Author Topic: New Shutterstock TOS update (Read 14125 times)

Tryingmybest · « **on:** February 09, 2012, 15:33 »

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 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2012, 15:40 »

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 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 09, 2012, 15:48 »

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 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 09, 2012, 15:51 »

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 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2012, 16:29 »

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 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2012, 16:36 »

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 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2012, 16:37 »

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 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2012, 16:39 »

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 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2012, 16:43 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on February 09, 2012, 16:37

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 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2012, 16:50 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on February 09, 2012, 16:43

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on February 09, 2012, 16:37
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 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2012, 17:21 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on February 09, 2012, 16:50

Quote from: traveler1116 on February 09, 2012, 16:43
Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on February 09, 2012, 16:37
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 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 09, 2012, 17:24 »

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 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2012, 17:25 »

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 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 09, 2012, 17:26 »

Quote from: jamesbenet on February 09, 2012, 17:25

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 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2012, 17:38 »

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

MatHayward · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2012, 17:48 »

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 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2012, 18:08 »

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 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2012, 18:49 »

"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 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 09, 2012, 20:56 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 09, 2012, 15:40

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 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 09, 2012, 21:53 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 09, 2012, 15:40

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 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 09, 2012, 22:30 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 09, 2012, 16:39

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 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 09, 2012, 23:29 »

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 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2012, 00:43 »

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 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 10, 2012, 01:31 »

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 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 10, 2012, 01:49 »

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.

tiero · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2012, 04:30 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 09, 2012, 17:26

Quote from: jamesbenet on February 09, 2012, 17:25
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.

Same here, I opt out for the moment.

wut · « **Reply #26 on:** February 10, 2012, 05:39 »

Give me 300$ per sale and you can use it to promote porn etc as well

pyrst · « **Reply #27 on:** February 10, 2012, 05:45 »

I mostly shoot kids, and many pics are of my own children. I will opt out, for same reasons as stated above: i am aware that i cannot stop all but if being ask, better safe than sorry. Having said this, i am aware that any upload anywhere can be misused. And with a global market, how will we even know? How do you guys find out where your images are being used? Have done this for soon two years, and have maybe found out where 10 downloads were used, out of maybe 1000 total downloads.

I am ok with my kids being an anonymous face for any causes stated in the existing agreements. I think i would even be ok with them being the anonymous orphan for an AIDS campaign or unwanted teen pregnancies etc. I would not want some sicko to use them for anything porn related tho, but they can just steal my personal facebook images and do the same without going through a stock agency. And again, how would i know?

nicku · « **Reply #28 on:** February 10, 2012, 05:47 »

Quote from: wut on February 10, 2012, 05:39

Give me 300$ per sale and you can use it to promote porn etc as well

considering that $300 represent 30% of the whole sale ...

)

i will make a photo shoot for the company for $500/image . Minimum 3 images...

....

alison1414 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 10, 2012, 10:35 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on February 09, 2012, 16:37

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,

Well then you ARE a Republican! Embrace it.

Roadrunner · « **Reply #30 on:** February 10, 2012, 11:16 »

Thanks to all of you for providing food for thought!

LisaFx - You hit it right; I am taking your thoughts and joining with you in opting out.

Though I rarely use a mofel, I don't think I have any that could be used in such a way for sensitive issues. I jhave decided on one thing for sure. Now that I have discovered other sites do not give us a chance to opt out of sensitive issues I will probably only upload any model shots to SS for their protection.

Ma y God bless you all and happy shooting.

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #31 on:** February 10, 2012, 11:36 »

Seems like this wouldn't make a difference for illustrations. Am I correct?

loop · « **Reply #32 on:** February 10, 2012, 11:55 »

The nature of the image dictates its possible uses. If you picture a kid crying, or sad, or in a wheelchair, or with a black eye, you know what you can expect. A kid laughing has almost zero possibilities of being used in questionable ways. I'm sure AIDS orphans laugh now and then, but not in ads.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #33 on:** February 10, 2012, 12:28 »

I opted out - not worth the risks. I shot many models for my port, the whole range - pros and amateurs, strangers and friends and family members - and there is no way I would want to deal with their complaints even if it's extra money. In the model release, we say the image will not be used in "defamatory" manner - appearing on some sensitive issues ads would definitely qualify as "defamatory" for some people. I am surprised SS doesn't allow decisions on case by case basis - this is what it used to be, and it totally makes sense. Depending on the model and the context the answer could be yes or no, but there is no way I am allowing all my images be used in sensitive ads by default.

fotorob · « **Reply #34 on:** February 10, 2012, 12:52 »

Quote from: loop on February 10, 2012, 11:55

The nature of the image dictates its possible uses. If you picture a kid crying, or sad, or in a wheelchair, or with a black eye, you know what you can expect. A kid laughing has almost zero possibilities of being used in questionable ways. I'm sure AIDS orphans laugh now and then, but not in ads.

I dare to disagree, because I HAD some examples in the past. For example some happy young women (some even underage) used to promote a Dildo party website (had the image removed really quick) and another images of some young ladies holding thumbs up promoting right-wing political presidential candidate McCain. Shutterstock had the image removed quite fast too. I wrote about the second story here in my blog (poorly automated Google translation from German to English): http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de%2F2011%2F12%2F12%2Fwie-ein-stockfoto-fast-die-us-praesidentschaftswahl-in-den-usa-beeinflusste%2F

Bye, Robert

flashon · « **Reply #35 on:** February 10, 2012, 13:12 »

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on February 10, 2012, 11:36

Seems like this wouldn't make a difference for illustrations. Am I correct?

Seems right from the way they defined the term:

"A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of Submitted Content that contains one or more recognizable people in a context that might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject(s): a) suffers from a physical or mental health condition or infirmity; b) uses, endorses, advocates, or believes in a particular, product, service, cause, and/or opinion; and/or c) is otherwise associated with a position that some might consider controversial or unflattering. "

alison1414 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 10, 2012, 15:35 »

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on February 10, 2012, 11:36

Seems like this wouldn't make a difference for illustrations. Am I correct?

Nope! I took down all photos of my daughter and now all the photos are animals and buildings, with mostly illustrations. Let them say one of my cartoon characters has an embarrassing itch or erectile dysfunction.

louoates · « **Reply #38 on:** February 10, 2012, 16:38 »

Since I'm the only model in my ports I'm not too concerned about the sensitive part. I've been used on prison matter websites and foreign non-prescription steroid websites for years. Once in a while a relative or friend will mention that they saw me as a doctor or dentist somewhere. But no dire consequences so far. I'd probably opt out if I had other models as I wouldn't want to subject them to any of the potential problems mentioned on this subject.

Mantis · « **Reply #39 on:** February 10, 2012, 20:52 »

I've opted out. I have too many pics of my friends kids and son's girlfriends, along with some sexy models. I never shot them to expose them to the risk of "sensitive issues", even though there is some risk there on some sites. Since I can curtail additional risk on SS by opting out, that's what I did. Support of my models is more important to me than money.

gbalex · « **Reply #40 on:** February 10, 2012, 23:46 »

LOL Wonder if the new TOS will cover sensitive usage on sites like badstockart.com.

I would bet that most of the people in those shots are horrified relatives. How do you explain to your teen age friends or golf buddies that my relative came up with those strange stock ideas to make a few quarters at my expense and I was happy to pose for them without compensation. This new toss opens up those relatives to more ridicule, just think of the concepts that grandpa and cousin XXX will be willing come up with to make 75 bucks instead of .xx cents.

http://www.badstockart.com/page/3/

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-strange-stock-photos.php

fotorob · « **Reply #41 on:** February 11, 2012, 03:33 »

I have wrote a blog article about the new sensitive use licences from Shutterstock and my take on it. Sorry for the poorly automated Google translation to English, the original text would be in German. Here the translated to English version:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de%2F2012%2F02%2F11%2Fsensible-fotonutzungen-bei-shutterstock-erlauben-oder-nicht%2F

Robert

nicku · « **Reply #42 on:** February 11, 2012, 05:30 »

if SS will implement the TOS per image, then they will open a new''market'' regarding microstock. i am willing to shoot sensitive subjects and selling accordingly.

lagereek · « **Reply #43 on:** February 11, 2012, 05:43 »

My people, engineers, technicians, phycisists, etc, are, real people. They would not be in demand for this anyway.

cathyslife · « **Reply #44 on:** February 11, 2012, 11:53 »

Quote from: nicku on February 11, 2012, 05:30

if SS will implement the TOS per image, then they will open a new''market'' regarding microstock. i am willing to shoot sensitive subjects and selling accordingly.

Yep, that would be a good idea.

rinderart · « **Reply #45 on:** February 11, 2012, 16:36 »

I wanna see the response from SS to our questions we have going over there and So, Im Kinda On the fence with 3000 Glamour type girls, some in panties and Bras and most are sexy. But Im heavily leaning to Opt out ...as mantis said and I agree with,

"Support of my models is more important to me than money."

I use mostly actors , Not models and this could seriously hurt there careers. It has in the past But I also agree that whatever we do It's gonna be next to impossible to police this, There are no resources to do it. And where does that leave us when other sites don't offer this. To delete hundreds or thousands of Images?? I've seen my models faces on other bodies On flyers and cabs in Vegas for.." Wanna good time Call 1-800....

rinderart · « **Reply #46 on:** February 11, 2012, 16:49 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 11, 2012, 11:53

Quote from: nicku on February 11, 2012, 05:30
if SS will implement the TOS per image, then they will open a new''market'' regarding microstock. i am willing to shoot sensitive subjects and selling accordingly.

Yep, that would be a good idea.

Agree. and then we can work on getting the industry to do this...LOL

cidepix · « **Reply #47 on:** February 11, 2012, 18:36 »

As an illustrator, this is not very relevant to me anyway, so I am in..

Sandeel · « **Reply #48 on:** February 12, 2012, 06:25 »

What still confuses me is this:
if you opt out, does that mean that buyers can't use ANY TYPE of your images for sensitive use? Even if there are no faces or people at all in them? Then it could mean fewer sales than previously if the whole portfolio is opted out.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #49 on:** February 13, 2012, 11:51 »

Quote from: Sandeel on February 12, 2012, 06:25

What still confuses me is this:
if you opt out, does that mean that buyers can't use ANY TYPE of your images for sensitive use? Even if there are no faces or people at all in them? Then it could mean fewer sales than previously if the whole portfolio is opted out.

This is my understanding. It looks like if you opt-out, none of your portfolio would be available for the "big" sales. Which is probably their way of convincing you to opt-in. This kinda sucks, but I'd rather have less money than a bunch of law suits on my hands.

gostwyck · « **Reply #50 on:** February 13, 2012, 13:58 »

Quote from: Sandeel on February 12, 2012, 06:25

What still confuses me is this:
if you opt out, does that mean that buyers can't use ANY TYPE of your images for sensitive use? Even if there are no faces or people at all in them? Then it could mean fewer sales than previously if the whole portfolio is opted out.

If "no faces or people at all" are in the image then how could it possibly be a 'sensitive use'? Inanimate objects or animals can't really be offended in that way (except for that bloke on SS who dresses his dog up in clothes, obviously).

luissantos84 · « **Reply #51 on:** February 13, 2012, 14:01 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 13, 2012, 13:58

Quote from: Sandeel on February 12, 2012, 06:25
What still confuses me is this:
if you opt out, does that mean that buyers can't use ANY TYPE of your images for sensitive use? Even if there are no faces or people at all in them? Then it could mean fewer sales than previously if the whole portfolio is opted out.

If "no faces or people at all" are in the image then how could it possibly be a 'sensitive use'? Inanimate objects or animals can't really be offended in that way (except for that bloke on SS who dresses his dog up in clothes, obviously).

I know you don´t like LOL but this one is too much eheheh

Elenathewise · « **Reply #52 on:** February 13, 2012, 14:11 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 13, 2012, 13:58

Quote from: Sandeel on February 12, 2012, 06:25
What still confuses me is this:
if you opt out, does that mean that buyers can't use ANY TYPE of your images for sensitive use? Even if there are no faces or people at all in them? Then it could mean fewer sales than previously if the whole portfolio is opted out.

If "no faces or people at all" are in the image then how could it possibly be a 'sensitive use'? Inanimate objects or animals can't really be offended in that way (except for that bloke on SS who dresses his dog up in clothes, obviously).

"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.
What this means to me is that if you opting out of "sensitive use", you opting out of ALL sales opportunities that big volume buyers provide. No sensitive use - no big sales, regardless of what your portfolio content is, faces or no faces. Correct me if I am wrong, I'd like to be.

pancaketom · « **Reply #53 on:** February 13, 2012, 15:22 »

As I understood it your portfolio would not be available for sensitive use sales, but otherwise nothing would change if you opted out. I'd like to see a per image opt in or out or at least by model (or model release). I have opted out, but I'd opt in my self portraits if that was an option.

- and don't be so sure that anyones "real" engineers, etc. couldn't be used for political endorsements or medical ads or online dating endorsements etc.

RT · « **Reply #54 on:** February 13, 2012, 16:10 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on February 10, 2012, 12:28

In the model release, we say the image will not be used in "defamatory" manner - appearing on some sensitive issues ads would definitely qualify as "defamatory" for some people.

Which is the very reason I've opted out from their scheme, to opt in you could be deemed as knowingly breaching your own contract which you signed with the model. SS are, IMO, being very sneeky in this move, they're asking you for your permission to void the 'defamation' clause in the model release you uploaded for the image - in other words covering their backside should the model decide to take legal action.

As for missing out on other sales from these 'top ad agencies' are we to believe that these agencies will get different search results and only be able to download images from those opted in to the sensitive issues scheme, I find that hard to believe, I've re-read the email and view that statement as an almost empty threat type of scare statement.

lisafx · « **Reply #55 on:** February 13, 2012, 18:38 »

Quote from: RT on February 13, 2012, 16:10

they're asking you for your permission to void the 'defamation' clause in the model release you uploaded for the image - in other words covering their backside should the model decide to take legal action.

I don't think this would be very reassuring to customers either. Couldn't they be on the hook for usage violating the model release as well? At the very least, wouldn't they have to stop using the image if the model pursued legal action?

Just spitballing here, but it seems like a more airtight solution for SS, if they want to offer something like this, would be to allow a per image opt in with an appropriate model release, and create a special collection with the opted in images.

Sandeel · « **Reply #56 on:** February 16, 2012, 06:59 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on February 13, 2012, 14:11

Quote from: gostwyck on February 13, 2012, 13:58
Quote from: Sandeel on February 12, 2012, 06:25
What still confuses me is this:
if you opt out, does that mean that buyers can't use ANY TYPE of your images for sensitive use? Even if there are no faces or people at all in them? Then it could mean fewer sales than previously if the whole portfolio is opted out.

If "no faces or people at all" are in the image then how could it possibly be a 'sensitive use'? Inanimate objects or animals can't really be offended in that way (except for that bloke on SS who dresses his dog up in clothes, obviously).

"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.
What this means to me is that if you opting out of "sensitive use", you opting out of ALL sales opportunities that big volume buyers provide. No sensitive use - no big sales, regardless of what your portfolio content is, faces or no faces. Correct me if I am wrong, I'd like to be.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts.

I was thinking of any sale for sensitive subjects - let's take a random example. Say you have a closeup of a hand inserting an injection into an arm. The buyer might be uncertain if the use for a drug addiction or AIDS or something like that is allowed. I don't know how the situation looks from the buyer's point of view if the portfolio is opted out. Obviously the contributer wouldn't have a problem with that kind of picture being used for a sensitive use, but would the buyer still be free (or feel free) to use it?

gemmy12 · « **Reply #57 on:** March 01, 2012, 23:45 »

did any one have big sale who opted in for selling sensitive matters as SS was about to expose its collection to new market in March ?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Shutterstock TOS update (Read 14125 times)

microstockphoto.co.uk

traveler1116

microstockphoto.co.uk

traveler1116

lisafx

Ed

wut

lagereek

rinderart

rinderart

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors