Big Stock Photo copyright problems

02/26/2007 02:49:13 PM · #1

I got a call this morning from istockphoto.com to let me know that some of my images were being sold on CrystalGraphics.com. They are reselling photos from Big Stock Photo, but I have an exclusive contract with istockphoto and requested long ago that Big Stock Photo remove all of my images from their site. If anyone else is in this same situation, you might want to contact Big Stock Photo as well to make sure that they remove your images from the feed that they send to Crystal Graphics.

bfox2

Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM

02/26/2007 02:55:54 PM · #2

I had major issues when I was trying to get BigStockPhoto to shut down my account. The service was poor when they responded at all. I finally just deleted all my images myself, then converted my earnings to $$ and downloaded other photographers images until I didn't have anything left. They were probably the worst of the microstock sites I was on in terms of customer service.

Perrush

Canon EOS-5D

02/27/2007 08:54:37 AM · #3

in the TOS of BSP stands that you have to leave the photos for 90 days for sale. Maybe they were not that long for sale yet.

colorcarnival

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III

Olympus 45mm f1.8 M.Zuiko Digital Micro Four Thirds

02/27/2007 08:57:47 AM · #4

Originally posted by bfox2:

Can you tell me how you deleted photos yourself? I tried to figure it out and cannot see where to do it. I thought they had to do it?

bfox2

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

02/27/2007 09:36:08 AM · #5

Originally posted by colorcarnival:

Originally posted by bfox2:
I had major issues when I was trying to get BigStockPhoto to shut down my account. The service was poor when they responded at all. I finally just deleted all my images myself, then converted my earnings to $$ and downloaded other photographers images until I didn't have anything left. They were probably the worst of the microstock sites I was on in terms of customer service.

Can you tell me how you deleted photos yourself? I tried to figure it out and cannot see where to do it. I thought they had to do it?

Hmm after looking at the site maybe I didn't do it myself. I do know that it had been about 6 or 8 months since I'd uploaded anything so that wasn't the problem, the people are just inept, unfriendly, or something. I'm assuming that to contact them you used the little web-form, and I think I might have done that repeatedly using more stern language each time. I probably sent them a message once every 1 or 2 weeks for two months.

Sorry about the confusion it must have been a different site where I had to delete the images myself.

rabi9634

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

02/27/2007 10:13:08 AM · #6

I pulled my portfolio from Big Stock. Didn't have much trouble at all. In fact, they were actually pretty good about it. Maybe things got better.. someone just had the odd experience.

Did they get the other site to remove the shots?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

02/27/2007 01:18:29 PM · #7

They were very helpful in canceling my account, which was active for well over 90 days when I asked them to do so, but they have continued to send my photos to resellers since then. That's the only problem that I'm having with them right now, and I just wanted to make others who might have exclusive stock contracts aware of this issue as well.

EDIT to say that all my photos have now been removed from the Crystal Graphics site.

Message edited by author 2007-02-27 13:20:24.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

02/27/2007 01:25:31 PM · #8

You did get the money from the resellers, didn't you? I would be really, really mad if I didn't.

02/27/2007 01:44:12 PM · #9

Originally posted by karmat:

You did get the money from the resellers, didn't you? I would be really, really mad if I didn't.

I have a pending request for that right now, but no response as of yet. I'll post a note when that issue is resolved.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

02/27/2007 02:05:13 PM · #10

Just received a reply from Big Stock saying that I didn't have enough royalties from Crystal Graphics sales to meet their minimum payment requirement. Ah well...

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

02/27/2007 02:17:01 PM · #11

ohhh. that is so wrong.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/27/2007 02:18:42 PM · #12

Originally posted by karmat:

ohhh. that is so wrong.

One of the ways they (microstock sites) make money is by holding onto sales where the photographer has not yet (and may never) reach the minimum payout level.

TCGuru

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/27/2007 02:20:01 PM · #13

Can you ask for records??

