Roger Ressmeyer, President of the Picture Archive Council of America (PACA), recently gave a speech called "The Storm Before The Calm."

Here are five of his recommendations:

1. Standardize licensing practices so that purchasers know what they're getting.

2. Embed metadata to remind purchasers of the scope of their rights.

3. Use technology to hunt down those who infringe on copyrighted pics.

4. Copy celebrity image pricing methods for general and stock boutique collections.

5. Lobby Congress to limit the impact of pending orphan work's legislation.

Ressmeyer misses the point.

The entertainment industry cannot control or define the market. U.S. laws are futile to prevent access to infringing materials from servers located in other countries.

Although RIAA and MPAA have had their successes against P2P networks, Google and YouTube (soon to be one entity) have pushed the boundaries on intellectual property rights, and the media giants are quietly falling into place with licensing agreements.

The stock photography lobby is fighting a similar losing battle. The Internet has redefined the market and is depressing prices.

An image version of Project Gutenberg will destroy the stock photography industry as we know it.

Impossible? Hardly.

Amateur photography, enhanced by digital camera equipment and editing software (such as Adobe's Photoshop), makes it possible to create a large database of high quality images that are royalty-free. That is probable, particularly if advertising revenues can pay for the bandwidth to host such a service.

Regards,

-Mike

I was a bit p'o'd when comstock1700k.com recently changed their licensing terms After I'd bought a 1-year subscription ($599!), eg they now say you can't "stockpile" (!!) images, meaning download them now and use in say a year or two, unless you still maintain an active subscription.

They said that now, you can use them for works you create While you're still a paid subscriber, but you can't download stock photos and then use them for the first time, for future projects. That's not what other template companies or any other royalty-free music/video/image company I've seen has in place re licensing restrictions.

They changed the company name from comstock1700k to comstock complete..

EULA:
Royalty-Free Stock Photos by Subscription - Comstock Complete Subscription Plan

"Any images that have been downloaded and not used during the term of your subscription, are not permitted for first use after the subscription expires. This would be considered stock piling and in violation of our End User Licensing Agreement."

FAQ:
Royalty-Free Stock Photos by Subscription - Comstock Complete Subscription Plan

That's not what I had agreed to -- that restriction was NOT in place when I first enrolled (I even double checked w/wayback machine), and even though their EULA does say they have the right to change licensing restrictions anytime they want, I think it's at a minimum poor business practices, if not downright misleading and unfair, because they changed the EULA to new terms after I'd paid up for a full subscription.

I'd like to hear anyone else's feedback on it.. I called them, emailed and asked to speak to a lawyer, but all they did was suspend my subscription til I backed down and said no I don't need to speak to a lawyer after all.

I'm not happy w/comstock anymore. Changing the license to a different model after someone pays up doesn't seem right. Ideas?

Ken

I kinda expected they'd do that after you posted your experience at Warriors
forum. I don't mean they suspended your subscription after they read your
Warrior thread (which I doubt they did anyway), but rather did so after you
made what they saw as "legal threats".

I'll tell you a story of one call I took that was a potentially legal issue and how
it was handled. I was just a rep that time.

I took a call from someone who asked why he can't access his domain name's
website. I checked everything and saw it was "auctioned" to another buyer.

What happened was his domain name expired and wasn't renewed on time. Per
our service agreement, we'd see if someone made an offer to "buy it" or check
if multiple parties "bid" for the name.

We'd give like 3-4 days for the process to accomodate more buyers, if any. If
only one person did after 3-4 days, we'd transfer the expired name to him/her
after some time, split the proceeds, and send a cut to the last name holder.

If multiple parties made an offer, they'll engage in an auction for 3-4 days. Of
course, highest bidder wins, and we split proceeds and all.

I apologized and told him what happened. I wasn't happy that time because I
hate being the bearer of bad news (does anyone want to be, anyway?), but I
felt a personal "responsibility" to tell him.

He didn't take it well, as expected. He asked where in our terms did we allow
this to happen.

I told him to lookup our service agreement. I apologized to him that I couldn't
interpret it for him since it's a potential legal issue, and I'm just a simple rep
who didn't know anything (but actually knew a lot since I kept my abreast of
laws on such ).

He went on he didn't agree to that change in terms. I said in the nicest terms
possible that he did, though I tried to be as friendly and empathizing as I can
when I explained how.

(Truth hurts, anyway, even though it sets you free.)

By then he asked for our legal department. Per our approach on such issues
like this one, I told him I'll create a report and forward this to them so they'll
get back to him ASAP.

But he insisted on talking to one of our lawyers now. Again I apologized and
told him I just couldn't, though I tried to acknowledge his feelings about it.

(I said tried because I did what I could under the circumstances. I look back,
assess, and believe I did the right thing, though others can say otherwise.)

On my side, I was supposed to handle the call, put him on hold for 1-2 mins.
(which we didn't want to do since putting a customer on hold's a potentially
bad thing), and wait for one of our supervisors or managers to take it. But if
there wasn't one available to accomodate his complaint directly, I'd offer a
callback.

We kept going back and forth: he demanded to speak to one of our lawyers
right away, and I apologized I couldn't but offered to forward a report so they
will call him back the next day. In the end, he gave in, thanked me, and gave
me the benefit of the doubt.

Something like the next day afternoon, one of our corporate executives called
him and explained our policies and procedures. I kept a record so I could look
it up and read what happened since all reports are documented.

Apparently the person kept swearing and even threatened to sue, citing he
never agreed to this change in term. The executive supposedly apologized and
tried to empathize, but he explained it's valid under the US' e-signature law,
and a portion of the service agreement did indicate we can change our terms
anytime without notice.

The person eventually hung up. We never heard from him again.

I then asked one of our senior managers if the executive's approach to it was
"valid". He explained it is because it's the legal, practical approach.

I asked him if we couldn't just email our customers, told them of the upcoming
change to the service agreement, and include a link explaining such with a box
asking them to agree to it or not. He answered we could, but it's not feasible
and practical for a variety of reasons.

Out of curiosity I asked if the executive who spoke with my caller is a lawyer.
He smiled and said no, just someone who turns out to be "smarter" than the
average joe and was experienced in dealing with such people and such issues
because they get it almost every other day.

That's where I eventually came up with the idea that how one feels whether
it's ethically or morally right or wrong depends on what side you're on. As a
customer, you'd feel it's wrong.

As the provider, you'd feel it's right because you did what you could under the
circumstances, what the law allows, and what your priorities are. Your priority
is to protect and "better" your business while trying to keep your customers
happy.

(I eventually left, BTW, when I could no longer stomach how they approached
other issues. But I still keep in touch with them to keep myself updated.)

So two questions inevitably come up: where does one draw the line to keep
your customers happy yet protect your business? Or more importantly, where
do you draw the line that's fair and reasonable to all parties concerned?

Personally I feel I have a responsibility to notify my customers anytime I make
a change to my terms and give them a chance to understand and either agree
or disagree. If they disagree, I'll apologize and issue a refund, probably just a
partial one to cover my costs and how much time they've used my service.

But...it's not practical and realistic because then I have to exert effort and a
bit of time to do the notification and all. And imagine how inconvenient it can
be if I keep doing that from time to time when I can better use that time to
help those who need help.

I realize I sound like I'm trying to justify my actions (and I am, I guess). But
that's yet another good reason why I ought to include a provision that I can
change my terms anytime without notice.

That's why I eventually replied to your Warriors thread that that's something
you and everyone else is going to have to expect from now on. Every service
provider can and will change their terms as they see fit, and the laws allow it.

By expecting the worst, you can potentially prepare for it and act accordingly.
Learn your lessons, cut your losses, and move forward to a more productive
and fruitful future.

I think the point of Mike's thread, though, is to be aware of such issues. Make
your voice heard if need be, but be ready to adjust accordingly.

And if you encounter something like this, just try to be fair yet realistic. After
all we only have one life on this earth. (unless you believe in reincarnation )

Just my thoughts. Thanks.

Edit: I forgot about Mike's thread title. It's a development on being able to
somehow protect your copyright. (So much for a lengthy post that's largely
irrelevant...)