MicrostockGroup

I would have figured that the policy change was pretty clear when they removed over a thousand images from icholakov's portfolio. The language in the Terms simply states that SS can amend their policies at any time, for any reason. And I think they were fair in their dealings regarding filter forge images. They just removed those images and left everything else online.

To me, if SS removed some of my images I wouldn't just re-upload new versions of the same images, no matter how much more creative I thought them to be. And I certainly wouldn't be surprised if SS was at all unhappy about me ignoring their change in policy and just doing whatever I pleased. But maybe that's just me.


Maybe your hostility and prejudices have something to do with your unpleasant experiences here. Not sure where you think I ever did any woo-yaying for SS, and I've never been quiet about my criticisms of the company. They have faults, no doubt about it, and I've openly discussed them here. But you'd obviously rather just assume that you know where I stand on those issues instead of actually reading anything about it, calling me a "fanboy" and all that. That's cool. Have at it.

Wow!  A contract between 2 parties where one side can move the goal posts at its discretion.  Suppose they decided to dilute the ownership of images on the site? 

i guess things are just ironic, if there are an agency suspend one account and hold the funds without communications.. it just doesn't sound right.

We all are bound to the rules of every agencies, because we all have to agree with their terms that is subjected to change anytime, but hold the funds without any communications and update is not a fair way.

It is their company, they write the rules, they can decide what they want to do, but I just think it is not a fair and proper way.

Does it means all my earnings are gone? Does it means my account will resume? how many months are the suspension? Can i re-apply as contributors?

So here is everyone praising SS to the rafters and they have such a ridiculous clause in their T&C, that you have to agree, unseen, in advance to any change they may make, including the above. Unlikely maybe, but who thought iStock was going to change they way they calculated their %age payouts to contributors. Bet 2 years ago most people wouldn't have believed it.
My acquired cynicism has led me to believe that if 'they' (='whoever') has that sort of clause, they will use it to their own benefit.
I've got nothing against SS, only know what I read here and hear from other people (seldom as rosy as reported here); but like any other company, they could be sold and their new owners might just love that clause.

Well that clause has been there for a long time and they haven't used it yet. At least not for nefarious purposes.

Most agencies have similar language in their terms, including istock, fotolia, dreamstime, etc. They all word it a little differently, but it's all the same. If you continue to do business with the company, you agree to any changes that have been made. If you disagree, you have to cease business with them. istock does give contributors a bit more notice of changes and the option to wait 20 days to decide if they agree. But in the end it's still the same outcome. Either you agree to the changes or that's the end of the road for you.

Exactly. I totally agree.

Beyond that, why do they not simply delete / reject images created by software they don`t want? Why does a account has to be deleted if the Contributor did not violate the Terms? Wha do they have to keep the Money earned by the Contributor?

Resources. They simply don't have enough staff to go through the portfolios of hundreds of contributors to check every single image if an "illegal" or unwanted filter has been used.

They can change their terms but give the contributors a deadline to get their own portfolios up to the new standard, otherwise they could hand out warnings or something along those lines.

In any case it's always tough to make changes to a collection by banning certain content afterwards. IS for example constantly makes changes to what they accept no matter if approved content from 5 years ago is clearly violating their new terms. Those images though remain on sale. Doesn't make too much sense, does it?

As said before, his portfolio got cleaned out by SS because of the use of a certain filter. Using that particular filter again is a death sentence. That's a no brainer - just don't do it. He was already on their watch list and he pushed it further. Instead of uploading the image the regular way, he could have contacted support first to have the content management team look at it independently and let him know whether this "improved" usage of the filter would be acceptable. Either way, he knew they don't like the filter (in his case!).

That might be written in their terms that they can do that. It's not about why, it's their terms, we signed them so it's "ok".

Even if we would all agree that icholakov did something wrong, and violated the rules, it is not necessary for Shutterstock to treat him without respect.  He is not a criminal, and even if he was he should be treated with respect by SS, which means :  answer his questions, in writing, by phone, anyway, but just answer the questions he sent 6 months ago. 

I think the agencies need to have some very clear rules - with some way of appealing - for any account closures and/or forfeit of money.  Even though I have never intentionally broken any of the rules at any of the sites, I find it deeply scary that should one be thought to have broken one, the agency would behave like some sort of totalitarian state.

I don't know the details of this specific dispute, but just as I wouldn't want to go back to the times that spawned such idioms as "you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb", I don't like the apparent stonewalling of contributors or extraordinary penalties for what seems like a relatively minor offense.

Remember when iStock went on a rampage to remove cars, guitars and cruise ships? It would be analagous, IMO, to upload a shot that included a car taillight in an auto shop image and find that your account had been closed because you'd uploaded another car shot after having all your isolated cars removed. When the rules change, it isn't always as clear to the contributors exactly what's on each side of the line. I think clarifying that the earlier removals meant no content from this filter ever, not even as part of a collage, no matter how complex or intricate would probably have solved the problem.

When you consider what it would mean to most of us to have our account closed arbitrarily, I think a clear and transparent account termination process is in all of our best interests

Well, as much as I hate to see it, it happened:
My 1099 MISC for 2011 includes about $500 of earnings that occurred after my account was suspended and the earnings were "withheld" by shutterstock.
 I wish there was a way to dispute a 1099. No reply to any of my faxes yet, no reply to any of emails yet and no reply to any of my written requests yet, although they had "signature required".
Nice job, shutterstock.
---------------------------------

   You can dispute a 1099, just don't contact shutterstock, contact the IRS. They will send a form to SS asking to have the 1099 corrected or justified in it's present form. In the meantime ( the IRS wheels grind slowly), on your 2011 taxes, report the correct amount of income, and keep all your paypal ( or whatever method you used) records to prove the actual income you received. When you file a return, attach a statement describing the dispute and note that a revised 1099 was not received in time for you to file. The 1099s are matched up against your reported income on your tax form at the IRS. Also, this assumes you are above board with all your other aspects of your return. This will put you in the spotlight, depending on your tax status ( corporate or individual) so don't play games.