iSTock new agreement

RacePhoto · #1 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 10:19 PM

What brought this on? Someone buying their own photos or having others buy their photos with a subscription.

Quote:

You represent and warrant that you shall not: (i) license your own Content (except occasionally and then only for legitimate creative purposes); or (ii) predominately license the content of only a few contributors. You agree that you will not collude with another iStockphoto member to have that member do either of (i) or (ii) above for your benefit. You acknowledge that genuine subscription customers typically license files from many contributors and you agree that your subscription licensing behavior will conform to this typical conduct. In addition to any other available remedies, if you breach this paragraph iStockphoto may immediately terminate this Agreement and/or, if applicable, cancel your subscription package without any refund to you. You further agree to forfeit any royalties earned by you in connection with your misconduct.

You are hereby ordered to be typical.

But is there some benefit from buying a subscription and then colluding with others to buy their photos, or have them buy your photos in exchange. Interesting.

LazyAnn · #2 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 11:30 PM

Yes, it is. For instance, istock will be paying about 0.10 more per credit than it gets to diamond exclusive members.

Even in Pay as you go, there has been many (not one or a dozen, many)cases of people, or rings, buying their own photos to get a better Best Match position. That means cheating your fellows photographers in a malicious way, and showing to the head of the searches files that shouldn't be there.

michaeldb · #3 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LazyAnn

Yes, it is. For instance, istock will be paying about 0.10 more per credit than it gets to diamond exclusive members.

True. I saw one example where a diamond exclusive could get .48 by buying his/her image for .29. You could make a lot of money fast doing that.

One thing I don't get: How valid is the new license agreement? Just how enforceable? And what about people who don't sign the new agreement? By IS's de facto admission, they are not bound by it if they do not sign, right? What is to stop them from buying their images submitted before the new agreement?

RacePhoto · #4 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaeldb

True. I saw one example where a diamond exclusive could get .48 by buying his/her image for .29. You could make a lot of money fast doing that.

One thing I don't get: How valid is the new license agreement? Just how enforceable? And what about people who don't sign the new agreement? By IS's de facto admission, they are not bound by it if they do not sign, right? What is to stop them from buying their images submitted before the new agreement?

Oh cool, I can start making money by buying photos and splitting with the photographers. The more I can buy from different photographers, the more typical I'll appear.

19 cents a photo profit, to be divided... No I wouldn't really consider this, but the temptation is out there for others. Lets just consider the international scam market, and if they find a way to tap into this.

I don't mean to generalize but hackers in China, Russia, Romania, Hong Kong, and some others are probably ramping up ways to make money off this.

LazyAnn · #5 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 04:55 PM

Yes, but they would ned to be exclusive and at least gold or diamond o even try this and get profit.

kitsen · #6 (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 03:12 PM

What happens if I don't agree? Does my whole portfolio get blocked? But there isn't even an option to say, "I don't agree". THAT I find a bit stupid.

frito bandito · #7 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 05:48 AM

I think it says 'logout'.