Author Topic: New Shutterstock TOS update (Read 4533 times)

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.

TheBlackRhino · « **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.

MatHayward · « **Reply #37 on:** February 10, 2012, 16:12 »

Quote from: dk 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!

Does anybody have an example of which sites do this automatically as a standard practice?

Thanks,

Mat

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.

cclapper · « **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.