iStockphoto seeks profit from others' legal worries

iStockphoto, a Getty Images subsidiary that licenses photos and other content for relatively low cost, is hoping to benefit by reassuring customers concerned about violating others' intellectual property rights.

iStockphoto's Kelly Thompson

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)

Adding photographs can improve advertisements, brochures, and other content, but getting sued for inappropriately using another company's trademark or violating an individual's privacy is buzzkill. As a result, iStockphoto has now begun promoting a legal guarantee under which the company will cover up to $10,000 in legal expenses in cases involving trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights, and privacy rights.

It's included with any file purchased from the company. For those who want more, iStockphoto will increase the coverage to $250,000 at a cost of 100 of the credits ordinarily used to purchase photos, videos, audio clips, and graphics. Presently, credits cost between 95 cents and $1.50, with lower per-credit prices when purchased in bulk.

The company essentially is trying to capitalize on the risks involved when using content that's freely downloaded from the Web or produced on one's own, eagerly pointing out that even stitching patterns on jeans can be trademarked.

"There are certainly millions of images available on the Web, but most are not cleared for commercial usage. Creative Commons images can be perfect for some projects, but there are little to no formal inspections on those files, so iStock offers a much safer and suitable alternative when using multimedia," iStockphoto Chief Operating Officer Kelly Thompson said in a statement.

[kkthompson]

Stephen, I think our motivations are a lot simpler than you imply.

A large number of companies will not buy images than aren't indemnified in some way. This way, we open up iStock's collection to them.

We can also look at our competitor's collections, and know they can't do the same with such certainty -- so it becomes a distinct competitive advantage.

Kelly Thompson
COO, iStockphoto

[Shankland]

Sounds to me like we're more on the same page than not. Presumably you believe offering the indemnification will improve your business, so it would appear you're hoping to benefit from it. Perhaps corporate buyers merely view indemnification as a check box, but what drives all this is the legal system, which in my experience tends to be anxiety-prone. In the Web era, I see a lot of teeth-gnashing among photographers about unlicensed use of their imagery and a lot of legal action by corporations trying to control their image, so I don't think the indemnification and copyright and trademark matters are brush-off matters.

[darthstupid]

Wow that dude's eyes are creepy. Couldn't have use a better photo?

[LucasRoebuck]

What a lame headline. How about "C|Net seeks to make profit by putting ads next to editorial content?" Lame spin in the headline, too.

[shycelticwitch]

While I love iStock, I am very disappointed in their buy-out by the Getty's. Within a few weeks after this change, the prices on iStock went up 200%. I was fortunate enough to have acquired about half of the Vetta Collection before they recently raised the cost of those by 3000%. This is just out of reach for most average designers and ad agencies. We're fighting back though... a local group of artists have started their own stock sharing site, complete with proper licensing, model releases and restrictions. The best part?... $1 per photo, any size, and they are OUR photos. And I have to say, we have some pretty talented photographers here. Watch and learn... we're not going to take it up the wazzooo anymore by these big box corporations. I expect more of these sharing sites to appear as you raise your prices, and soon the only people buying from you will be the ones selling to you.

Sorry I can't give you our site address... for members only, greedy people not welcome.

[Shankland]

iStockphoto has two audiences. One is the photographers and other content creators who supply it. They delight in the company's price increases, because as long as they're not so high that buyers such as yourself abandon the service, they stand to earn more, and having a rich and fresh collection of imagery is important. The other are the buyers, who obviously want lower prices. Serving both audiences is a balancing act.

To @LucasRoebuck's point, CNET is in a similar position. We have advertisers and we have readers. Catering completely to the needs of either audience would make our site useless.

[shycelticwitch]

That was my point: increases of 100% and 3000% on pricing is just plain greedy, and unnecessary. I could understand these prices if the photos were limited to a certain number of downloads. But the fact that I have to pay $300 for a photo that millions of other people can use is just plain crazy. And it wasn't done in steps, it was done practically overnight, leaving a LOT of talented designers like myself no choice but to abandon you.

Our photographers are making VERY good income from our site.