) about selling "similar" images at other sites.

Let's say you shoot a wine glass from a variety of angles and lighting and submit some to your exclusive IS account and submit OTHER variations to Shutterstock..etc. Any problem with this?

The language hasn't changed recently, and you know, of course, what exclusivity "means" at IS. Of course, it's understandable to look for a way around it, since many, including our high profile comrade, are "exclusive" and yet have work elsewhere. Unfortunately, you aren't special enough to merit that kind of personal treatment, so you will have to find a way around it if you want to submit elsewhere.

The usual option is that "you" submit to IS, while your "company" submits as an independent, and "you" shoot for the company, signing copyright to the company. MJ is talking about 2.a.1 above, which would seem to indicate this wouldn't work, but I know that some people have done it. Another option is to license RM, where the RM is basically an RF set of terms, with a restriction, like for a certain period of time.

Whether or not you "get away" with these options depends on your relationship with IS and how much they feel like not noticing or caring about what you're doing.

We all know IS plays loosy-goosy with what their terms can mean at any point, so we have this statement:

"The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content"

where it only discusses "exclusive content" and there is no definition of what that means aside from this:

"In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, one or more of (i) Photo Content"

and further reading (IMO), photo content can't become "exclusive content" until it is uploaded (it can't be defined as exclusive content sitting on your hard drive because until it is uploaded, there is no intent to license it, exclusive or not):

"The Supplier will provide Exclusive Content to iStockphoto using the Upload procedures"

So, legally, I'm not sure they can get away with claiming all of your work to "belong" to them, but if you try to argue that, they will likely just boot you.

This is my point as well.

The ASA gets ambiguous with the use of the term “Exclusive Content”. I could decide to shoot “Exclusive Content” on Monday and Tuesday for IS and “NON Exclusive Content” on Thursday and Friday for SS.

Of course IS would not see it that way and cancel my account if they caught me. They bend their terms and conditions to suit their needs so the ASA means what they want it to mean depending on the day, situation and submitter involved.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #21 on:** March 27, 2014, 16:18 »

let's put things this way: in ASA there is nowhere stated that you have to shoot exclusively for istock, but in my understanding it is said that istock is your (only) rf online distributor. so, if you do shoot today something and send content to istock, and tomorrow you shoot the same set and SEND these images to other agencies, this is clear breaking of ASA - by yourself - and when they notice this, or when someone report you - this will end up with closing of your account on istock, probably forever.
so, if you are exclusive artist on istock, typing "i agree" you obligated yourself to have istock as the only distributor of your online RF content.
in short words - if you want to have your is. account - do not do this

einstein · « **Reply #22 on:** March 28, 2014, 01:30 »

Just came across this here.
I'm having trouble understanding who would want to become an exclusive photographer for istock.

Just making my first experiences with them and so far they have proven to be the second most frustrating agency.
The submission process alone is .. I admit, I didn't try DeepMeta yet, but it already rings all alarm bells when I feel pushed to use Windows software that helps with that very submission problem instead of having the process fixed at its root.

As far as I'm concerned they are just trying to aggressively lock everyone in. If you become exclusive your rise and fall will depend on just one agency (And when they fall, have fun resubmitting the images somewhere else). And ever heard of income diversification / spreading risk? Why would anyone want to enslave himself like that?

Their conditions seem aggressive to me and I would never want to fall into such claws. I rather earn less but remain free. And how can you guys be sure that the earnings they are currently promising for exclusives will stay that way?

Another thing I wonder about iStock: When will companies finally learn that lock-in strategies are economically not sustainable?

kobajagrande · « **Reply #23 on:** March 28, 2014, 02:36 »

Quote from: einstein on March 28, 2014, 01:30

Their conditions seem aggressive to me and I would never want to fall into such claws. I rather earn less but remain free. And how can you guys be sure that the earnings they are currently promising for exclusives will stay that way?

Can you tell me where did you read this ? Or who told you this ?
As far as I know istock did not promise anything to nobody, except maybe to some special guys with whom they have a special deal anyway.

Ron · « **Reply #24 on:** March 28, 2014, 02:51 »

Quote from: kobajagrande on March 28, 2014, 02:36

Quote from: einstein on March 28, 2014, 01:30

Their conditions seem aggressive to me and I would never want to fall into such claws. I rather earn less but remain free. And how can you guys be sure that the earnings they are currently promising for exclusives will stay that way?

Can you tell me where did you read this ? Or who told you this ?
As far as I know istock did not promise anything to nobody, except maybe to some special guys with whom they have a special deal anyway.

He didnt say Istock promised them anything, he is questioning the same as you do.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Exclusive: Selling "similars" on other sites? (Read 13876 times)

oxman

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

oxman

cobalt

oxman

cobalt

ShadySue

oxman

EmberMike

oxman

EmberMike

Jo Ann Snover

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

MichaelJayFoto

Sean Locke Photography

MichaelJayFoto

DF_Studios

EmberMike

oxman

Dr Bouz

einstein

kobajagrande

Ron

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors