RIPOFF!!!!! iStockPhoto

[Ron Dunn]

I thought I'd re-check the iStockPhoto licence. Here are the circumstances in which you need to pay the EXTENDED licence for an image:

1. Reproducing the image more than 500,000 times
2. Use of the image by more than one person (ie, employee designers)
3. You sell items incorporating the image.

I suggest that if you are in any of these categories, paying $100 for an image should not be an issue.

All of the other uses in this thread - presentations, web sites, advertising and promotion, etc. - are covered by the standard licence.

Standard licence: http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php
Extended licence: http://www.istockphoto.com/extended_...provisions.php

[David Brasfield]

I am confused as to the difference between items 1 and 3.

I read, and re-read their license structure, several times a while back. I even asked a lawyer friend to have a look. His advice, avoid any of the images like the plague, the license is far too ambiguous.

David

[Ron Dunn]

Lawyers. A bigger plague than Wall Street.

David, #1 refers to things like advertising handbills or business cards that I produce for my own business. For example, I licensed an image for a business card for a hobby business I used to run. #3 refers to printing the image on mugs, t-shirts, anything for sale to third-parties.

[David Brasfield]

Not trying to be combative, but if both lead to, and are intended for profit, then I don't recognize any major distinction.

David

[martin g. boekers]

Stock photography is a big market. Typically photographers are put on contract to produce a range of images for the company. The photographer gets a percentage of the sale. The companies usually ask the photographer to send thousands if not tens of thousands of images in even before they agree to represent them.
Then the agreements are hashed out about rights and usage that both the company and photographer agree to.

When you deal with a stock agency (whether it's photography, illustration, music etc) you purchase certain rights and the price varies depending if you
do a local calendar or a two page spread in a national magazine. The lowest charge is usually a layout fee, that sounds like Istock was "giving away"
that is just to be used for testing and comp work.

Exclusive rights are usually available at a much higher price but that can guarentee that right before you release your campaign that some other company doesn't use the image and "steal" your thunder.

It sounds like you can use the images from Istock for display work though.

Contests, I'm sure there are some groups out there that might use contests
to aquire stock images, that's a hard way for them to develop a portfolio of images. When stock agencies work with photographers they can "cultivate" them on the types of and quality of images that are "buyable" making it a good relationship for both of them.

Most of the contests, if you read the disclaimer closely are not taking away your ownership rights. Typically they get permission to use you image in their marketing for future contests and to publicly acknowledge the winner. They say they will keep your photograph mostly because of the cost and labor involved in returning it as well as possiblity of damage or loss.

You can find images that for a set fee you can use it for whatever you want, (royalty free) but that doesn't give you exclusitivity as they will sell similiar rights to whoever else pays for it. Typically in larger stock agency these may be made available after a period of there "useful" life or images that for some reason didn't make the cut. (they be fine for our use though and some nice deals are out there)

Stock agencies came into being as companies can sort through many images to find one that fits their needs and at a cost of about a third of what it would cost to have a pro-photographer shoot it. Plus they get a shot instantly that fits their needs instead of taking a chance with a photographer and the time and environment he has to face.

Say you need a shot of a Caribbean island at sunset, I think definatly it would be cheaper to buy stock then to hire a photographer and pay for time and travel.

Marty

[Paul Perkinson]

We discovered very soon after starting our business that having a great collection of art and vector graphics is essential to staying in business. Customers just don't respond to "We can create anything you can dream of". They have to have examples to look at. Lots and lots of examples. Some of them want to buy those examples and others get their own creative juices flowing by looking at them.
It has taken us a few years to put such a collection together and we will continue to add to it. It has required thousands of dollars along with thousands of hours working with Photoshop, Illustrator, Corel Paint and other software packages. In other words, the investment in artwork has far eclipsed the cost of our laser - and we have a 4' x 8' laser table.
At first it seems unfortunate that there isn't a LEGAL way to acquire this art cheaply, but after a while you realize that this is part of what will keep easily affordable laser engraving equipment from knocking you out of the marketplace. They may or may not be able to price their product below you because their overhead is cheaper, but if they cannot match your legal artwork collection (which also represents time in business, commitment, and professionalism to most customers) you still have a huge advantage.
I mean this to be encouraging. It's been a lot of work for us, but it has been worth every bit of it. My recommendation is not to just go out and buy a bunch of stuff - even if you can afford it - until you thoroughly research all the available options and do an honest assessment of how much you think you might be able to contribute yourself through photography and learning some software packages. The power of Photoshop and Illustrator to turn 2 or 3 so-so photographs into a single, dynamic, BAM photo (to quote Emeril Lagasse) is incredible. And the power of Illustrator to design medallions, abstracts, backsplashes, and signs is pretty much without equal. You can also use PhotoPaint and CorelDraw for good results.
As a matter of fact, you can become good enough at it that you can wind up selling some of your artwork through istockphotos.com. We have. And, frankly, we are not all that artistic.
Sorry for the long post. Bottom line is...keep plugging away at the artwork day by day by day - don't waste time looking for a quick shortcut - and it will pay off.