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

02/27/2007 02:24:45 PM · #14

Are any of the images that BS sold through Crystal Graphics also for sale from istockphoto during your period of exclusivity? Maybe istock would be willing to get involved on the premise that some of their exclusive images were in effect being pirated. The way I see it, they sold your images without your permission and have refused to even pay you after the fact.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

02/27/2007 02:25:09 PM · #15

This whole thread should serve as a cautionary tale about doing business with microstock agencies. It would seem that some of these agencies value their contributors as much as their contributors value their own work; very little.

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

02/27/2007 02:25:39 PM · #16

Duly noted. Istock is a wonderful place to sell photos.

birdyblue

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

02/27/2007 02:44:27 PM · #17

The same thing has happened to me. They are selling my photo for $7.95 for a web photo and $69 for a PRINT!
I just noticed they do credit me as the photographer.

Message edited by author 2007-02-27 14:59:32.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

02/27/2007 03:19:00 PM · #18

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by karmat:
ohhh. that is so wrong.

One of the ways they (microstock sites) make money is by holding onto sales where the photographer has not yet (and may never) reach the minimum payout level.

I know, but if they were selling it after he had removed/asked it to be removed, that is not right.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/27/2007 03:20:56 PM · #19

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by karmat:
ohhh. that is so wrong.

One of the ways they (microstock sites) make money is by holding onto sales where the photographer has not yet (and may never) reach the minimum payout level.

I know, but if they were selling it after he had removed/asked it to be removed, that is not right.

Good point -- he should be paid for those, or sue for contact violation and/or copyright infringement.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/27/2007 03:39:25 PM · #20

Originally posted by ara-blu:

The same thing has happened to me. They are selling my photo for $7.95 for a web photo and $69 for a PRINT!
I just noticed they do credit me as the photographer.

and you get what? a quarter?

Message edited by author 2007-02-27 15:39:45.

birdyblue

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

02/27/2007 09:12:14 PM · #21

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by ara-blu:
The same thing has happened to me. They are selling my photo for $7.95 for a web photo and $69 for a PRINT!
I just noticed they do credit me as the photographer.

and you get what? a quarter?

Here's the response I got from my email to Big Stock:

Crystal Graphics is a BigStockPhoto affiliate. Yes you also receive
royalties from any sales on CG. If you prefer your images not be
available at Crystal Graphics, you can go into your account and opt out of this
feature.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

Best Regards,

Joan
--
Customer Support
BigStockPhoto.com

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

02/28/2007 05:46:21 AM · #22

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

That's got nothing to do with microstock; it's about poor customer service and business practice - two things which are neither unique to the microstock industry, or intrinsic to it.

02/28/2007 09:04:25 AM · #23

Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
This whole thread should serve as a cautionary tale about doing business with microstock agencies. It would seem that some of these agencies value their contributors as much as their contributors value their own work; very little.

That's got nothing to do with microstock; it's about poor customer service and business practice - two things which are neither unique to the microstock industry, or intrinsic to it.

I disagree, the microstock companies place so little value on their contributors' work that they, by default, place a low value on the contributors themselves and feel they can treat them like dirt, simply because by doing so, they place very little actual revenue at risk. If you don't consider the poor photographer who's getting screwed over, it's a great business practice. It's relatively low-risk, since few photographers will actually complain, or even find out, and high reward, since they only risk losing out on the few pennies a photographer might generate and stand to gain much more.

It has nothing to do with customer service; how can a photographer be considered a customer of a microstock agency? The only customers a microstock agency has are the image buyers, not the image sellers. If anything it's an example of providing their customer with a great deal by screwing over their supplier, the photographer. Businesses are always trying to buy for less and sell for more, so you are correct that this is not unique to the microstock industry. What is unique is how all the suppliers wave their hands and shout about how great they feel about getting screwed.

Message edited by author 2007-02-28 09:08:48.