Author Topic: Changes to the TOS at Shutterstock (Read 46272 times)

cobalt · « **Reply #150 on:** September 24, 2013, 05:36 »

Thank you for coming in here Scott. The changes are quite drastic in my opinion, especially in the announcement that we can no longer share our earnings if we want to. I really don´t understand how the contributors can do any damage to SS like this. Earnings have been shared for over 10 years in great detail and look at the success you have had.

SS has earned itself the reputation of being a contributor friendly site that shows growth and stable earnings. You interact positively with the community.

Why would you risk all that and now promote the reputation you are intruding on our very personal sphere and have admins scout the internet looking for "infringers"?

SS posts a total of their earnings, their profits, the number of individual sales, the average revenue of every sale.

What on earth can we contributors do that will give the competition more information??

And what will happen to the people that break your "new rules"?

It looks like the only solution the artists have is to go underground and be anonymous. Already there are artists who have asked to have threads about their SS status removed and closed their msg accounts.

Why do you want us to do that??

Please reconsider this extreme measure and go back to the system that has worked so well all these years.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #151 on:** September 24, 2013, 06:51 »

Quote from: cobalt on September 24, 2013, 05:36

SS posts a total of their earnings, their profits, the number of individual sales, the average revenue of every sale.

What on earth can we contributors do that will give the competition more information??

+1

I wonder if they could object to us publishing stats without revealing who the agency is. My earnings this month was $xx on "unnamed agency", compared to $xx on Dreamstime etc.

Until now broadcasting of stats has been good publicity for ss, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #152 on:** September 24, 2013, 07:03 »

I think allowing large ad agencies unwatermarked images is a brilliant move. I was just away for the weekend with a bunch of agency art directos. I explained that SS now also allows these comp usages. I think I'll reiterate that to them.

Freedom · « **Reply #153 on:** September 24, 2013, 07:31 »

Scott, would you please clarify if we can disclose our earnings to family and friends at all?

Does this new confidential rule mean that my spouse will not be able to know how much I make until we file for divorce or one dies?? What about parents, children and siblings?

gbalex · « **Reply #154 on:** September 24, 2013, 09:10 »

Thank you for the response Scott.

Could you please respond in full to the question asked in this thread and on the SS boards.

And could you please clarify and detail the new changes made to the END USER LICENSE

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231

lisafx · « **Reply #155 on:** September 24, 2013, 15:54 »

Quote from: Freedom on September 24, 2013, 07:31

Scott, would you please clarify if we can disclose our earnings to family and friends at all?

Does this new confidential rule mean that my spouse will not be able to know how much I make until we file for divorce or one dies?? What about parents, children and siblings?

I can't answer for Scott, but it seemed pretty clear from his response that the issue they are concerned with is disclosing your specific earnings and download numbers to other agencies.

Unless your spouse, children, parents, pets, etc. are administrators at other agencies, I think you should be alright.

scottbraut · « **Reply #156 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:08 »

Hi All,

Gbalex, you’re right about the customer TOS. Most of the changes to the customer ToS were in the category of “cleaning up” -- items that may have been ambiguous for customers or not perfectly aligned with the day-to-day reality of working with them. Therefore, we’re explaining those changes directly to customers, but didn’t wrap that in a larger contributor communication.

The most obvious exception is limitations on Web use and digital sizes. The historical limitation was 800x600 pixels. Given dramatic advancements in display technology, we were overdue to modernize our standards. The new ToS does a better job of meeting customer needs while continuing to prohibit the redistribution of images. To properly license your images on a global scale in an era of Retina displays and a wider array of devices, we need to accommodate modern technology, but we also take copyright violations very seriously.

Earnings

Tyler – to respond to your question about earnings:

As stated, “it's not an issue to talk in general terms about your best month ever, worst month ever, isolated individual transactions, most popular image, or information of a very similar, generalized nature.” For that reason, the following examples would not be a violation of our ToS.

Quote

- I had a BME on SS last month
- I just got a $100 SOD sale on Shutterstock
- I just got an extended license on this image
- I only got 50 sales today
- I just passed the $500 mark and am now in the next earning level
- I get about 100 downloads a month on Shutterstock

The following examples could be a violation of the ToS, depending on the context. Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.

Quote

- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month, $500 from subs $300 from OD and $200 from video
- Here's a screenshot of all my Shutterstock earnings...

Participating anonymously in an online poll or speaking with family and friends casually would not be an issue for practical purposes.

With respect to Cobalt’s post, I’ll say that our confidentiality agreement has a very specific purpose that has been outlined above. We continue to strive to be transparent, fair, supportive and open with our contributors. We do want Shutterstock to be a place that contributors hold in high esteem and respect your concerns and feedback.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content

Ron · « **Reply #157 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:19 »

Scott, I understand removing the 800*600 limitation, but now it says the image cant be posted bigger than the display its intended for. Displays can have more than 4mp resolution, that means full high res images are now just a right click away to be stolen and can be used for everything imaginable.

stockastic · « **Reply #158 on:** September 24, 2013, 17:33 »

This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strikes me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.

Obviously this is backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.

Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.

gostwyck · « **Reply #159 on:** September 24, 2013, 19:18 »

Quote from: stockastic on September 24, 2013, 17:33

This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.

Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.

Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.

Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.

This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.

tickstock · « **Reply #160 on:** September 24, 2013, 19:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 19:18

Quote from: stockastic on September 24, 2013, 17:33
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.

Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.

Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.

Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.

This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.

What information are they trying to keep secret? They say that they pay 20-30% and give royalties up to $120, it's pretty easy to tell how much they charge since it's written in the royalty schedule. They don't say how low the sales go though, is that the secret they're trying to keep?
And why specifically say you can't talk about your royalty rate when they say that it's between 20 and 30% right there on the website? Something doesn't really add up.
And the contributors don't even know what the licenses say, it doesn't do any good to know what Shutterstock is charging if you don't even know what they are selling.

gostwyck · « **Reply #161 on:** September 24, 2013, 19:46 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 24, 2013, 19:34

Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 19:18
Quote from: stockastic on September 24, 2013, 17:33
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.

Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.

Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.

Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.

This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.
What information are they trying to keep secret? They say that they pay 20-30% and give royalties up to $120, it's pretty easy to tell how much they charge since it's written in the royalty schedule. They don't say how low the sales go though, is that the secret they're trying to keep?
And why specifically say you can't talk about your royalty rate when they say that it's between 20 and 30% right there on the website? Something doesn't really add up.

Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.

tickstock · « **Reply #162 on:** September 24, 2013, 19:53 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 19:46

Quote from: tickstock on September 24, 2013, 19:34
Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 19:18
Quote from: stockastic on September 24, 2013, 17:33
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.

Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.

Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.

Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.

This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.
What information are they trying to keep secret? They say that they pay 20-30% and give royalties up to $120, it's pretty easy to tell how much they charge since it's written in the royalty schedule. They don't say how low the sales go though, is that the secret they're trying to keep?
And why specifically say you can't talk about your royalty rate when they say that it's between 20 and 30% right there on the website? Something doesn't really add up.

Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.

What does that even mean? If iStock does something you don't like then anything Shutterstock does is great? I think this has nothing to do with keeping secrets from competitors since the important information is already public or kept secret from the contributors, what's left to tell?

w7lwi · « **Reply #163 on:** September 24, 2013, 20:22 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 24, 2013, 19:53

Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 19:46
Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.
What does that even mean? If iStock does something you don't like then anything Shutterstock does is great? I think this has nothing to do with keeping secrets from competitors since the important information is already public or kept secret from the contributors, what's left to tell?

If you don't know, that means we have been doing our jobs keeping this information away from the competition and their apologists.

tickstock · « **Reply #164 on:** September 24, 2013, 20:27 »

Quote from: w7lwi on September 24, 2013, 20:22

Quote from: tickstock on September 24, 2013, 19:53
Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 19:46
Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.
What does that even mean? If iStock does something you don't like then anything Shutterstock does is great? I think this has nothing to do with keeping secrets from competitors since the important information is already public or kept secret from the contributors, what's left to tell?

If you don't know, that means we have been doing our jobs keeping this information away from the competition and their apologists.

Lol, I don't think you can take credit for keeping the terms of the license or how much each different license goes for a secret but if it makes you happy to have that information hidden from you then great.

cobalt · « **Reply #165 on:** September 24, 2013, 20:36 »

So perfectly normal contributor interaction that we have been sharing for as long as microstock companies exists now have become "demonized" as "helping the enemy".

And at the same time SS itself posts detailed earnings information, royalty rates etc...on their own website. But for us to post the same results is unacceptable.

Some things we write "may be" acceptable, some not, depending on context and to be determined by SS alone. And if what we write is deemed as "helping the enemy" we might face undisclosed consequences.

I am sorry, this is too complicated for me. And how about all the contributors whose first language is not English?

stockastic · « **Reply #166 on:** September 24, 2013, 21:09 »

Obviously, any sizable competitor can easily find out what SS earnings look like - they could just have someone open an account and submit photos.

I think the larger issue is SS deciding that contributors are doing something they don't like, then just unilaterally modifying the TOS to forbid that behavior, under threat of closing offenders' accounts. They could, for example, simply tell us we can't say anything derogatory about SS, period. Or that we can't discuss specific rejections. Or the effectiveness of keywording strategies.

This might be somewhat defensible if applied only to posts on their own, in-house forum. But clearly they're prepared to monitor our speech - in fact, our behavior - in the outside world as well.

Yes, they can probably do any or all of this without breaking any laws. But don't try to tell me I'm supposed to like it - or even respect it.

cthoman · « **Reply #167 on:** September 24, 2013, 22:37 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 19:18

Quote from: stockastic on September 24, 2013, 17:33
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.

Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.

Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.

Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.

This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.

I haven't seen anything that in any way, shape or form has answered my questions about it all. So, I remain concerned.

leaf · « **Reply #168 on:** September 24, 2013, 23:31 »

Quote from: scottbraut on September 24, 2013, 17:08

Hi All,

Gbalex, you’re right about the customer TOS. Most of the changes to the customer ToS were in the category of “cleaning up” -- items that may have been ambiguous for customers or not perfectly aligned with the day-to-day reality of working with them. Therefore, we’re explaining those changes directly to customers, but didn’t wrap that in a larger contributor communication.

The most obvious exception is limitations on Web use and digital sizes. The historical limitation was 800x600 pixels. Given dramatic advancements in display technology, we were overdue to modernize our standards. The new ToS does a better job of meeting customer needs while continuing to prohibit the redistribution of images. To properly license your images on a global scale in an era of Retina displays and a wider array of devices, we need to accommodate modern technology, but we also take copyright violations very seriously.

Earnings

Tyler – to respond to your question about earnings:

As stated, “it's not an issue to talk in general terms about your best month ever, worst month ever, isolated individual transactions, most popular image, or information of a very similar, generalized nature.” For that reason, the following examples would not be a violation of our ToS.

Quote

- I had a BME on SS last month
- I just got a $100 SOD sale on Shutterstock
- I just got an extended license on this image
- I only got 50 sales today
- I just passed the $500 mark and am now in the next earning level
- I get about 100 downloads a month on Shutterstock

The following examples could be a violation of the ToS, depending on the context. Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.

Quote
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month, $500 from subs $300 from OD and $200 from video
- Here's a screenshot of all my Shutterstock earnings...

Participating anonymously in an online poll or speaking with family and friends casually would not be an issue for practical purposes.

With respect to Cobalt’s post, I’ll say that our confidentiality agreement has a very specific purpose that has been outlined above. We continue to strive to be transparent, fair, supportive and open with our contributors. We do want Shutterstock to be a place that contributors hold in high esteem and respect your concerns and feedback.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content

Thanks for the response Scott

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #169 on:** September 25, 2013, 01:05 »

Quote from: scottbraut on September 23, 2013, 23:11

...As stated previously, we do not support MSG as a dedicated support channel, though members from our team will come in from time to time to clear up any confusion and answer questions....

Scott, I appreciate you making an effort to address the concerns we have about the recent TOS changes.

No one has asked you to treat MSG as a support channel. I assume you come here to "talk" to us where we hang out because it's in your interests to do so. Pointing out that you don't have to come here may be factual, but comes across to me as a bit condescending.

Quote from: scottbraut on September 23, 2013, 23:11

Please note that the answers and explanations we’ve given previously on these topics are forthright and accurate, including what's in the blog post.

The information may be that, but it is far from complete. I think the reason there has been so much discussion here was not because people didn't believe you, but because it seemed there had to be more to it. Repeating talking points doesn't help address that issue.

Quote from: scottbraut on September 23, 2013, 23:11

...When Shutterstock provides unwatermarked comp images, they are only provided to trusted “large accounts” that pay much higher prices than other Shutterstock customers. Comps are not offered through the subscription model. As a result, you receive higher royalties when a customer purchases the image. The pricing of these images can be in the hundreds of dollars. You receive the corresponding royalty based on your earnings tier (up to $120 or more per download).

This is one of the issues involving unknown licenses for unknown amounts of money and our content. Shutterstock has been doing this for a while now and I think it has all the elements of the much discussed Google-Getty deal - the contributor who owns the work being licensed has absolutely no information about the deal being done. The difference is that so far, Shutterstock appears to be doing "better" deals that Getty did. That doesn't alter the fact that Shutterstock has effectively given contributors no way to control how their work is licensed beyond leaving the agency.

Quote from: scottbraut on September 23, 2013, 23:11

The premier license is a variation of our standard and enhanced licenses, but contains individually negotiated terms as well as expanded rights that have been explained in this forum in the past...High royalties are often the result of a negotiated agreement with volume buyers such as large advertising agencies... Because the above items are individually negotiated with each large account, for competitive reasons and because of confidentiality restrictions, we do not publish the details of each license or transaction.

You haven't explained anything about the rights in the past - you've just stated each time that you can't explain because it's confidential.

We own the content you license, and yet you're saying you can't tell us anything about the terms on which you license it? I have assumed thus far - because nothing bad has come to light - that these terms are pretty reasonable, but I am not happy about there being no way for contributors to get details on these transactions. We don't need the names of the buyers - we don't get those for any other sales - so I don't see where confidentiality has any bearing on giving us more information.

We (contributors) have no rights to an audit in the current TOS, so we have no way to check up on what's going on inside this "black box" that Shutterstock is operating with the high end clients. This is a very different situation from the transparent setup that existed at the beginning when I first signed up. We knew what the prices were and what the licenses were - now we don't.

Quote from: scottbraut on September 23, 2013, 23:11

...The intent of this new requirement is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock. ... It would violate the Terms of Service, for example, to provide a Shutterstock competitor with specific information related to your sales or your total earnings.

But that's not what the clause in the TOS says - it's much more broadly written than your explanation above. It says "Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party other than representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential."

Given that these forums are public and anyone can read the posts here, including staff at competitor agencies, effectively we can't discuss specifics here without "disclosing" to competitors. As another contributor pointed out, you don't spell out who gets to decide who needs to know what and what would you do if a contributor disclosed something you were unhappy with. I assume close the contributor's account?

If your intent is narrower than what's in the revised TOS, then you should change the TOS. As it is, it's vague, overly restrictive and seems in conflict with all the public disclosures you do as a company about your earnings. If this is all an overreaction to Yuri Arcurs leaving and the information he was able to give to Getty, then it's really shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. Most of us are much smaller fry who don't have the volume to be of much interest to your competitors.

You have the big stick in your hand - that you reserve the right to close our accounts at any time for any or no reason "...for convenience." You revise the TOS with several new restrictions - including a hold on our content in the event we decide to walk because we don't like those restrictions. You sell a lot of licenses for most of us and that has bought you a lot of contributor goodwill. Taking away our control of our content - our content, not yours - erodes some of that goodwill.

You say you strive to be transparent and open with contributors - this isn't it. It may be that you are being fair in the deals we don't get to know anything about, but it would feel fair and supportive if you'd be transparent enough to let us see that versus just saying "trust us".

cobalt · « **Reply #170 on:** September 25, 2013, 01:44 »

Thank you Jo Ann, you have explained all that worries me deeply much better than I have.

If the change in TOS is is a reaction to Yuri, they have definetly decided on a very extreme path and are now treating all contributors and public community forums as a potential "enemy agent".

Ron · « **Reply #171 on:** September 25, 2013, 04:27 »

Excellent post Jo Ann, really touching the important stuff.

I find it hard to believe that SS is going to make the same mistakes IS did, after the back lash they have seen from its contributor base. Learn from the mistakes your competition has made, dont be like them. Its what differentiate SS from the rest of the pack. SS has all the cards in their own hand, please dont fold.

gbalex · « **Reply #172 on:** September 25, 2013, 09:34 »

Quote from: scottbraut on September 24, 2013, 17:08

Hi All,

Gbalex, you’re right about the customer TOS. Most of the changes to the customer ToS were in the category of “cleaning up” -- items that may have been ambiguous for customers or not perfectly aligned with the day-to-day reality of working with them. Therefore, we’re explaining those changes directly to customers, but didn’t wrap that in a larger contributor communication.

The most obvious exception is limitations on Web use and digital sizes. The historical limitation was 800x600 pixels. Given dramatic advancements in display technology, we were overdue to modernize our standards. The new ToS does a better job of meeting customer needs while continuing to prohibit the redistribution of images. To properly license your images on a global scale in an era of Retina displays and a wider array of devices, we need to accommodate modern technology, but we also take copyright violations very seriously.

Earnings

Tyler – to respond to your question about earnings:

As stated, “it's not an issue to talk in general terms about your best month ever, worst month ever, isolated individual transactions, most popular image, or information of a very similar, generalized nature.” For that reason, the following examples would not be a violation of our ToS.

Quote

- I had a BME on SS last month
- I just got a $100 SOD sale on Shutterstock
- I just got an extended license on this image
- I only got 50 sales today
- I just passed the $500 mark and am now in the next earning level
- I get about 100 downloads a month on Shutterstock

The following examples could be a violation of the ToS, depending on the context. Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.

Quote
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month, $500 from subs $300 from OD and $200 from video
- Here's a screenshot of all my Shutterstock earnings...

Participating anonymously in an online poll or speaking with family and friends casually would not be an issue for practical purposes.

With respect to Cobalt’s post, I’ll say that our confidentiality agreement has a very specific purpose that has been outlined above. We continue to strive to be transparent, fair, supportive and open with our contributors. We do want Shutterstock to be a place that contributors hold in high esteem and respect your concerns and feedback.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content

Thank you for your reply Scott.

Re: Changes made to the END USER LICENSE

Does this mean that you have effectively done away with display size limitations altogether? To date the micros do not have a great track record of protecting our assets from theft and increasing viewable size limitations will compound the problem 100 fold.

Could you please detail the specific display specifications for each media device that our content will be displayed on as well as the specs for each social media outlet. As submitters it is important for us to understand SS's & BS's encompassing display, usage & royalty terms in regard to Facebook, Creativemornings, Skyward and any other companies we are not aware of at this time.

Will we be receiving standard royalties for our assets which are licensed to these new SS & BS accounts? If not what royalty terms can we expect to receive for our files?

http://www.skyword.com/skyword-press-release/skyword-taps-bigstock-image-database/

Snip

The collaboration with Bigstock further strengthens Skyword’s content offerings for increasing a brand’s presence on search and social media. Skyword works with big brands, agencies and media companies to streamline and automate the critical steps in the content creation process. Leveraging Skyword’s award-winning Content Marketing and Publishing Solutions,

http://www.skyword.com/#fancyboxID-1

scottbraut · « **Reply #173 on:** September 25, 2013, 21:24 »

Hi Jo Ann,

Thanks for the response.

A few years ago, we had a discussion internally at Shutterstock as to whether we should comment on support-related topics in third-party forums. The discussion was a practical one: we support many different communication channels across multiple brands and different languages and it can be tough to provide full coverage to all of those places at once.

That said, we believe in participating actively in the forums. Many people on our team (myself included) are life-long photographers, photo editors, art buyers, etc…, and part of the creative community, and as you pointed out, we want to be where conversations are happening.

At times, forum posters will take a lack of a prompt reply to mean a particular thing, as was the case in this thread. More often than not, the answer is a simple one and a response is forthcoming or we’re simply dividing our time between response channels. It’s important to note that we try to comment on facts and not speculation or inaccurate info.

My post was simply to suggest that contacting us directly is always the best option.

As far as licensing goes, Shutterstock has a long history of delivering earnings as well as expanding the royalty opportunities available through new products. We’ve been transparent with respect to the kinds of rights that we’re granting and --- as is the case with sensitive use – creating “opt-in and opt-out” scenarios for contributors as much as possible when we feel those rights will be a concern for you. We also believe in non-exclusivity. All of these policies are intended to put you in control and underscore a strong philosophy of supporting contributors.

The premier license is an individually negotiated product fundamentally based on our standard and enhanced RF licenses. It includes additional features such as the option for sensitive use, pre-negotiated pricing, indemnification (provided by Shutterstock), multiuser accounts, and workflow and billing features. If you remain concerned, opting out of sensitive use will effectively opt you out of the premier license. That also opts you out of the highest paid sales to volume buyers such as large ad agencies and major publishers. Of course, we recommend that you take advantage of these opportunities because they can drive significant royalties for you.

Thanks for the discussion; we do take all feedback into consideration and we will endeavor to better explain our products and policies.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Changes to the TOS at Shutterstock (Read 46272 times)

cobalt

Microstock Posts

Shelma1

Freedom

gbalex

lisafx

scottbraut

Ron

stockastic

gostwyck

tickstock

gostwyck

tickstock

w7lwi

tickstock

cobalt

stockastic

cthoman

leaf

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

Ron

gbalex

scottbraut

scottbraut

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors