Author Topic: Shutterstock is unsafe. (Read 18747 times)

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock is unsafe. (Read 18747 times)

jonbull

jonbull

skysense

trek

GraniteCove

Pauws99

GraniteCove

Mantis

MillesTeam

MillesTeam

MillesTeam

MillesTeam

MillesTeam

MillesTeam

MillesTeam

MillesTeam

MillesTeam

Justanotherphotographer

jonbull

jonbull

MillesTeam

GraniteCove

Jo Ann Snover

Pauws99

SpaceStockFootage

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors