Is anyone else opted out of sensitive use and enhanced licenses on SS?

I just got the email that they are no longer permitting it. I'm upset as the royalties for EL's are extremely low. They use to be awesome but those days are long gone.

I feel like more changes may be coming too with the new shakeup. Any thoughts?

Maybe it's time I start removing some files. I remember their new TOS saying you are only allowed to remove so many per month as I recall ...

You�re receiving this email because you�ve opted out of Enhanced Licenses and/or Sensitive Use of your content.

To simplify options for our Shutterstock Premier customers, and to expand the visibility of your work, Shutterstock will be removing the Enhanced License and Sensitive Use opt-outs on Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

No action is required on your part. From March 3, your content will be licensable by all Shutterstock customers, including those who need Enhanced License usage and who intend to use your content in specific sensitive contexts. Your earnings potential from these premium license types is generally greater than from our Standard Licenses.
�    Enhanced Licenses allow customers to use your content in high-profile projects, such as film and television, incorporation into merchandise for sale, wall art for commercial spaces, and print runs over 500,000.
�    The concept of Sensitive Use only applies to content featuring models. Customers will be able to use your model-released content for certain potentially sensitive purposes, specifically limited to: promotion of tobacco products, implying mental or physical impairment, or use in political contexts.
�    Customers are never permitted to use your content in a way that is defamatory, deceptive, pornographic, libelous, obscene, or illegal.

Again, no action is required from you, but if you wish to make your content unavailable for download, you can delete single images from your portfolio by using your Catalog Manager.

For more information on how customers can use your work, check out the Shutterstock License Agreement.

Thanks,
Shutterstock Contributor Operations Team

Talk about changing the rules in the middle of the game. Geez.

Several MR forms that they accept have sensitive use or "no defamatory use" clauses in them. So how would they licence those for sensitive use? There's no way they'd be going through them to check which they can legally licence as such. Seems like a minefield for them.

That must be a PITA for those who opted out, having assured their models that their images would not be used in one/some/all of these contexts.

Especially when you have to delete individual photos as there is no batch facility. SS is a high tec company with world class IT it would be easy to create a facility to delete photos using certain (or all) model releases. Except they don't have world class IT and they don't care....

Quote from: angelawaye on February 24, 2020, 14:38

�    Enhanced Licenses allow customers to use your content in high-profile projects, such as film and television, incorporation into merchandise for sale, wall art for commercial spaces, and print runs over 500,000.

I get why we opt out from sensitive use, I did it too. But why opt out from Enhanced Licenses? What's wrong with those? Customers pay good money for those and let them use as they want. What is it I missed? It's not a rhetoric question, I really want to know.

IIRC, SS tried to bully 'encourage' people into accepting sensitive use by lumping it together with enhanced licences. If you opted out of SU, you weren't eligible for ELs.

Quote from: Opalescence on February 25, 2020, 05:12

Quote from: angelawaye on February 24, 2020, 14:38

�    Enhanced Licenses allow customers to use your content in high-profile projects, such as film and television, incorporation into merchandise for sale, wall art for commercial spaces, and print runs over 500,000.

I get why we opt out from sensitive use, I did it too. But why opt out from Enhanced Licenses? What's wrong with those? Customers pay good money for those and let them use as they want. What is it I missed? It's not a rhetoric question, I really want to know.

IIRC it also had to do with the fact that they were paying peanuts for enhanced licenses.

Yes, that's what Angela, the OP said: "... the royalties for EL's are extremely low. They use to be awesome but those days are long gone. "

Quote from: Opalescence on February 25, 2020, 05:12

Quote from: angelawaye on February 24, 2020, 14:38

�    Enhanced Licenses allow customers to use your content in high-profile projects, such as film and television, incorporation into merchandise for sale, wall art for commercial spaces, and print runs over 500,000.

I get why we opt out from sensitive use, I did it too. But why opt out from Enhanced Licenses? What's wrong with those? Customers pay good money for those and let them use as they want. What is it I missed? It's not a rhetoric question, I really want to know.

IIRC, SS tried to bully 'encourage' people into accepting sensitive use by lumping it together with enhanced licences. If you opted out of SU, you weren't eligible for ELs.

Sensitive use and enhanced licenses have always had separate opt outs. If you opted out of sensitive use you effectively opted out of SODs, which could be the biggest payers.

Is anyone else opted out of sensitive use and enhanced licenses on SS? (should be SOD?)

I just got the email that they are no longer permitting it. I'm upset as the royalties for EL's are extremely low. They use to be awesome but those days are long gone.

I feel like more changes may be coming too with the new shakeup. Any thoughts?

Nope I wouldn't get that, because I'm not opted out of anything.

But mark me wrong, as they left that out of the new TOS and I supposed it was just an oversight. WRONG!


Can I use Images for sensitive subjects?

All Images:
Shutterstock images may not be used together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content. Using images may also not be used in a way that infringes upon any third party's trademark or intellectual property.

Images With Recognizable People:
There are additional restrictions if the image depicts a person who is recognizable:

    tobacco promotions

    ads for adult entertainment or similar clubs and escort or dating services

    political ads

    implying that a model is sick or took medication

    defamatory, unlawful, offensive or immoral content--for example implying that a model is a criminal or suffers from a physical or mental infirmity.

However, you may use images that do not depict a recognizable person.

https://www.shutterstock.com/support/article/Can-I-use-Images-for-sensitive-subjects

I don't know why we'd have to opt out of sensitive use if it's not allowed anyway? Or does that mean, even though it's not allowed, someone could license the images, with permission of SS as an SOD? I'm happy I don't really shoot anything that could be abused, easily.

Yes, I'd agree, more changes likely. I'm not looking forward to the next surprises.

Shutterstock    60.2
AdobeStock    58.3

Just marking that poll rank at the end of a month, instead of the first days.

Which of the other major sites have similar opt outs...does Adobe?

So no other sites have sensitive use opt-outs?

...The EL's are pennies now....

That's not my experience with SS.

I had opted out of ELs when they changed from a flat $28 royalty to a 30% (or whatever your percentage is). I used to say yes to any EL emails $28 or over and no to anything less. After a year or so it appeared that the SODs had dried up and I suspected that it was somehow tied to the EL opt out - something like only showing their corporate clients files where they could buy any type of license. I opted back in to ELs.

The SODs came back - or it appeared that way to me - and although there was an occasional low EL (I think $16 was the lowest I ever saw) I figured it was better to leave ELs turned on. My most recent EL - they aren't frequent any more - was for $29.50. I have seen low value SODs, but never an EL at $1.50.

I don't have any images where the content makes it an issue for uses that might have been covered by the "sensitive use" option, so I never opted out of that.

Seems like iStock doesn't have built in specific non-use provisions.

Assuming you really meant iStock, it's in the Content Licence:

"3 Restricted Uses.
    a No Unlawful Use. You may not use content in a pornographic, defamatory or other unlawful manner.
...
    b Sensitive Use Disclaimer Required. If you use content that features models or property in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person (for example, sexually transmitted diseases), you must indicate: (1) that the content is being used for illustrative purposes only, and (2) any person depicted in the content is a model. For example, you could say: "Stock photo. Posed by model." No disclaimer is required for "editorial use only" content that is used in an editorial manner."

You then have to wonder what a 'reasonable person' is. It's presumably what in UK Law is "The Man in the Clapham Omnibus"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus