Chris Dickman (bio)

Through sickness, death, financial setbacks or natural disaster, if you can imagine a tragic event, then there's probably an insurance policy available to cover the consequences. Some of these events are universal, while others are cultural, like hole in one insurance. That's right. It seems that in Japan getting a hole in one is taken as such a sign of good luck that the golfer is expected to share the good fortune with friends and family via lavish gifts, to the extent that this can result in a five-figure outlay. Why be surprised that hole in one insurance was created to ensure that Japanese golfers could once again pursue the holy grail of the perfect shot in tranquility.

This summer, two former Getty Images executives launched the strangely-named Vivozoom stock photo site, differentiating it from its myriad competitors with the claim that it was "the only microstock site that guarantees that its images are legally safe to use." Any reputable microstock site is picky about what images it accepts and also ensures that all legal releases are in place for images requiring one. But Vivistock went further, claiming that "Our extensive market research has demonstrated that there is a real concern that by using un-warranted images you or your client may receive a legitimate claim from a photographer or model claiming that you did not have the right to use that image. What would be the implications of this for your business? Why take that chance, when you do not need to?" Why indeed? The site even cited the EULA from iStockphoto as an example of how far out on a limb you'd be by employing their images. If users did get slapped with a bona fide claim Vivozoom vowed that it would defend them, provided the site was notified of the claim and was allowed to handle the defense, thereby assuming responsibility for damages and costs up to $25,000. Not too shabby.

But perhaps poking the sleeping bear with a stick was a bad idea. It would seem Vivistock got iStockphoto's attention, since the microstock powerhouse has announced that it is now "formally" protecting its customers from copyright, moral right, trademark and other intellectual property and rights of privacy disputes up to $250,000. Take that, Vivizoom! In fact, the iStock Legal Guarantee only provides that if a customer receives a claim, iStockphoto will cover the customer's legal costs and direct damages to a combined total of $10,000. The quarter of a million only kicks in if customers "looking for additional peace of mind" pony up an extra 100 credits for the enhanced protection. Since that's over $100, purchasing real "peace of mind" comes at a price more in line with the images on mother ship Gettyimages.com. In a nutshell, iStockphoto is now a provider of lawsuit insurance, a more profitable field than simply offering cut-rate imagery.

Expect to see a wider adoption of this as those selling inexpensive imagery struggle to compete with the flood of "scary" free imagery being released under a Creative Commons license. As Kelly Thompson, Chief Operating Officer of iStockphoto points out, "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."

Boo!

Chris Dickman
Founding Editor, Graphics.com