On topic: Uploads are now working again.

Off topic: How often does Amazon slow down to a crawl or go down? I've never managed to 'catch' them. Or Ebay?

Maybe the top IT people from istock are still the same people who started with the company in its infancy and isnt qualified to oversee an operation the size of istock.

Maybe, but CPD is the Name of the Game these days. Also companies are supposed to be Investors in People.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 09, 2010, 07:39

Quote from: RT on November 09, 2010, 07:11

Of course it's a defamation of his character, going bald might be a fact of life but if he isn't going bald and this image portrays that he is then it's defamation.

Defamation refers to character. This ad is misrepresentation (of truth).

Having worked in law I can tell you 100% that from what the OP has stated it would fall under defamation of character because by legal definition it is, and I can also tell you that if this guy decides to persue the matter he will win, and also that he will sue the photographer because he signed a contract with the photographer (the release) and therefore the legal process begins here, now the photographer will have a legal defence because presumably he has a clause in the release that he uploaded to the agency that excludes any defamatory use of the person in the image, so therefore the process moves onto the agency and then down the line until it reaches the stage whereby somebody is identified as having breached the defamatory clause.

Having worked in law, you should know that laws are different in every country, and having different legislations involved in a case complicates things totally.
At the moment, we've got the OP, who is based in Singapore; a model based ; an agency based (we don't even know which agency or which model release or Content Use Agreement we're talking about) and an ad for a company based published
So you are 100% convinced of what you say based on the above total lack of knowledge?

Back up now.

Whole site is down right now. HOPEFULLY very briefly.

But I don't see how you, the photographer, could be liable for anything to do with this case.

That's for sure.
Unless somehow you didn't let the model read the MR before they signed it. But even then, they'd have to prove it, and they'd surely be cross-examined as to why they'd signed something without reading it.

One of my stock models is extremely upset, threatening legal action as he has found his photo used by a 'hair replacement' clinic and his photo has been doctored to show a receding hairline and patches of baldness. His friends have seen it and are rather amused - he on the other hand is seriously annoyed and is threatening to sue us.

Does this break a site's T&C, to use a photo in this way and to doctor the image. I am not sure which site downloaded it but I need to get some advice from you guys before I go after the hairloss company.

Thanks in advance

Phil

If bought from ISTOCK, it's perfectly within the acceptable uses.
The MR states clearly, "... I agree that the Content may be combined
with other images, text, graphics, film, audio, audio-visual works; and
may be cropped, altered or modified..."


FOTOLIA:
The Model hereby releases and indemnifies the Photographer, and the Photographer�s agents and
representatives, licensees and sublicensees, assigns, heirs and successors, from and against all claims, expenses
(including attorney fees) or other liability arising from and against any and all uses of the Photographs, including,
without limitation, any claims or actions based on libel or slander or other defamation, right of privacy or �false
light�, right of publicity, or blurring or distortion or alteration whether or not intentional.
The Model and Photographer each hereby warrant that he or she has read this Agreement prior to execution, and is fully familiar with the contents of this Agreement.

SHUTTERSTOCK model release:
The Photographer�s rights include, but are not limited to, the rights,
in perpetuity, to:
Use, re-use, publish, and re-publish the Content; Alter, modify or otherwise
change the Content in any manner the Photographer desires; Combine the
Content with textual matter and/or with other pictures and/or media; and,
Use the Content for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising, trade,
publishing, or any other purpose whatsoever.
I hereby release, discharge, and agree to hold harmless the Photographer,
the Photographer�s heirs, legal representatives and assigns, and all persons
acting under the Photographer�s authority or those for whom he/she is
acting, from any liability by virtue of any use of the Content or any changes
or alterations made thereto.
(Interesting that that seems to cover the photographer's rights, but not the buyer's rights. I assume the latter are covered in the acceptable use policy. You'll need to check that for yourself.

Indeed, there are clauses on each of these MRs which vaguely imply that the images should not be used to expose the model to "scandal, ridicule, reproach, scorn and indignity" (that from Dreamstime's MR) but these are deliberately left extremely vague and have virtually no legal standing.
Far worse uses (IMO) brought to light on the iStock forums have been deemed 'fair use'.
iStock's Content License agreement state:
"use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour; (IMO, this happens constantly) or (b) except where accompanied by a statement that indicates that the Content is being used for illustrative purposes only and any person depicted in the Content is a model, that depicts such person in a potentially sensitive subject matter, including, but not limited to mental and physical health issues, social issues, sexual or implied sexual activity or preferences, substance abuse, crime, physical or mental abuse or ailments, or any other subject matter that would be reasonably likely to be offensive or unflattering to any person reflected in the Content, unless the Content itself clearly and undisputedly reflects the model or person in such potentially sensitive subject matter in which case the Content may be used or displayed in a manner that portrays the model or person in the same context and to the same degree depicted in the Content itself; "

The 'get out' word is 'reasonably'. Is there a legal definition for 'reasonably'?


HOWEVER:
Depending on the country of use, that use may be against the advertising standards or laws. For instance, in the UK, that faking of an advert would not be allowed (adverts here must be legal, decent, honest and truthful, but don't ask me the difference between honest and truthful - for example Olay was outed last year for 'airbrushing' an image of Twiggy http://tinyurl.com/y8u7g9b in one of their ads), but I've learned since being on Micro that many (most? all?) other countries aren't so strict.
I doubt if pursuing this line would financially benefit your model, though it might cause the adverts to be withdrawn.

And another in the past ten minutes.

Since they did away with the upsizing policy and accept microstock as RF maybe next they will reduce the payout to $100 rather than $200.....

Isn't it $250?

Quote from: ShadySue on November 05, 2010, 17:21

Quote from: Sadstock on November 05, 2010, 14:51

Quote from: Microbius on November 04, 2010, 09:29

That's a shame. Maybe we should get another appropriate image up there. I'm thinking this one sums up IStock at the moment:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-2386660-where-are-my-keys.php

-----------------------
OMG This is the saddest rating ever! It was done by an Istock admin DoctorEvidence, who gave it a 1/5 cameras.  http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=862744
So some admin is pissed off about this image being so popular, so he gives it a bogus rating while hiding behind a screen name.  How old are we now?  
Usually Lobo eliminates such BS ratings and blocks the offending member's ability to so in the future.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 1/5 rating seems to be gone now; at least I can't see it.

-------------------------------
Shockingly its still there.  You have to click "view 20 more" about 6 or 7 times and it will then appear.  I feel so let down that Istock has not addressed this travesty of ratings :-)

You can have a rating removed from one of your own files by contacting CR.
I found a 1/5 rating on one of my best sellers, apparently by a buyer who said it wasn't a high enough resolution for his needs. I found that bizarre, as the filesize is clearly shown when buying (it's an old slide scan). I never bothered to ask for it to be removed: it was many months afterwards that I discovered it, and it hasn't stopped sales.

Quote from: RacePhoto on November 07, 2010, 01:36

Quote from: lagereek on November 07, 2010, 01:33

Oh sorry!  I didnt realize it was that way?  when I closed-up at StockXpert, I decided not to go with TS,  I thought that was a general option, either join or get out?

Except for those of us who actually wanted to be included, it sounds like you are one of the lucky ones who snuck out before they locked the doors, and started holding photos prisoner.

That's not how I remembered it happened. I thought we had a box to tick/untick depending on whether we wanted our images transferred to TS or not. I chose not to and so they have never appeared on TS. Everyone who I know and trust made their own decision in this regard and they got their choice.

Well, no admin is appearing on the forums to call those with complaints, either about having their files in when they want them out or vice versa, liars. You can bet your bottom dollar that if these complaints were untrue, a certain person would point this out.
There have been several well-documented problems with the TS implementation, and as it's not a priority (what is? - nothing that contributers are concerned about, that's for sure), the ten-day promise is not being upheld, even though I was lucky in this regard, probably deciding to opt out again soon enough that it was done timeously. That doesn't mean I don't see that there are serious concerns.

Sorry for my uneducated question:

How much $$$ am I supposed to get for a 125 credits Unlimited Reproduction / Print Runs?

I've been researching my eyes bloody to figure out my EL commission rate as a non-excl.

I would greatly appreciate a response so I could contact support and ask for more $$$ if that's the case.

If PAYG, in your case, 20% of 125 x cost of the credit.
Cost of credit could be anything from 70c up to whatever (exchange rates make it difficult to say exactly).
Subscription ELs will be different.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 06, 2010, 11:39

Quote from: Gannet77 on November 06, 2010, 11:37

But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point.  And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.

Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.

Indeed, I agree - it often seems in the monthly stats threads that people are bemoaning and seeing disaster ahead because they have fewer downloads.  It's the income that counts.

I was thinking more like that iStock is supposed to be a 'micro'stock, and it seems to be moving towards macro, though with a very confusing model. They should make their intentions clear to contributers. Some contributers are very commited to the micro model, and may be able to make informed decisions if they only had the actual information to do so.