New Shutterstock TOS update

[Tryingmybest]

I just got this and wanted to know what anyone else thinks about it. I'm still going over the TOS.

To Our Valued Contributors,

We would like to tell you about an important update with great potential to increase sales for you. We are updating our Contributor Terms of Service (�TOS�) to enable new sales with a royalty of up to $75 per image download.

Shutterstock services both small and large buyers. In addition to our standard and enhanced licenses, we provide custom licenses to buyers such as large advertising agencies. These agencies require more rights and some flexibility in how an image might ultimately be used.

That flexibility may include "sensitive uses." An example of a "sensitive use" is a healthcare advertisement or political ad. Many stock image agencies, including many of our direct competitors, already include a clause in their license that allows "sensitive uses."

Unlike those stock agencies, Shutterstock is going to put you in control. We are going to give you the option to decide if you want to participate in these sales opportunities.

We will be making changes to the "sensitive use" clauses of our TOS to allow select large-volume customers to use images for certain "sensitive subjects" with the following limitations: customers must indicate that the image is of a model and used for illustrative purposes only. Our policy will continue to prohibit the use of images to promote tobacco; in pornography; in ads or promotional materials for adult entertainment clubs or similar venues; or for escort, dating or similar services.

If you choose to participate, you will have the opportunity to earn much higher royalties from customers representing the top ad agencies in the world. "Sensitive uses" will be a small fraction of the licenses secured by these high volume buyers, but participation gives you full access to all of the sales opportunities that these buyers provide.

To learn more, please visit our FAQ.

If you do not want to participate in these sales opportunities, please visit your account page to change your preferences by March 1.

[Sean Locke Photography]

iStock used to have a sensitive issue EL that they would contact you before licensing it to the person to see if you were ok with it.  That went away.  I can't imagine real "top ad" agencies have a big need for sensitive needs uses.  They'd probably be smart enough to get custom work done instead of having to chance the Photographer giving the ok and then finding the models isn't so ok.

[dcdp]

This would make more sense (but be more dificult to implement) on an image by image basis. There is no way a photographer would say "Yes" for their whole portfolio especially if they have used a number of models over time. I'm happy enough to okay it for me when I am the model but no way I would do it for other people on their behalf

[Jo Ann Snover]

I don't see a problem for me, but probably it's those with a ton of people images who'll be most concerned. Even with the "posed by models" disclaimer, someone with strong political views one way or another might not be too happy seeing themselves in an ad for a viewpoint they oppose. Even though model releases were signed, if you lose the use of a model you like working with or are worried about legal wrangling, it might be an issue. But SS thankfully provided an opt out.

I just can't see how they're going to collect such a premium for this small TOS change - but more money for a small additional license permission seems fine to me.

[gaja]

I opted out, but would have liked to decide on an image to image basis. Also, the type of use is very important. I couldn't care less if my face was used in an ad for a weird political party in southern Mongolia, but a local left wing party is not OK.

[Pixart]

There is no way this can fly unless it is assessed on a case by case basis.  Lots of my models are teens, could you imagine what hell they would go through at school if they were on a herpes meds billboard?

[microstockphoto.co.uk]

It probably doesn't really matter since I don't almost have models, however if they pay $75 they can even use my pictures for Republicans or Tories The punk side of me says we're only in it for the money, quoting Mr Zappa; otherwise we should refuse all the microstock model, not just this clause.

[gostwyck]

I've opted in but I can't imagine that these licenses are going to be frequent enough to make a difference to income.

However, what I think is interesting is that SS appear to be reacting to a demand from customers. The fact that they mentioned 'other agencies' may be a sign that such customers are migrating from said 'other agencies' and want the same uses.

[traveler1116]

It probably doesn't really matter since I don't almost have models, however if they pay me $75 they can even use my pictures for republicans or tories  The punk side of me says we're only in it for the money, quoting Mr. Zappa; otherwise we should refuse all the microstock model, not just this clause.

Can't you already use stock images for political ads?  It seems more aimed at ads for AIDS awareness, diabetes, etc.. since they said health companies.

[microstockphoto.co.uk]

It probably doesn't really matter since I don't almost have models, however if they pay me $75 they can even use my pictures for republicans or tories  The punk side of me says we're only in it for the money, quoting Mr. Zappa; otherwise we should refuse all the microstock model, not just this clause.

Can't you already use stock images for political ads?  It seems more aimed at ads for AIDS awareness, diabetes, etc.. since they said health companies.

I would have thought so as well, but they literally say "healthcare advertisement or political ad", implying there were probably some limitations in both cases.

[traveler1116]

It probably doesn't really matter since I don't almost have models, however if they pay me $75 they can even use my pictures for republicans or tories  The punk side of me says we're only in it for the money, quoting Mr. Zappa; otherwise we should refuse all the microstock model, not just this clause.

Can't you already use stock images for political ads?  It seems more aimed at ads for AIDS awareness, diabetes, etc.. since they said health companies.

I would have thought so as well, but they literally say "healthcare advertisement or political ad", implying there were probably some limitations in both cases.

You're right I skipped right over the political part.

