New Image Library Looking for Photographers

Sales Manager

unread,

Mar 8, 2002, 4:11:10 AM3/8/02

to

ImageStill.com is a new Online Image Library and we're looking for
talented photographers to contribute. In return we'll put your images
in the library for royalty free licence sale and list you as a
photographer available for commissions.

For more details, please visit - http://newblood.imagestill.com/

Mike Savad

unread,

Mar 8, 2002, 9:44:34 AM3/8/02

to

sale...@imagestill.co.uk (Sales Manager) wrote in
news:5e95031c.02030...@posting.google.com:

but do we actually profit by it in some way? or are these royalty free
pictures being sold by you?

---Mike Savad

--
---
Mike's Stained Glass - http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1141/ <-- Updated 7-
11-2001
Mike's Canon Powershot Pro 90IS - Photo's - http://savad.0catch.com/ <--
New Location!

Dan Smith, Photographer

unread,

Mar 8, 2002, 1:16:33 PM3/8/02

to

"Sales Manager" wrote:> ImageStill.com is a new Online Image Library and

we're looking for
> talented photographers to contribute. In return we'll put your images
> in the library for royalty free licence sale and list you as a
> photographer available for commissions.
>

Wow, ROYALTY FREE...

What a way to screw yourself, listing with jackals like this

brook martin

unread,

Mar 8, 2002, 3:05:54 PM3/8/02

to

> From: "Dan Smith, Photographer" <sho...@brigham.net>
> Organization: WebUseNet Corp. - "ReInventing The UseNet"
> Newsgroups:
> rec.photo,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.film+labs,r
> ec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:16:33 -0700
> Subject: Re: New Image Library Looking for Photographers

And I bet if you were to look closely, you would be "copyright free" as
well.
Brook

MarkW

unread,

Mar 8, 2002, 4:02:13 PM3/8/02

to

"brook martin" <brook...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:B8AE7B64.7E11F%

> >
> > Wow, ROYALTY FREE...
> >
> > What a way to screw yourself, listing with jackals like this
> >
> >
> >
> And I bet if you were to look closely, you would be "copyright free" as
> well.

Maybe, but at a quick glance it looked to me that they were royalty-free in the
sense that there would be no 'per-copy' royalties; instead there would be a
one-time license fee for the use of an image of which the photographer would get a
percentage. Libraries of software components are sold both of those ways all the
time (one-time license fee with no per-copy royalties is one model, per-copy
royalties is another -- either may be used, sometimes as options for the same
library). Anyway, that's not to say this is a good deal, only that royalty-free,
doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as copyright-free (or completely without
charge as as in 'free beer').

Mark

Damian Lowflower

unread,

Mar 8, 2002, 10:17:03 PM3/8/02

to

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:02:13 -0500, "MarkW"
<wea...@corvusdev-nospam.com> wrote:

It looks like a pretty bad deal from where I sit. Technically, you
retain copyright for the images you upload, but you waive a lot of
rights, too. Any image that you give them, or "similar image" that
you have copyright to, cannot be provided to any competitor or
reseller of the image. What's more, if anybody wants to purchase
rights to that image from you, you must refer them through
ImageStill.com. You waive all "moral rights" to the image, including
the right to object to modifications to said image.

That's just to scratch the surface. You also throw out rights to
determine pricing, sales, format the image is sold in, and so forth.
But they won't help you defend your copyright, and despite the fact
they determine who the picture is sold to, you're the one liable for
the use of the pictures.

All in all, a huge legal Pit of Despair. No wonder they're looking
for photographers.....