Author Topic: iStock Exclusive Loophole (Read 16535 times)

tickstock · « **Reply #50 on:** June 12, 2015, 13:44 »

Quote from: gbalex on June 12, 2015, 13:05

Again your personal double standards are confusing, you have made it clear that it is okay for you Shelma1 to "turn a blind eye" and do business with IS "as long as they make you money" while at the same time you berate tickstock's ethics for contributing to "a company that breaks the law".

I don't think you need to point any of this out it's so blatantly obvious what she is doing. Anyone reading what she's written will quite easily see how hypocritical and unethical she is. There are some big differences between us, she believes they are doing illegal and unethical things and is still contributing as long she can make a buck, I don't believe they doing anything illegal and I don't believe that treating different contributors differently is unethical. I have no respect for her so I've decided to put her back on ignore and trust that everyone will see her opinions for what they are without anymore argument from me.

The OP wants to get around the contract he signed so he can get the benefits of exclusivity and nonexclusivity at the same time, that's just wrong and I'm surprised to see anyone arguing for that.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #51 on:** June 12, 2015, 14:56 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 12, 2015, 13:44

Quote from: gbalex on June 12, 2015, 13:05
Again your personal double standards are confusing, you have made it clear that it is okay for you Shelma1 to "turn a blind eye" and do business with IS "as long as they make you money" while at the same time you berate tickstock's ethics for contributing to "a company that breaks the law".
I don't think you need to point any of this out it's so blatantly obvious what she is doing. Anyone reading what she's written will quite easily see how hypocritical and unethical she is. There are some big differences between us, she believes they are doing illegal and unethical things and is still contributing as long she can make a buck, I don't believe they doing anything illegal and I don't believe that treating different contributors differently is unethical. I have no respect for her so I've decided to put her back on ignore and trust that everyone will see her opinions for what they are without anymore argument from me.

I haven't seen anyone arguing for it, including me. But since you have me on ignore, I'll expect no response.

Quote

The OP wants to get around the contract he signed so he can get the benefits of exclusivity and nonexclusivity at the same time, that's just wrong and I'm surprised to see anyone arguing for that.

You think it's wrong when the OP simply asks about a legal way to get both benefits, but not when iStock actually does it.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #52 on:** June 12, 2015, 15:04 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 12, 2015, 14:56

You think it's wrong when the OP simply asks about a legal way to get both benefits, but not when iStock actually does it.

Seems like the most consistent view would be that both are wrong.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #53 on:** June 12, 2015, 16:02 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 12, 2015, 15:04

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 12, 2015, 14:56

You think it's wrong when the OP simply asks about a legal way to get both benefits, but not when iStock actually does it.

Seems like the most consistent view would be that both are wrong.

Yup. But I can understand the impulse to want to level an unfair playing field.

You know, until this thread I really hadn't thought much about the faux exclusivity thing at iStock. And I tend to think about it from a contributor's POV. But now it occurs to me that it's a PR debacle waiting to happen. If I were a buyer and found out I'd paid three times as much for an "exclusive" image and that it was available for a lot less at ten other places, I'd be pretty angry. Who knows...it may have happened already, and they had to issue refunds. It's something they should fix ASAP.

Micky_Mango · « **Reply #54 on:** June 12, 2015, 16:12 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 12, 2015, 11:49

Quote from: Micky_Mango on June 12, 2015, 01:13
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:54
Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:48
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:44
Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:23
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:00
I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.
He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do. If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers. I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.
I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.
If it's such a bad place why not just leave? You can't be earning much money there, you have mentioned before you have a full time job in advertising, you complain a lot about IS, and yet your work is still there. Most people would say 'Why'?

If everyone left an agency because there was something to complain about, there'd be very few contributors to any agency.

Would that matter? Surely that would be a good thing, everyone gets pissed with agencies, everyone leaves, agency left high and dry, where is the problem?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #55 on:** June 12, 2015, 22:56 »

Quote from: Micky_Mango on June 12, 2015, 16:12

Would that matter? Surely that would be a good thing, everyone gets pissed with agencies, everyone leaves, agency left high and dry, where is the problem?

Only someone who shoots for pocket change would ask this question.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #56 on:** June 14, 2015, 05:32 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 12, 2015, 16:02

Yup. But I can understand the impulse to want to level an unfair playing field.

Why would it be "unfair"? If you don't get the deals you want, your product probably isn't good enough.

It's not like anyone would be discriminated because of their skin color, gender, sexual preference or whatever. You can do everything that all the big guys do. You just have to become a big guy (or gal) yourself first. You're free to do whatever business you want with whoever you want in the way you want. But so do all of your business partners. No one is obliged to give you the same treatment as someone who is just better at doing what they do.

And I don't mean anything of this personally directed at anyone, it's just the way business goes and I am as much of a "you" in all of this as most others in this forum.

cdwheatley · « **Reply #57 on:** June 14, 2015, 15:57 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 12, 2015, 16:02

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 12, 2015, 15:04
Quote from: Shelma1 on June 12, 2015, 14:56

You think it's wrong when the OP simply asks about a legal way to get both benefits, but not when iStock actually does it.

Seems like the most consistent view would be that both are wrong.

Yup. But I can understand the impulse to want to level an unfair playing field.

You know, until this thread I really hadn't thought much about the faux exclusivity thing at iStock. And I tend to think about it from a contributor's POV. But now it occurs to me that it's a PR debacle waiting to happen. If I were a buyer and found out I'd paid three times as much for an "exclusive" image and that it was available for a lot less at ten other places, I'd be pretty angry. Who knows...it may have happened already, and they had to issue refunds. It's something they should fix ASAP.

Just the other day I had someone contact me that was interested in an image on getty for $500. They asked me if I could somehow give them the image for less as it was out of their price range. I said the same image at same size is available on Istock for $30.