[cathyslife]

I opted in initially, but I just went back and opted out. I don't have that many models, and my model photos aren't that good, so I don't think I was going to make extra millions anyway. But what models I do have are family, so probably not wise to take a chance that my niece finds herself in a herpes or AIDS ad. Thanksgiving might REALLY be uncomfortable.  

[jamesbenet]

Unless its a file by file option I don't see this working.  All off on default and hand picked ones for this use.  That would work ok and save a bunch of headaches.

[cathyslife]

Unless its a file by file option I don't see this working.  All off on default and hand picked ones for this use.  That would work ok and save a bunch of headaches.

Agreed. I'd be willing to pimp myself out, but not others.

[xst]

As you can see from my site - my models don't really care

[MatHayward]

A few months ago I got an email from a brothel in Germany asking if they could use a picture of my wife for their web page.  The image was exclusive on FT and their terms of service prevented the brothel from using it.  I was a bit flattered they wanted it but my wife didn't seem to think it was such a great idea.  I don't know why, I've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to be with her   Don't tell her I said that! 

Anyway, I later learned there was a pretty big demand for images from those types of places and that the microstock sites aren't real accommodating.

For some of you guys that shoot girls (and guys) in provocative clothes (or lack thereof) it could end up being a very profitable move.  As for me, I'm just not prepared for the conversation that would take place from some random model I shot asking why she is in a 1-900 number ad in her local paper.   

Mat

[lisafx]

Your brothel type usage would still be prohibited:

Our policy will continue to prohibit the use of images to promote tobacco; in pornography; in ads or promotional materials for adult entertainment clubs or similar venues; or for escort, dating or similar services.

I haven't decided whether to opt in or not.  I've already had images used in political ads, many times, and also in medical ads.  None of the models seem to mind these types of uses.  The only concerns I ever hear expressed are that they don't want to be used in pornographic ways. 

STD ads would be a problem though.  I had my seniors used in a billboard for Syphilis, and they were NOT happy about that one.  Fortunately the agency who commissioned the billboard took it down when I explained it was against the TOS for the images. 

Well, there.  I just decided.  I don't want my models used in that type of advertising.  Will have to opt out I guess, unless some sort of per usage or per image thing can be worked out. 

[dk]

"Many stock image agencies, including many of our direct competitors, already include a clause in their license that allows "sensitive uses."

Let's not forget that Shutterstock is politely asking for something that is the norm from smaller agencies and competitors and they plan to pay well, so it's yes from me and thanks for asking!

Still i don't have photos of friends or family in my port, exactly because you never know where they're going to end up.
A luxurious brothel in Germany might check to see if you agree with image use but i doubt brothels in most parts of the world would even consider buying photos or care about restrictions in use.

 

[gemmy12]

iStock used to have a sensitive issue EL that they would contact you before licensing it to the person to see if you were ok with it.

are we supposed to get notice/information at the time of such purchase whether the image will be used in which field ie. for healthcare/pornography or tobacco ad etc in the case of SS ?

[Ed]

iStock used to have a sensitive issue EL that they would contact you before licensing it to the person to see if you were ok with it.  That went away.  I can't imagine real "top ad" agencies have a big need for sensitive needs uses.  They'd probably be smart enough to get custom work done instead of having to chance the Photographer giving the ok and then finding the models isn't so ok.

Hmmmm....small world...maybe some artists (not meant to be a pointed statement to you) should take a hint....

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2012/01/11/4896.aspx

That's two agencies....do you think the customers may be knocking at the gates?  Do you think this may relate to the guy on the New York ad campaign that complained about the image of his leg being amputated?

...just some food for thought....

[Megastock]

I've opted in but I can't imagine that these licenses are going to be frequent enough to make a difference to income.

However, what I think is interesting is that SS appear to be reacting to a demand from customers. The fact that they mentioned 'other agencies' may be a sign that such customers are migrating from said 'other agencies' and want the same uses.

Interesting - I took the 'other agencies' bit to be a statement intended to make you realize that if you sell on other sites you probably already have agreed to this without being asked...and thus likelier to opt in on SS.

[LesHoward]

I think this is an issue that needs to be discussed with the model and an opt in or out included in the model release. Some models may be 100% okay with it but others would not. We would then have to opt in individual images during upload. I don't understand how anyone could opt in their whole portfolio unless they had no pictures containing people.

[dreamstock]

I opt out.

I've been in the microstock business since 2008 and majority of my work are people (+/-6500 images), i'm blessed that up to date i have not receive any complaints of misuse from any of my models, i had a few sensitive usage requests in the past from DT but i declined them all. the reason is quite simple, i also have a few pics of my son in my portfolio, do i want to see him in a AIDS orphan ad? absolutely not. then why do it to other models?

[nicku]

Strange... i have some pictures with people in my port ( mot much)... but some of them are very suitable for sensitive publicity. i planned a few days ago a shoot regarding drug addiction with people where can not recognize the face (picture from the side , some parts of the face covered with hair etc.) .

for the moment i will opt out . BUT if SS will allow to agree the use per image i will opt in some images.... but NOT all my port... NO WAY.


Nik

[Anyka]

I'm opting out. Even if other agencies do not give us the chance to opt out, at least I can show my models/family/friends that I DID opt out where ever possible.