[Michael Simpson Virgina]

Istockphoto is a rip off in many ways. First as a photographer I get like 25 cents for each photo that sells. The only one making real money is Istockphoto.

As a photographer I would not want someone to use my photos commercially if I am only getting 25 cents.

[Frank Corker]

Istockphoto is a rip off in many ways. First as a photographer I get like 25 cents for each photo that sells. The only one making real money is Istockphoto.

As a photographer I would not want someone to use my photos commercially if I am only getting 25 cents.

There you have it from the horses mouth. I had no doubt that this was the case, the photographer is the one who really gets stiffed. Steve, maybe you should be contacting Mike here for some of his images, I'm sure it will be a better price than Istockphoto.

[Steve Clarkson]

Mike,

I'll DOUBLE the price iStockphoto offered you!!!!!!!!

[Albert Nix]

Scott I agree with you. I have ran into a lot of the same deals. It is nothing but marketing hype they try not to lie but if you do not know to ask the right question do not depend on them to open up. I feel most folks including you and myself will agree that a straight forward price of $100 for a nice detailed high resolution pic is a deal. What I hate is when the sales folks blow smoke and try to make it look like you are getting more than you really are. Most newbies do not know the difference. A good example was when I bought my vinyl cutter and I knew nothing about the software. They made it look like I was getting a nice bundle, but all I got was a watered down version of the real thing and they were counting on the fact that if I was going to do anything serious I would have to spend several hundred bucks to upgrade. Who has ever bought a piece equipment that came with Estimate software. I bet if you tried to do much with it you had to go back and buy at least one or two add ons at I think $99 each but when the sales guy was explaining what all come with the deal he did'nt mention that. Just like LXI software! be sure you research with version you are getting. I like it but if you are not careful you will get a bundle with the apprentice version and the salesman will most likely tell you that you that it will meet 95% of your needs but it is like a first grade version of the LXI 8.6V master plus. Also a lot of sales folks will tell you that LXI is the same as flexi pro but do not believe that either. And Oh yeah lets not forget the maketing claims about 10-20K hrs on our lazer tubes,I hope thats true but I will not hold my breath. All in all I think Scott is ticked not because of the price but because he thought he was getting more for him money and it didn't happen.

[Michael Simpson Virgina]

I sell most of my stuff locally as prints. To be honest Im happy when I sell a print on consignment for $10. In that case I only get $7. The days of a photographer making a living selling $200 photos as fine are are over. Thats not to say you cant sell one at that price, its just real hard to make a living at it.

I do most of my work doing specialized photoagraphy. I am lucky enough to live in a rural area close to various cities. Things lik pet photography is real big where I am.

FYI here is some of my work thats on a bit of the artistic or fun side.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8656232@N06/

[Steve Clarkson]

Very nice work Michael! I really like the one entitled "In the Dark". How do you make the heads big like that?

[Jack Harper]

Great images Michael. I would love to see a before and after of the same image to get a greater since of photo evolution. How long does it take on average to modify a photo to that level?

[Scott Shepherd]

I'm still having a tough time figuring out the problem with istockphoto. You are upset because you can't spend 99 cents and make hundreds and hundreds of items to sell at a profit? I don't get it. Do you get paid for the work you do? Then so should the photographer who took the photo. Do you really think it's fair to pay him/her 99 cents and then make 1000's and 1000's of dollars off of their photo?

Are you running a business or a hobby? If it's a hobby, then it probably seems like a rip off. If you're running a business, a $100 for a photo you can use is a bargain.

[Michael Simpson Virgina]

The problem with Istock is that you really are not paying the photographer. they get next to nothing for the items they post. The only ones making money is Istockphoto. I understand Steves issue is that he cant use the images for commercial use unless he pays an additional fee. Which is a way for Istock to get even more money.

My recomendation is go to another stock photo company. Its unreasonable when you purchace a photo from a stock photo agency that you cant use it as you see fit as long as its legal. I do know that most wont let you use them for logos or trade marked items. The reason for that is clear if the image was allowed for use in a logo then others would not be allowed to use that image for other purposes. Makes sence to me. But other than that you should be able to use it as general artwork for various products.