pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fornite vs Apple and Google Case is similar to us  (Read 624 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 15, 2020, 19:41 »
+1
https://www.polygon.com/2020/8/14/21368705/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-google-epic-games-tim-sweeney-indie?fbclid=IwAR3MdwMfKJ1gUkMX2xpv58aJk4IFlOZF-vrveCx1GrPcMn1T5PuXVsTKsvs

Fornite vs Apple and Google Case is similar to us. No no no. Our case is much worse.

For our case, Microstock agencies lower our commission however they want. iStock took 85% of the cake. Shutterstock took way more than 85% since they took all the unused downloads as well. I suppose our case here is very similar to that of Fornite (but way worse). Fornite is suing Apple/Google for anti-trust and monopolies. If Fornite win, we might have a case here as well.


« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2020, 04:02 »
+4
First its Fortnite

Second Fortnite publishers: Epic Games, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment so they are corps not individuals, and Epic deliberately baited Apple/Google by offering direct payments to end users to get round app distribution fees.

Epic could do that because Fortnite is hugely popular and the have a lot of end user muscle.

As opposed to stock submitters who are effectively nobody to the likes of SS

Third how are this we you refer too? A bunch of disparate unconnected "artists" who never came together when this sh*t with SS started? and most of them folded and just took the cut

So no I'm sorry it's not similar
« Last Edit: August 16, 2020, 04:05 by Bad Robot »

« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2020, 04:08 »
0
I don't see the similarity here. 

Fortnite sues Apple and Google because their product was removed because Apple/Google did not allow them to offer their products on other platforms for less money than what they were sold for on Google/Apple. Yes, the reason why Fortnite tried this in the first place was because they did not agree with the 30% share Apple and Google takes, but that is not what the laswsuit is about.

That's as if Shutterstock removed our images/videos because we offered them on our own website for a cheaper price but with bigger earnigs for us as we don't have to share our commission. Shutterstock does not care what you sell your images for on other site.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2020, 04:16 by Firn »

« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2020, 04:48 »
+1
I am not sure the analogy is precise but I do not see similarity neither. Epic is using the Google/Apple system and agreed that the Google/Apple system will be taking fees if something is sold through that system. Epic used their system but collected fees elsewhere, so there is clear violation of the policy. It is more like editing an already uploaded and approved image to Shutterstock with a link to alternative payment method. The image will be found with the help of SS system but paid somewhere else if a customer wishes to do so. That is basically not correct especially if Epic agreed not do so (as it is in the Play Store/App Store policies).

And even if Epic wins the lawsuit, it does not relate to our situation. It is about monopoly. SS is not monopoly at all. You have hundreds of microstock sites where you can sell your images and even though SS has a high market share, it is far far far away from monopoly. Really, no connection with SS case. Do not hope for any change at SS in relationship with Apple/Epic case.

« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2020, 05:12 »
+1
I am not sure the analogy is precise but I do not see similarity neither. Epic is using the Google/Apple system and agreed that the Google/Apple system will be taking fees if something is sold through that system. Epic used their system but collected fees elsewhere, so there is clear violation of the policy. It is more like editing an already uploaded and approved image to Shutterstock with a link to alternative payment method. The image will be found with the help of SS system but paid somewhere else if a customer wishes to do so. That is basically not correct especially if Epic agreed not do so (as it is in the Play Store/App Store policies).

And even if Epic wins the lawsuit, it does not relate to our situation. It is about monopoly. SS is not monopoly at all. You have hundreds of microstock sites where you can sell your images and even though SS has a high market share, it is far far far away from monopoly. Really, no connection with SS case. Do not hope for any change at SS in relationship with Apple/Epic case.
There ist some kind of near-monopoly at microstock.
Either you go exclusive at istock, or deliver the big three - istock, shutterstock, Adobe Stock.
Because of this market power shutterstock is in the position to cut fees.
There are no more independent microstock producers. At least for stock images.
Deliver all of the big three, go istock exclusive or leave the game.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2652 Views
Last post February 17, 2011, 12:59
by melastmohican
3 Replies
2432 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 06:33
by jm
13 Replies
5411 Views
Last post October 21, 2013, 08:12
by pixo
8 Replies
2577 Views
Last post January 16, 2014, 01:20
by Jo Ann Snover
13 Replies
1024 Views
Last post June 30, 2020, 12:50
by Tenebroso

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle