Author Topic: Shutterstock is unsafe. (Read 18744 times)

MillesTeam · « **on:** April 18, 2017, 14:29 »

Hi all Microstock members.

Today i want to tell you a story about Shutterstock. If you think they support you and guard from problems.. No.

Few years ago we hired 4 African models and made few sessions with them. We payed them. They are circus dancers. And their boss from circus payed them additional money. In total every model got about 200-300USD for this work. Also we sent them all images we retouched. We gifted them almost all accessories, jewellery, clothes and underwear that was bought by us for these shootings. We spent about 3000-4000USD for these shootings.

Then we started to upload retouched images.

After some time one of the models started to write to Shutterstock that she didn't want to be a model on these images. Shutterstock wrote to me this"

Dear Milles,

We have received a complaint from a person claiming to be the model in the following images:

https://www.shutterstock.com/search?models=15679480&models=15683314&context_photo=250750666

Please provide us with the following information about this image:

1) when and where the images were taken;
2) who took the image;
3) the name of the individuals in the images; and
4) the circumstances under which the images were taken (e.g., photo shoot, etc.)

Please also send us a copy of the model releases on file for the images. We request that you respond to us within 3 days, or your Shutterstock account may be suspended. Thank you for your cooperation.

Regards,
Lauren

What i answered:

i made detailed description of where we found these people, how much we payed them, dates... everything. All information they asked and even more. Images from backstages where all these models are smiling together with us, photographing and so on.

in addition i provided this:

In addition to previous mail with all info i'm sending you extra information.

Here you are facebook links to people we worked with:

[model info removed]

you can ask them about our cooperation. I also know that they got payed from him additionally too for working with us. So every girl got money for photos we took. I don't see nothing criminal.

But i see that your contributors are totally unsafe and you can do what you want if someone from nowhere writes to you.

They did not answered anything.

But today i received this:

Dear Kedrinski Kirill,

Please know that the models continue to complain about these images. We we are obtaining further information but it may be in your interest to remove the content to avoid any issues with licensing this content.

Regards,
Lauren

So i can see, that Shutterstock don't care about its authors. If you have all docs ok, if you are working by law and everything is clear you can still be treated badly.

In fact every your model can just write to Shutterstock and you will be *removed coarse language* off. They will say that they will close your account even if you are right. even if you have all documents. They will be on the side of blackmailer who just want to earn more from nothing.

Who is this woman who writes to them? She is a fu**ing blackmailer. She strikes her boss in circus that she will not work with him if he will not hire her husband. She wants more and more money and she will never stop. And Shutterstock supports it.

What everyone should learn from this?

1) [questionably racist comments removed]

2) You should never trust Shutterstock and maybe other agencies too. You should be very attentive. Because they care only about themselves. They don't care about authors. They think that +- one author never change the situation. And theyd don't care if you are full time photographer with team that wants their salaries. The will shutdown your account if someone will ask.

So keep in mind that working with Shutterstock is unpredictable and unsafe. Once you will make 30 000 beautiful images for them they will switch you off and even never regret.

That is one of the reasons i stopped submit to them and concentrated on Stocksy. At Stocksy you always in dialog with editors, staff, owners... But Shutterstock is just a money machine. If today a roulette have chosen you.. I'm sorry.

I wish you all the best and i hope you will never face such problems.

Good Luck!

admin edit: post edited for content (and noted)

angelawaye · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2017, 15:42 »

I'm sorry this happened to you.

This is exactly why I just photograph myself and family. I read a lot of these stories about models and it is awful.

You should get your money back if she signed the contract but that probably won't happen ...

Stick with Stocksy if you are "in". That place seems very considerate to authors.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2017, 16:25 »

Yeah. It seems to me that opposite to Shutterstock Stocksy are people. I really wish to all good authors to move to such agencies that treats their authors well.

It is a very awful that you work hard and then stuck in crap that easy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2017, 16:37 »

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 18, 2017, 16:25

Yeah. It seems to me that opposite to Shutterstock Stocksy are people. I really wish to all good authors to move to such agencies that treats their authors well.

What does Stocksy do when models complain in that way?

Sorry this happened to you and so glad I don't use models.

Zalee · « **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2017, 16:43 »

What a nightmare for you! This makes me glad that I've only used family.

TSLphoto · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2017, 17:30 »

If you have a signed model release, how is this even an issue? They signed the release, they put in writing that you can use the photos for whatever you want (unless damaging their character). I'm surprised sending in the model release form didn't get them off your back.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2017, 17:59 »

Did you have releases? Did they remove the images in question?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #7 on:** April 19, 2017, 00:08 »

Sorry I am missing what SS is being accused of here. They received a complaint and checked you had all your ducks in a row. They seem to acknowledge you are in the right but just let you know the model is still whining about it and it could be worth you deleting the images to get the model off your back. What else could ss do in this situation?

Stockmaan · « **Reply #8 on:** April 19, 2017, 00:52 »

The real face of SS. This is business guys.
You need a lawyer, NOW.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #9 on:** April 19, 2017, 01:13 »

I wouldn't be surprised if most agencies would act the same way if it came down to it, not just Shutterstock. I'm not saying it's right, and if legal action was taken then it's unlikely they'd win... but losing out on the $1/$50/$100 the image generates them a year is a small price to pay compared to the cost of losing a court case. No matter how unlikely that may be.

MxR · « **Reply #10 on:** April 19, 2017, 01:34 »

A model release of agency for example in Spain is nothing. Here it is illegal to assign any image rights in perpetuity. What can be done is to sign a contract of compensation to the photographer for his work in case he gives up the model that his image is used.
You're in Stocksy, you've won.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 19, 2017, 01:35 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 19, 2017, 01:13

I wouldn't be surprised if most agencies would act the same way if it came down to it, not just Shutterstock. I'm not saying it's right, and if legal action was taken then it's unlikely they'd win... but losing out on the $1/$50/$100 the image generates them a year is a small price to pay for the cost of losing a court case. No matter how unlikely that may be.

I think you a right Agencies are very risk averse. Sad reality

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2017, 01:57 »

It doesn't sound like they shut his account or even took down the images. What are we talking about here?

Vlad · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2017, 02:08 »

Stocksy is desperately trying to attract new photographers after has rejected many of them. When it started I submitted them some good images and they rejected my application. I know, you could say the images were not good. Yes, they were, I know what I am talking. Stocksy is just another arrogance similar to iStock.

The thread is biased, it is advertising because it does not talk only on SS but it presents Stocksy in a good light. Stocsky is as bad as any other agency.

The thread should be removed.

derek · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2017, 02:24 »

I'm afraid MillesTeam is right. I have heard so many similar stories its incredible! costly stories. Further more SS keeps contacting the RM-RF agencies telling them NOT to sell content that they represent in spite of being a micro agency that don't even want exclusivity according to Jon. Strange!

I suppose in such a cut throat business as micro-stock where every penny seems to count things like this is to be expected but yes like the Op says expect no help or protection from any agency.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #15 on:** April 19, 2017, 02:33 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 19, 2017, 00:08

Sorry I am missing what SS is being accused of here. They received a complaint and checked you had all your ducks in a row. They seem to acknowledge you are in the right but just let you know the model is still whining about it and it could be worth you deleting the images to get the model off your back. What else could ss do in this situation?

Exactly.

From what I understood SS acted correctly following a complaint. They just asked the photographer for the needed documents, kept the images and account online after they confirmed everything was legal, and simply advised the photographer to delete the images so he doesn't get sued despite he's in his right.

Unfortunately people try to sue even if they do not have reason just to get some money, in the hope that the right part will not want to lose time and money in courts despite knowing they will win. And SS just advise about it.

Just direct your anger towards the model and sue her for harassment if you want to.

derek · « **Reply #16 on:** April 19, 2017, 03:20 »

Like Sean says! if the photographer has a signed, sealed and delivered Model-release there is just a big fat nothing the model can do about it!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 19, 2017, 03:25 »

Quote from: derek on April 19, 2017, 03:20

Like Sean says! if the photographer has a signed, sealed and delivered Model-release there is just a big fat nothing the model can do about it!

Although the risk is they will take it to court and claim its not their signature they were misled etc etc. It can sometimes be costly even if you are in the right. It may not be ethically right but I suspect the best business decision is to delete the images and move on.

derek · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2017, 04:34 »

Nah thats far fetched etc there are experts in handwriting and they are supplied to courts often by the police dept. It is extremely difficult to sneeze away a genuine signature and these guys are very, very good in reading signatures.

However this said is it worth it? its micro-stock etc resulting in a few dollars of revenue. The big question is if its worth it? personally I wouldnt even attempt doing it.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2017, 04:48 »

Quote from: derek on April 19, 2017, 04:34

Nah thats far fetched etc there are experts in handwriting and they are supplied to courts often by the police dept. It is extremely difficult to sneeze away a genuine signature and these guys are very, very good in reading signatures.

However this said is it worth it? its micro-stock etc resulting in a few dollars of revenue. The big question is if its worth it? personally I wouldn't even attempt doing it.

Think we are basically saying the same....yes they would probably/almost certainly lose but by then SS will still have spent a lot of $$ taking it that far.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** April 19, 2017, 05:10 »

Quote from: derek on April 19, 2017, 03:20

Like Sean says! if the photographer has a signed, sealed and delivered Model-release there is just a big fat nothing the model can do about it!

That's absolutely not always true (depending on location/legislation), though it seems to be the case in the US, at least in general microstockers' beliefs that I've read.

Josephine · « **Reply #21 on:** April 19, 2017, 08:35 »

spending up to 4000 USD in order to sell the result to a Microstock agency?

how does this pay?

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #22 on:** April 19, 2017, 08:36 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 19, 2017, 03:25

Quote from: derek on April 19, 2017, 03:20
Like Sean says! if the photographer has a signed, sealed and delivered Model-release there is just a big fat nothing the model can do about it!
Although the risk is they will take it to court and claim its not their signature they were misled etc etc. It can sometimes be costly even if you are in the right. It may not be ethically right but I suspect the best business decision is to delete the images and move on.

It's not a bad idea to record on film not only the signature of the MR but eventually a short explanation to the models about the character of the work. Also filming when handing them a copy of a buyers contract (or any other type of documentation) as an example of what type of image use will be allowed.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #23 on:** April 19, 2017, 08:50 »

The way I read it, SS is just handling this correctly. They haven't closed your account yet, they aren't choosing the model's side, they're simply checking whether the contracts/releases are in order. It's still under investigation so it'd be wise to wait the outcome.

Now if they did close your account without investigation, you'd have every right to be angry with them. But don't blame SS, they're simply following procedures. Direct your anger towards the model who claims to be infringed.

jonbull · « **Reply #24 on:** April 19, 2017, 09:10 »

4000 dollar for this kind of images? are you serious?

edit:ah ok i see it's more than one shooting and all expenses, i thought 4000 dollar for this model for one shooting. all in all even more

jonbull · « **Reply #25 on:** April 19, 2017, 09:15 »

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 18, 2017, 14:29

Hi all Microstock members.

Today i want to tell you a story about Shutterstock. If you think they support you and guard from problems.. No.

Few years ago we hired 4 African models and made few sessions with them. We payed them. They are circus dancers. And their boss from circus payed them additional money. In total every model got about 200-300USD for this work. Also we sent them all images we retouched. We gifted them almost all accessories, jewellery, clothes and underwear that was bought by us for these shootings. We spent about 3000-4000USD for these shootings.

Then we started to upload retouched images.

After some time one of the models started to write to Shutterstock that she didn't want to be a model on these images. Shutterstock wrote to me this"

Dear Milles,

We have received a complaint from a person claiming to be the model in the following images:

https://www.shutterstock.com/search?models=15679480&models=15683314&context_photo=250750666

Please provide us with the following information about this image:

1) when and where the images were taken;
2) who took the image;
3) the name of the individuals in the images; and
4) the circumstances under which the images were taken (e.g., photo shoot, etc.)

Please also send us a copy of the model releases on file for the images. We request that you respond to us within 3 days, or your Shutterstock account may be suspended. Thank you for your cooperation.

Regards,
Lauren

What i answered:

i made detailed description of where we found these people, how much we payed them, dates... everything. All information they asked and even more. Images from backstages where all these models are smiling together with us, photographing and so on.

in addition i provided this:

In addition to previous mail with all info i'm sending you extra information.

Here you are facebook links to people we worked with:

[model info removed]

you can ask them about our cooperation. I also know that they got payed from him additionally too for working with us. So every girl got money for photos we took. I don't see nothing criminal.

But i see that your contributors are totally unsafe and you can do what you want if someone from nowhere writes to you.

They did not answered anything.

But today i received this:

Dear Kedrinski Kirill,

Please know that the models continue to complain about these images. We we are obtaining further information but it may be in your interest to remove the content to avoid any issues with licensing this content.

Regards,
Lauren

So i can see, that Shutterstock don't care about its authors. If you have all docs ok, if you are working by law and everything is clear you can still be treated badly.

In fact every your model can just write to Shutterstock and you will be *removed coarse language* off. They will say that they will close your account even if you are right. even if you have all documents. They will be on the side of blackmailer who just want to earn more from nothing.

Who is this woman who writes to them? She is a fu**ing blackmailer. She strikes her boss in circus that she will not work with him if he will not hire her husband. She wants more and more money and she will never stop. And Shutterstock supports it.

What everyone should learn from this?

1) [questionably racist comments removed]

2) You should never trust Shutterstock and maybe other agencies too. You should be very attentive. Because they care only about themselves. They don't care about authors. They think that +- one author never change the situation. And theyd don't care if you are full time photographer with team that wants their salaries. The will shutdown your account if someone will ask.

So keep in mind that working with Shutterstock is unpredictable and unsafe. Once you will make 30 000 beautiful images for them they will switch you off and even never regret.

That is one of the reasons i stopped submit to them and concentrated on Stocksy. At Stocksy you always in dialog with editors, staff, owners... But Shutterstock is just a money machine. If today a roulette have chosen you.. I'm sorry.

I wish you all the best and i hope you will never face such problems.

Good Luck!

admin edit: post edited for content (and noted)

stocksy is great but is even small fraction profitable =?
last year they gave 4 million dollar of royalty.....with 4000 contributor...well somebody earn maybe 100000 year but mostly 100 months.

jonbull · « **Reply #26 on:** April 19, 2017, 09:23 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 19, 2017, 03:25

Quote from: derek on April 19, 2017, 03:20
Like Sean says! if the photographer has a signed, sealed and delivered Model-release there is just a big fat nothing the model can do about it!
Although the risk is they will take it to court and claim its not their signature they were misled etc etc. It can sometimes be costly even if you are in the right. It may not be ethically right but I suspect the best business decision is to delete the images and move on.

that's why the release indicates a witness....witness is key..if they say is false but witness say is good...they cannot do anything if they cannot prove the witness lie.
persoanlly i will not remove anything. strange ss will not stand with the release. at this point they shouldn't accept any release if they fear they cannot have any value in case of a lawsuit.

skysense · « **Reply #27 on:** April 19, 2017, 10:10 »

As far as i see it, SS is just pinging you to see whether you will remove images or not. Nowhere it says they will ban your account if you do not remove images, nor that it is obligatory for you to do so.

I think that, you have full right to use those images as far as you have a copy of signed Model Release. She is probably threatening to sue SS, and they want to resolve that issue as easier as it can be.

If it ever comes to court between her and SS, and maybe you too: If what you say about that shooting is right (i have no reason to think otherwise) then you have numerous of evidence and witnesses that this person agreed, received money for this, and signed Model Release form for this images with her on them to be sold on SS or whatever agency.

If i was in this situation, and have all the documents, surely i wouldn't agree to delete those photos i paid production for.

trek · « **Reply #28 on:** April 19, 2017, 10:41 »

It's unfortunate for the photographer who did everything right but there's no upside for an agency to host photos of a mental model. They are overflowing with content.

GraniteCove · « **Reply #29 on:** April 19, 2017, 11:01 »

Two things bother me about this thread. One, I may have missed it but nowhere can I see where the OP states that he actually has signed model releases. He briefly mentions documentation but not specifically model releases. He has yet to answer Sean's very simple question if he in fact has signed model releases. The other thing that nags is his multiple references to the models having been paid additionally by the circus owner. I think further explanation of exactly why that would be might be helpful. Was the OP dealing with the circus owner directly who in turn was acting as a self appointed but not necessarily authorized agent for the models? As employees of the owner were they perhaps working under duress? Could the documentation the OP refers to be a release signed by the owner but not the models? None of this is clear to me yet.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 19, 2017, 17:19 »

It doesn't add up but presumably they would never have been accepted without MR. Maybe he did do everything right maybe not......often these type of threads turn out not quite as they appear. Its interesting for example to take a look at the OPs other contributions to this site

GraniteCove · « **Reply #31 on:** April 19, 2017, 17:46 »

No forest, just the trees. Thnx.

Mantis · « **Reply #32 on:** April 19, 2017, 18:03 »

Quote from: GraniteCove on April 19, 2017, 11:01

Two things bother me about this thread. One, I may have missed it but nowhere can I see where the OP states that he actually has signed model releases. He briefly mentions documentation but not specifically model releases. He has yet to answer Sean's very simple question if he in fact has signed model releases. The other thing that nags is his multiple references to the models having been paid additionally by the circus owner. I think further explanation of exactly why that would be might be helpful. Was the OP dealing with the circus owner directly who in turn was acting as a self appointed but not necessarily authorized agent for the models? As employees of the owner were they perhaps working under duress? Could the documentation the OP refers to be a release signed by the owner but not the models? None of this is clear to me yet.

I would think, then, that SS would have never accepted the images in the first place.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #33 on:** April 20, 2017, 04:58 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 18, 2017, 16:37

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 18, 2017, 16:25
Yeah. It seems to me that opposite to Shutterstock Stocksy are people. I really wish to all good authors to move to such agencies that treats their authors well.

What does Stocksy do when models complain in that way?

Sorry this happened to you and so glad I don't use models.

With Stocksy any complain is solved person to person. They ask, they discuss, they suggest what to do. And if you are adequate you will solve the situation. They care much more about authors. I think because it is a limited quantity of authors and loosing one will affect collection more than at Shutterstock.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #34 on:** April 20, 2017, 05:00 »

Quote from: TSLphoto on April 18, 2017, 17:30

If you have a signed model release, how is this even an issue? They signed the release, they put in writing that you can use the photos for whatever you want (unless damaging their character). I'm surprised sending in the model release form didn't get them off your back.

That is what i'm talking about. I have release signed, i have backstage photos including how they get money from us and signing papers. But still this is not a guarantee you will be safe. In fact even in this case model just can write to Shutterstock and they will close account or push you to delete images by yourself.

Shutterstock is unfair and they just use you and than waste into trash when they want.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #35 on:** April 20, 2017, 05:02 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 18, 2017, 17:59

Did you have releases? Did they remove the images in question?

Hi Sean! Yes of course i always work legally same as at Stocksy. I'm just wondering what they do. Maybe they just do not to loose their time to solve this. I'm really happy i stopped working with them. I'm happy i moved to Stocksy. Shutterstock is a bomb and you will never know when it will explode.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #36 on:** April 20, 2017, 05:05 »

Quote from: Stockmaan on April 19, 2017, 00:52

The real face of SS. This is business guys.
You need a lawyer, NOW.

No, i don't think so. If they will delete an account it will be ok. No problems. I just want other to know what can happen there and be aware of putting too much efforts on uploading there. Do not put all eggs into such unsafe basket.

In past maybe they were earning a lot. But now earnings decreased and their care about authors never existed. So i see no reasons to work with them.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #37 on:** April 20, 2017, 05:09 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 19, 2017, 01:57

It doesn't sound like they shut his account or even took down the images. What are we talking about here?

They will. They said they will shutdown an account if i will not respond in 3 days. And what if i'm traveling and have problems with internet connection? So they can shutdown a business of person that easy. And what if i have employees? They don't care that i can loose income and several people can loose their jobs in that case. so they are really awful.

And now at least they want me to delete these images. But i don't want. I don't want to spend my time on this and why? I payed for models. I payed for retouching. I payed for keywording... Y payed for props, clothes, studio... Why should i delete something if i did everything under the law?

MillesTeam · « **Reply #38 on:** April 20, 2017, 05:12 »

Quote from: Vlad on April 19, 2017, 02:08

Stocksy is desperately trying to attract new photographers after has rejected many of them. When it started I submitted them some good images and they rejected my application. I know, you could say the images were not good. Yes, they were, I know what I am talking. Stocksy is just another arrogance similar to iStock.

The thread is biased, it is advertising because it does not talk only on SS but it presents Stocksy in a good light. Stocsky is as bad as any other agency.

The thread should be removed.

Are you feeling good? It is a real situation and i just wrote about Stocksy because i moved completely to there and i'm really happy with them. Because there are a lot of really good things and every author knows what i'm talking about. I don't think that Stocksy now needs any advertisement))

And man.. OMG... if you do not know what you are talking about, do not talk)) They do not try to attract new authors))

MillesTeam · « **Reply #39 on:** April 20, 2017, 05:17 »

Quote from: Josephine on April 19, 2017, 08:35

spending up to 4000 USD in order to sell the result to a Microstock agency?

how does this pay?

The more you invest and better images you do the more you earn. Our Microstock investment were made with count of 1 year pay off. It is normal long term investment. because in this competition you should do better than others.

But now i'm tired of this rat race. Because it seems that it is on the same risk level as selling drugs but it is legal.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #40 on:** April 20, 2017, 05:27 »

Quote from: GraniteCove on April 19, 2017, 11:01

Two things bother me about this thread. One, I may have missed it but nowhere can I see where the OP states that he actually has signed model releases. He briefly mentions documentation but not specifically model releases. He has yet to answer Sean's very simple question if he in fact has signed model releases. The other thing that nags is his multiple references to the models having been paid additionally by the circus owner. I think further explanation of exactly why that would be might be helpful. Was the OP dealing with the circus owner directly who in turn was acting as a self appointed but not necessarily authorized agent for the models? As employees of the owner were they perhaps working under duress? Could the documentation the OP refers to be a release signed by the owner but not the models? None of this is clear to me yet.

We were talking to circus owner to give them free days to work with us. We talked to models if they agree to be stock models. We shown them links to few websites like SS. We shown them contracts ( Model Releases ) They were able to read it calm and understand what they actually did. I have plenty of Whatsapp screenshots of our chats where exactly these model only cares of how much money she will get. We have more proves than necessary. And their boss payed them additionally i really don't know why.. Maybe he thought that we did not payed. Maybe they said to him that we did not payed to get extra money. This model who claimed is a Kenyan lady from a poor district. I know that she just trying to earn as much as she can for her family but OMG not this way!

By the way! SHE WAS CONTACTING ME FEW TIMES AFTER THIS CASE TO ASK IF I WANT TO HIRE HER IN FUTURE. It means that she understood everything and liked everything. But now she is just trying to raise funds in any way. Maybe she has problems in Africa.

Hey people! We are Milles Team. We are in this business since 2008. We have 10 team members. Of course we know all rights and rules. Of course we work totally well and never infringe anyone's rights. We just in situation when poor people trying to get some money from us because they think we are billionaires.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #41 on:** April 20, 2017, 05:31 »

I'm sorry that i didn't answered fast. Because i'm not used to forums. And i have very little of time because we just came back from Spain with plenty of new shootings and i have to select and forward them to retouch and maintain many things in team. So i will be reading and answering time after time.

Thank you all for support. I really wish to everyone to avoid such crap from the bottom of my heart. But i also suggest that all of you should find more safe way to run this business. Today the roulette hits me but tomorrow it could be anyone else. Someone will write that you stolen the idea, another one will say he/she did not signed release... Everything is possible.

And i wish you will be able to find a safer place to work. Because Shutterstock doesn't seem to care about us. They care about money only. Moeny they earn selling OUR images.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #42 on:** April 20, 2017, 06:32 »

Best of luck getting this resolved. Sounds like you are 100% covered. I had a similar experience with ss back about 8 years ago. It is frustrating, they should have a team dedicated to looking after their biggest and most important contributors. It does suck that they don't take your history into account when looking into this sort of thing.

jonbull · « **Reply #43 on:** April 20, 2017, 06:36 »

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 20, 2017, 05:12

Quote from: Vlad on April 19, 2017, 02:08
Stocksy is desperately trying to attract new photographers after has rejected many of them. When it started I submitted them some good images and they rejected my application. I know, you could say the images were not good. Yes, they were, I know what I am talking. Stocksy is just another arrogance similar to iStock.

The thread is biased, it is advertising because it does not talk only on SS but it presents Stocksy in a good light. Stocsky is as bad as any other agency.

The thread should be removed.

Are you feeling good? It is a real situation and i just wrote about Stocksy because i moved completely to there and i'm really happy with them. Because there are a lot of really good things and every author knows what i'm talking about. I don't think that Stocksy now needs any advertisement))

And man.. OMG... if you do not know what you are talking about, do not talk)) They do not try to attract new authors))

you move to stocksy but have active portfolio in ss? so if you moved why u care...mayb ss provide more profit?

jonbull · « **Reply #44 on:** April 20, 2017, 06:38 »

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 20, 2017, 05:31

I'm sorry that i didn't answered fast. Because i'm not used to forums. And i have very little of time because we just came back from Spain with plenty of new shootings and i have to select and forward them to retouch and maintain many things in team. So i will be reading and answering time after time.

Thank you all for support. I really wish to everyone to avoid such crap from the bottom of my heart. But i also suggest that all of you should find more safe way to run this business. Today the roulette hits me but tomorrow it could be anyone else. Someone will write that you stolen the idea, another one will say he/she did not signed release... Everything is possible.

And i wish you will be able to find a safer place to work. Because Shutterstock doesn't seem to care about us. They care about money only. Moeny they earn selling OUR images.

with all respect what happen the beahvious of ss is completely obscure..
nobody i think understood.

are you banned?
they banned you?
you were forced to delete images?

it seems you have something personally more than business oriented.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #45 on:** April 20, 2017, 07:44 »

Quote from: jonbull on April 20, 2017, 06:38

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 20, 2017, 05:31
I'm sorry that i didn't answered fast. Because i'm not used to forums. And i have very little of time because we just came back from Spain with plenty of new shootings and i have to select and forward them to retouch and maintain many things in team. So i will be reading and answering time after time.

Thank you all for support. I really wish to everyone to avoid such crap from the bottom of my heart. But i also suggest that all of you should find more safe way to run this business. Today the roulette hits me but tomorrow it could be anyone else. Someone will write that you stolen the idea, another one will say he/she did not signed release... Everything is possible.

And i wish you will be able to find a safer place to work. Because Shutterstock doesn't seem to care about us. They care about money only. Moeny they earn selling OUR images.

with all respect what happen the beahvious of ss is completely obscure..
nobody i think understood.

are you banned?
they banned you?
you were forced to delete images?

it seems you have something personally more than business oriented.

They say they will ban me if i will not delete, so i think yes they are forcing me to delete these images. I moved to Stocksy what means that i upload there actively and regularly. I still have active SS portfolio until they will ban me but i stopped submitting maybe 2 years ago or around that. So i care because of this fact.

I don't like the fact that if you working well somebody anyway will be able to kick your ass. They now earn to us around 5x less than Stocksy so it will be a loss but not a huge one.

But anyway.. why should i lose even this amount of cash if i did everything well? Should i just let it go in your opinion? Of course i will not put many efforts to this problem. If they will ban me at the end okay.

But at least many other people will know about this and will keep it in mind. And maybe it will help.

Starting this thread i'm not looking for any help or whatever. Maybe a little moral support and spreading info to others. Maybe to newbies who think that Shutterstock is an angel and a really good place.

That was the actual answer from them:

Dear Kirill,

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, due to further complaints we have received from the models, we need to remove the images from licensing. We request that you remove all images from your portfolio featuring the models to avoid any further issues. Please respond directly to this email to confirm the images have been removed.

Regards,
Lauren

I answered that i will not spend my time on this and that they could remove by themselves or close an account. Because why should i spend more time to SS if they are that pieces of crap? What if after this story all models will start complaining? They will delete all the images?

Good luck to them, i don't care))

GraniteCove · « **Reply #46 on:** April 20, 2017, 08:22 »

Milles Team, thank you for taking the time to address some of my questions. I have many more of course, but for now taking what you say at face value I can certainly understand your frustration . On the surface it does appear that rather than support you unconditionally SS has opted to push for expedient mediation. Essentially throwing the ball squarely in your court and at the same time separating themselves further from potential litigation…

“Dear Kedrinski Kirill,

Please know that the models continue to complain about these images. We are obtaining further information but it may be in your interest to remove the content to avoid any issues with licensing this content.

Regards,
Lauren”

“Dear Kirill,

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, due to further complaints we have received from the models, we need to remove the images from licensing. We request that you remove all images from your portfolio featuring the models to avoid any further issues. Please respond directly to this email to confirm the images have been removed.

Regards,
Lauren”

From the above I gather that they have not suspended your account which tells me that your paperwork was/is apparently in order. However, the fact that they are “obtaining further information” and refer to models (plural) indicates to me that there may be more going on here than meets the eye. Without knowing the exact nature of the models complaints I can only guess, but I strongly suspect the legal team might be concerned about the “circumstances” of the shoot – particularly the employer/employee relationship between the models and circus owner. You raise this possibility yourself in your original post…

“After some time one of the models started to write to Shutterstock that she didn't want to be a model on these images.”

Please don’t misunderstand my position. I believe that you acted professionally and in good faith here, and judging by your portfolio you do so consistently - but from an agency’s perspective I can see why they have taken the course of action that they have. Complaints such as this need to be taken seriously and investigated as thoroughly as possible, particularly when dealing with international contract law where some areas may not be as cut and dry as others. Whether or not the owner and or model(s) themselves were working in good faith is still the open question, and unfortunately it looks as though it will remain so (judging by the model’s tenacity here) without some expensive fact finding or litigation. I can see where you might feel like SS has thrown you under the bus in this case, but I would be very interested in knowing how any other agency - Stocksy included - would respond to the same sticky situation.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #47 on:** April 20, 2017, 10:32 »

Contract disputes are messy. That's what this is - a contract dispute between the model(s) and the photographer (the two parties to the contract) with the agency looking at the potential for getting caught in a lawsuit.

As a hypothetical situation, I couldn't fault an agency for deciding that it did not want to spend its money on lawyers if the issues could simply be resolved by removing certain content. If an agency was a public company, one could argue that investors have a right to see them make the best financial decisions for the company. And that decision would be to avoid a legal tangle and remove content in dispute. Sometimes (the dance steps dispute as an example) even that isn't enough, but it often is all that's needed.

Our supply agreements with all the agencies allow them to refuse any content for any or no reason. We don't have any right to sell our content through any particular agency. Agencies are risk averse - and if there's not much financial gain to be had from representing legally risky content, why would you expect them to spend money to deal with a contributor's contract dispute? From a business point of view, there's virtually no upside to pursuing legally risky sales - there's a bazillion other sales to make that don't involve any legal risk.

I fully realize how frustrating it is for the OP to have had such a terrible experience with this group of models (although that doesn't excuse the racist garbage first posted). But expecting SS to sort this out for you isn't reasonable, IMO.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #48 on:** April 20, 2017, 11:05 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on April 20, 2017, 10:32

Contract disputes are messy. That's what this is - a contract dispute between the model(s) and the photographer (the two parties to the contract) with the agency looking at the potential for getting caught in a lawsuit.

As a hypothetical situation, I couldn't fault an agency for deciding that it did not want to spend its money on lawyers if the issues could simply be resolved by removing certain content. If an agency was a public company, one could argue that investors have a right to see them make the best financial decisions for the company. And that decision would be to avoid a legal tangle and remove content in dispute. Sometimes (the dance steps dispute as an example) even that isn't enough, but it often is all that's needed.

Our supply agreements with all the agencies allow them to refuse any content for any or no reason. We don't have any right to sell our content through any particular agency. Agencies are risk averse - and if there's not much financial gain to be had from representing legally risky content, why would you expect them to spend money to deal with a contributor's contract dispute? From a business point of view, there's virtually no upside to pursuing legally risky sales - there's a bazillion other sales to make that don't involve any legal risk.

I fully realize how frustrating it is for the OP to have had such a terrible experience with this group of models (although that doesn't excuse the racist garbage first posted). But expecting SS to sort this out for you isn't reasonable, IMO.

As always Jo Ann the voice of common sense businesses all the time take the business decision not to pursue legal action even if they think they are in the right.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #49 on:** April 20, 2017, 12:55 »

Am I missing something or have you still not answered the 'have they signed a model release form' question? Your last post said that you 'showed them a contract' which is slightly different than them actually signing it. I have no reason to believe you don't have a signed model release, but your repeated avoidance of the question does make me think.

Fairplay · « **Reply #50 on:** April 20, 2017, 13:04 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 20, 2017, 12:55

Am I missing something or have you still not answered the 'have they signed a model release form' question? Your last post said that you 'showed them a contract' which is slightly different than them actually signing it. I have no reason to believe you don't have a signed model release, but your repeated avoidance of the question does make me think.

Yes, you are missing a lot of things obviously! It's good to read carefully before accusing somebody!

"That is what i'm talking about. I have release signed, i have backstage photos including how they get money from us and signing papers. But still this is not a guarantee you will be safe. In fact even in this case model just can write to Shutterstock and they will close account or push you to delete images by yourself.

Shutterstock is unfair and they just use you and than waste into trash when they want."

MillesTeam · « **Reply #51 on:** April 20, 2017, 13:16 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 20, 2017, 12:55

Am I missing something or have you still not answered the 'have they signed a model release form' question? Your last post said that you 'showed them a contract' which is slightly different than them actually signing it. I have no reason to believe you don't have a signed model release, but your repeated avoidance of the question does make me think.

If you will read attentively you will see that i mentioned about 5-10 times that YES WE SIGNED ALL MODEL RELEASES

Now can you see?

derek · « **Reply #52 on:** April 20, 2017, 14:17 »

Signed release! good! but the thing that strikes me is the actual release used. Was it a universal release an SS release or what. Reason for asking is that most models havent got a clue of stock-photography and what it entails. Now she probably know and that her picture can be bought by thousands of people and all the time you earn money. thats probably whats eating her??

ShadySue · « **Reply #53 on:** April 20, 2017, 15:03 »

Reply #34 above says he had a signed release.

ShadySue · « **Reply #54 on:** April 20, 2017, 16:39 »

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 20, 2017, 04:58

Quote from: ShadySue on April 18, 2017, 16:37
Quote from: MillesTeam on April 18, 2017, 16:25
Yeah. It seems to me that opposite to Shutterstock Stocksy are people. I really wish to all good authors to move to such agencies that treats their authors well.

What does Stocksy do when models complain in that way?

Sorry this happened to you and so glad I don't use models.

With Stocksy any complain is solved person to person. They ask, they discuss, they suggest what to do. And if you are adequate you will solve the situation. They care much more about authors. I think because it is a limited quantity of authors and loosing one will affect collection more than at Shutterstock.

So you had this same issue with pics you have on Stocksy?

Anyway, since apparently Stocksy has people hammering on their doors to become contributors, I don't think losing a few would be a problem for them.

ShadySue · « **Reply #55 on:** April 20, 2017, 17:53 »

One issue might be that models from developing countries may have no real idea of how images might be used, and in particular how they might be manipulated - they may have no or limited exposure to computers in general or to what's possible with Photoshop. So they might be able to claim they were not "fully informed" about the implications of the contract. Not saying this applies to this particular model, and the legal notion of "fully informed consent" to a contract, so fundamental here, might not apply in other legislations.

Some mention above has been made of witness signatures: this could fall down if the witness were a friend of the model, in which case they might be persuaded to side with the model, or if the witness were a friend of the photographer, in which case the model might claim it was all a set-up on the tog's side.
In any case, SS's MR, and some others don't require any contact details for a witness. And people move around, change phone numbers, email addys etc Again, not saying this is the case here - though circus members are probably more mobile than most - just mentioning hypotheticals.

noodle · « **Reply #56 on:** April 20, 2017, 18:05 »

Never trust a carnie

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #57 on:** April 20, 2017, 19:32 »

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 20, 2017, 13:16

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 20, 2017, 12:55
Am I missing something or have you still not answered the 'have they signed a model release form' question? Your last post said that you 'showed them a contract' which is slightly different than them actually signing it. I have no reason to believe you don't have a signed model release, but your repeated avoidance of the question does make me think.

If you will read attentively you will see that i mentioned about 5-10 times that YES WE SIGNED ALL MODEL RELEASES

Now can you see?

That's why I opened with "Am I missing something or...." and if you would like to read carefully as well, you'll note that I didn't accuse you of anything.

jonbull · « **Reply #58 on:** April 21, 2017, 06:36 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 20, 2017, 12:55

Am I missing something or have you still not answered the 'have they signed a model release form' question? Your last post said that you 'showed them a contract' which is slightly different than them actually signing it. I have no reason to believe you don't have a signed model release, but your repeated avoidance of the question does make me think.

i think is implicit cause shutter stock wouldn't have accepted without release.

jonbull · « **Reply #59 on:** April 21, 2017, 06:38 »

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 20, 2017, 07:44

Quote from: jonbull on April 20, 2017, 06:38
Quote from: MillesTeam on April 20, 2017, 05:31
I'm sorry that i didn't answered fast. Because i'm not used to forums. And i have very little of time because we just came back from Spain with plenty of new shootings and i have to select and forward them to retouch and maintain many things in team. So i will be reading and answering time after time.

Thank you all for support. I really wish to everyone to avoid such crap from the bottom of my heart. But i also suggest that all of you should find more safe way to run this business. Today the roulette hits me but tomorrow it could be anyone else. Someone will write that you stolen the idea, another one will say he/she did not signed release... Everything is possible.

And i wish you will be able to find a safer place to work. Because Shutterstock doesn't seem to care about us. They care about money only. Moeny they earn selling OUR images.

with all respect what happen the beahvious of ss is completely obscure..
nobody i think understood.

are you banned?
they banned you?
you were forced to delete images?

it seems you have something personally more than business oriented.

They say they will ban me if i will not delete, so i think yes they are forcing me to delete these images. I moved to Stocksy what means that i upload there actively and regularly. I still have active SS portfolio until they will ban me but i stopped submitting maybe 2 years ago or around that. So i care because of this fact.

I don't like the fact that if you working well somebody anyway will be able to kick your ass. They now earn to us around 5x less than Stocksy so it will be a loss but not a huge one.

But anyway.. why should i lose even this amount of cash if i did everything well? Should i just let it go in your opinion? Of course i will not put many efforts to this problem. If they will ban me at the end okay.

But at least many other people will know about this and will keep it in mind. And maybe it will help.

Starting this thread i'm not looking for any help or whatever. Maybe a little moral support and spreading info to others. Maybe to newbies who think that Shutterstock is an angel and a really good place.

That was the actual answer from them:

Dear Kirill,

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, due to further complaints we have received from the models, we need to remove the images from licensing. We request that you remove all images from your portfolio featuring the models to avoid any further issues. Please respond directly to this email to confirm the images have been removed.

Regards,
Lauren

I answered that i will not spend my time on this and that they could remove by themselves or close an account. Because why should i spend more time to SS if they are that pieces of crap? What if after this story all models will start complaining? They will delete all the images?

Good luck to them, i don't care))

stocksy is so good then? never thought.
i like the agency more than micro, hope they open again.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #60 on:** April 21, 2017, 06:47 »

Quote from: jonbull on April 21, 2017, 06:36

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 20, 2017, 12:55
Am I missing something or have you still not answered the 'have they signed a model release form' question? Your last post said that you 'showed them a contract' which is slightly different than them actually signing it. I have no reason to believe you don't have a signed model release, but your repeated avoidance of the question does make me think.

i think is implicit cause shutter stock wouldn't have accepted without release.

Somebody mentioned earlier whether the circus dude might have given permission for them to be shot, rather than the actual performers themselves. So it's possible (although unlikely) that the ring master may have signed the model release on their behalf. I mean, do the agencies check that the name and signature on the model release is the name and signature of the person in the photo? How would they even do that?

jonbull · « **Reply #61 on:** April 21, 2017, 07:14 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 21, 2017, 06:47

Quote from: jonbull on April 21, 2017, 06:36
Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 20, 2017, 12:55
Am I missing something or have you still not answered the 'have they signed a model release form' question? Your last post said that you 'showed them a contract' which is slightly different than them actually signing it. I have no reason to believe you don't have a signed model release, but your repeated avoidance of the question does make me think.

i think is implicit cause shutter stock wouldn't have accepted without release.

Somebody mentioned earlier whether the circus dude might have given permission for them to be shot, rather than the actual performers themselves. So it's possible (although unlikely) that the ring master may have signed the model release on their behalf. I mean, do the agencies check that the name and signature on the model release is the name and signature of the person in the photo? How would they even do that?

ok. it seems strange to me that an agency like ss could be scared by somebody in russi, i mean if the girl want do lawsuit against ss how she can do ?, who write an email to complain about appearing in a photo with apparently has a model release signed.

i speculate
1 circus owners got all money or most of them
2 the girl realized she was used with low money and complaint.
3 circus owner signed the release?

if ss was scared by an email complaint all the releases could be potentially fake and every model could ask the photo to be deleted.

Me · « **Reply #62 on:** April 21, 2017, 08:16 »

So SS say delete these images or they close your whole account?

So what is the problem? How many images are they asking to be deleted? From a portfolio of how many images?

I don't shoot models but if this were me I would delete a handful of images rather than lose income on a whole portfolio. It obviously still earns you enough to worry about otherwise why not just let them close the account? You have earned from these images to date and $hit happens. I am in UK and I have previously photographer National Trust locations and then had them removed by SS because NT complained. Much rather that than SS close my whole account and I lose everything from there.

ShadySue · « **Reply #63 on:** April 21, 2017, 09:14 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 21, 2017, 06:47

Quote from: jonbull on April 21, 2017, 06:36
Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 20, 2017, 12:55
Am I missing something or have you still not answered the 'have they signed a model release form' question? Your last post said that you 'showed them a contract' which is slightly different than them actually signing it. I have no reason to believe you don't have a signed model release, but your repeated avoidance of the question does make me think.

i think is implicit cause shutter stock wouldn't have accepted without release.

Somebody mentioned earlier whether the circus dude might have given permission for them to be shot, rather than the actual performers themselves. So it's possible (although unlikely) that the ring master may have signed the model release on their behalf. I mean, do the agencies check that the name and signature on the model release is the name and signature of the person in the photo? How would they even do that?

Years ago a former regular on here (now banned) was asked on the iS forum how he got releases from all of a group of actual workers (not models) in particular series of photos. He said their boss signed them. These had got through at iS, but after posting that he was told (in the forum) that that wasn't acceptable.
I can see that there could be circumstances in which a boss might co-erce employess to sign releases, especially if they were getting some good deal from the photographer.
(Again, not saying that this is what happened in the OP's circumstance).

sarah2 · « **Reply #64 on:** April 21, 2017, 11:05 »

I also wonder what kind of release.
Here in Italy I have been provided with all sorts of half-baked documents with 'model release' written at the top (photo sharing, photo events etc) and have always had to insist on getting my own also. Just another reason I do very few pics with models.....

Brightontl · « **Reply #65 on:** April 21, 2017, 11:28 »

I don't have one single video clip or photo in my portfolio with people, not even myself.
I am glad I don't

Josephine · « **Reply #66 on:** April 21, 2017, 14:50 »

what is the problem to delete these images? are the 38 cent per sale worth the anger?

trek · « **Reply #67 on:** April 21, 2017, 15:01 »

Quote from: Josephine on April 21, 2017, 14:50

what is the problem to delete these images? are the 38 cent per sale worth the anger?

Lost production cost is unfortunate but if I had disgruntled models in my portfolio I would eagerly remove them.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #68 on:** April 21, 2017, 16:12 »

Quote from: trek on April 21, 2017, 15:01

Quote from: Josephine on April 21, 2017, 14:50
what is the problem to delete these images? are the 38 cent per sale worth the anger?

Lost production cost is unfortunate but if I had disgruntled models in my portfolio I would eagerly remove them.

I wouldn't. Ok, I did, once, because she her muslim relatives were threatening her for showing her face in imagery or something. It was only 12 images with minimal time cost. But otherwise, no.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #69 on:** April 21, 2017, 16:35 »

what i dont understand is that shutterstock allegedly has valid model releases, so why would they side with the model? if thats the case and they force the photographer to remove the images or else, we might as well just do away with the model release all together.

ss should tell the model to sort it out with the photographer and thats the end of it

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #70 on:** April 21, 2017, 17:01 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on April 21, 2017, 16:35

what i dont understand is that shutterstock allegedly has valid model releases, so why would they side with the model? if thats the case and they force the photographer to remove the images or else, we might as well just do away with the model release all together.

ss should tell the model to sort it out with the photographer and thats the end of it

Right?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #71 on:** April 22, 2017, 00:14 »

It sounds like that's pretty much what they did. They haven't insisted he remove the images. The worst thing they did was word their initial message in a needlessly aggressive confrontational tone with the "reply in three days or else" threat. Really out of order. They should spend some money on contributor relations staff rather than renting half the empire state building for a company doing most of its work on the Internet.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #72 on:** April 22, 2017, 13:27 »

Quote from: Brightontl on April 21, 2017, 11:28

I don't have one single video clip or photo in my portfolio with people, not even myself.
I am glad I don't

It's fine if people don't want to shoot models, but every time there is some rare specific problem with a model or release or whatever there is always a chorus of people saying "this is why I don't have people in my portfolio" or "I'm glad I don't shoot models".

It's like hearing someone slipped in the tub and got a concussion and saying "this is why I don't bathe."

If you are careful about how you choose your models, have a comprehensive release, and thoroughly explain what stock is and how it is used, you should have zero problems. I've been doing this for over 8 years and have thousands of images of people, with 80 or more different models and no problems. If I didn't shoot people I would be a couple hundred grand poorer.

MillesTeam · « **Reply #73 on:** April 22, 2017, 15:51 »

For people who missed information:

All models were informed very well:

- They saw major agencies sites
- They have read a Model Release ( we use the one based on iStock )
- I explained very well what will happen to images

They got money from me to their hands directly and their boss did not get anything from them.

Theu signed releases by themselves.

Their boss just gave them some additional money. That was what they told me and i do not know why he did it. Maybe he was in a good mood or who knows.

In my stock career i was working with 500-700 models. And it is the only case.

You must know that very often circus these circus workers are sleeping for money with their bosses or rich people. Boys and girls.. Same. They are coming to Russia to earn money and build a house in their african countries.

So.. based on behavior of this exact model it is clear that she just want money and nothing else. Because she said to me that if i pay she will stop. But if i do this it will repeat in few months again. and than again. You should never let such people get what they ask.

What about Shutterstock.. It is bad that authors feel unsafe. Because you can invest and then you will be punished for nothing. Because they don't care and spend no time to solve the problem.

Also they ask me to delete few hundreds of images. Okay.. But who will give me back money i spent on props, models, studio, retouching, keywording, uploading? Who will give me money for my time and work as photographer? Who will give me money for deleting?

Did you see their interface? Okay if i can delete just using content manager and just place it in one set and delete.. But i should delete one by one from page to page and it will take 1-2-3 days! Who will pay me for this?

Also what about images with group of people involving this crappy model? Why should i delete images with other people? And what if they like to be models? What if they send me images of them from Kenya and they are happy to be printed somewhere in Nairobi?

Why it must affect so many people if only one person decided to change her mind? She signed? yes.. She worked? yes. She got the money? yes. So why?

I think that you should decide before other people worked. But after decision you must be responsive and do not affect badly on other people.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #74 on:** April 22, 2017, 21:00 »

Quote from: MillesTeam on April 22, 2017, 15:51

For people who missed information:

All models were informed very well:

- They saw major agencies sites
- They have read a Model Release ( we use the one based on iStock )
- I explained very well what will happen to images

They got money from me to their hands directly and their boss did not get anything from them.

Theu signed releases by themselves.

Their boss just gave them some additional money. That was what they told me and i do not know why he did it. Maybe he was in a good mood or who knows.

In my stock career i was working with 500-700 models. And it is the only case.

You must know that very often circus these circus workers are sleeping for money with their bosses or rich people. Boys and girls.. Same. They are coming to Russia to earn money and build a house in their african countries.

So.. based on behavior of this exact model it is clear that she just want money and nothing else. Because she said to me that if i pay she will stop. But if i do this it will repeat in few months again. and than again. You should never let such people get what they ask.

What about Shutterstock.. It is bad that authors feel unsafe. Because you can invest and then you will be punished for nothing. Because they don't care and spend no time to solve the problem.

Also they ask me to delete few hundreds of images. Okay.. But who will give me back money i spent on props, models, studio, retouching, keywording, uploading? Who will give me money for my time and work as photographer? Who will give me money for deleting?

Did you see their interface? Okay if i can delete just using content manager and just place it in one set and delete.. But i should delete one by one from page to page and it will take 1-2-3 days! Who will pay me for this?

Also what about images with group of people involving this crappy model? Why should i delete images with other people? And what if they like to be models? What if they send me images of them from Kenya and they are happy to be printed somewhere in Nairobi?

Why it must affect so many people if only one person decided to change her mind? She signed? yes.. She worked? yes. She got the money? yes. So why?

I think that you should decide before other people worked. But after decision you must be responsive and do not affect badly on other people.

From what you've written here, it sounds like you are on solid ground. Do you have it in an email or other writing that this woman is demanding more money? This is blackmail. If you have it in writing I would think you could forward that to SS and this would support your claim that her complaints are baseless.

ShadySue · « **Reply #75 on:** April 23, 2017, 17:03 »

If you are sure she is only after money and doesn't have any other grounds (however unjustifiable) for concern, you could say you would take down her images if she pays back her fees, the value of the clothes etc she got, (maybe even an amount to cover your loss of expected earnings). But then you'd need to consider your losses if she agrees.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #76 on:** April 24, 2017, 00:49 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 23, 2017, 17:03

If you are sure she is only after money and doesn't have any other grounds (however unjustifiable) for concern, you could say you would take down her images if she pays back her fees, the value of the clothes etc she got, (maybe even an amount to cover your loss of expected earnings). But then you'd need to consider your losses if she agrees.

Tricky because they could try to twist that as an admission of guilt. He should stand his ground. What I would actually do is delete the images as it isn't worth the time and stress.

Vlad · « **Reply #77 on:** April 24, 2017, 01:40 »

What keeps confusing me:

1) Having problems with a single model means SS is bad but Stocksy is good?
2) The problems are only on SS? What if the images get sold by other agency and the model sees them and takes both you to the court? The model could follow you anywhere not only on SS. How did she found only about SS but not about the other agencies you work with?
3) Is your team stuck in a single model? If true, that means bad bad bad management and you should fire the manager who got you into a such nasty situation but do not shoot SS which understandably is trying to keep safe its ass(that is the rest of contributors).

For a fair judgement would be good the hear to model's opinion too, not only yours.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #78 on:** April 24, 2017, 08:20 »

Quote from: Vlad on April 24, 2017, 01:40

What keeps confusing me:

1) Having problems with a single model means SS is bad but Stocksy is good?
2) The problems are only on SS? What if the images get sold by other agency and the model sees them and takes both you to the court? The model could follow you anywhere not only on SS. How did she found only about SS but not about the other agencies you work with?
3) Is your team stuck in a single model? If true, that means bad bad bad management and you should fire the manager who got you into a such nasty situation but do not shoot SS which understandably is trying to keep safe its ass(that is the rest of contributors).

For a fair judgement would be good the hear to model's opinion too, not only yours.

#3: He already said he has multiple models. In fact, multiple models in that shoot is part of why taking down photos of one model would be such a problem. Evidently there are a lot of images of groups or multiple models that include this model. this means that probably most of the shoot would have to come down if he agrees to the models demands.

As for hearing from the model, the OP paid her, she signed a release giving fully informed consent, now she's blackmailing him. Unless the OP is outright lying, this appears pretty cut and dried.

The one thing I disagree with the OP on is SS being the baddie. They asked for clarification, which seems reasonable. Although they threatened to take down the pictures, it doesn't sound like they have, and they have not closed the OPs account for not taking them down. Most likely the proof he furnished has satisfied them.

Fairplay · « **Reply #79 on:** April 24, 2017, 11:32 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on April 24, 2017, 08:20

Quote from: Vlad on April 24, 2017, 01:40
What keeps confusing me:

1) Having problems with a single model means SS is bad but Stocksy is good?
2) The problems are only on SS? What if the images get sold by other agency and the model sees them and takes both you to the court? The model could follow you anywhere not only on SS. How did she found only about SS but not about the other agencies you work with?
3) Is your team stuck in a single model? If true, that means bad bad bad management and you should fire the manager who got you into a such nasty situation but do not shoot SS which understandably is trying to keep safe its ass(that is the rest of contributors).

For a fair judgement would be good the hear to model's opinion too, not only yours.

#3: He already said he has multiple models. In fact, multiple models in that shoot is part of why taking down photos of one model would be such a problem. Evidently there are a lot of images of groups or multiple models that include this model. this means that probably most of the shoot would have to come down if he agrees to the models demands.

As for hearing from the model, the OP paid her, she signed a release giving fully informed consent, now she's blackmailing him. Unless the OP is outright lying, this appears pretty cut and dried.

The one thing I disagree with the OP on is SS being the baddie. They asked for clarification, which seems reasonable. Although they threatened to take down the pictures, it doesn't sound like they have, and they have not closed the OPs account for not taking them down. Most likely the proof he furnished has satisfied them.

Read Reply #45, SS are not satisfied!

Josephine · « **Reply #80 on:** April 24, 2017, 13:45 »

let me ask again:

you are talking about a shooting which costs you 4000 USD and you want to sell the photos to SS, which pay 38 Cent per download, if you are lucky you get a few sales on demand or single and others.

How does this fit together? If you are offering them to SS, you can no longer sell them exclusively to stocksy or so, am I right or do I misunderstand anything? Is nobody talking about profits?

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #81 on:** April 24, 2017, 16:39 »

why do people here keep grilling the OP when he has already explained everything? pack of wolves devouring their next piece of meat.

josephine, you need to understand the concept of high volume x low return = still profitable. the guy delivers high quality work which is probably downloaded at high velocity and he already said he would make the investment back on a set of images in one year

FiledIMAGE · « **Reply #82 on:** April 24, 2017, 20:59 »

I have a similar issue with property rights with Shutterstock for Uluru in Australia. I have full paid property release and suddenly get an email saying they are not selling these images anymore. Same thing happened last year and parks management backed me up and got them reinstated. Exactly same thing again a year later

I feel that Shutterstock pay no attention to releases. Big issues for places charging money for them as they are worthless. Then people will do whatever they want and not bother with releases. Luckily Uluru management see this and support me 100% and I am very impressed. Shame about Shutterstock though...

MxR · « **Reply #83 on:** April 25, 2017, 03:41 »

The problem that is being debated here is how shutter requests reports under the threat of closing accounts. There is a presumption of guilt of the photographer by shutter. Closing threat ... almost like shooting first and asking later.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock is unsafe. (Read 18744 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

StockPhotosArt.com

StockPhotosArt.com

GraniteCove

GraniteCove

Justanotherphotographer

GraniteCove

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors