Author Topic: Say Bye to Opting-Out (Read 8870 times)

angelawaye · « **on:** February 24, 2020, 12:13 »

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?

Mimi the Cat · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2020, 12:30 »

Oh thats for sure Angela

And you can bet your bottom dollar that rates will be reduced to sub levels and no doubt they'll have some exciting news where we'll get Getty style rates of 1 and 2 cents and no doubt they'll force us to give them 6 months before images are deleted.

They will copy Getty after Jon Oringer jumps ship in April

angelawaye · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2020, 14:07 »

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 ...

Noedelhap · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2020, 14:31 »

Can you share the email from SS? Didn't receive it.

angelawaye · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2020, 14:38 »

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

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2020, 15:55 »

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.

marthamarks · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2020, 17:24 »

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

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2020, 18:02 »

I just finished deleting all my images a couple of weeks ago. Some of my model shots were family, and no way I would have wanted them used for sensitive use. Glad I’m gone.

Yay Images Billionaire · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2020, 22:30 »

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.

wds · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2020, 22:32 »

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

Pauws99 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2020, 02:47 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 24, 2020, 15:55

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....

Opalescence · « **Reply #11 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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2020, 06:51 »

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2020, 07:11 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2020, 07:38 »

Quote from: FastRacer on February 25, 2020, 07:11

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. "

angelawaye · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2020, 07:49 »

Remember when the EL Fairy use to visit.

The EL's are pennies now. It is really unfair what they can do with an EL and you get a few bucks. They would occasionally email me asking for permission for an EL usage. If it was over $20 I would take it and accept but sometimes it would be like $1.50.

I'm deleting a lot of files that I worry about "sensitive use" as well. It's a shame they are doing this.

obj owl · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2020, 08:01 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 25, 2020, 06:51

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** February 25, 2020, 08:13 »

Quote from: obj owl on February 25, 2020, 08:01

Quote from: ShadySue on February 25, 2020, 06:51
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.

Sorry, that's right. I remembered wrongly (and was only going by what I thought I remembered reading here).

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #18 on:** February 25, 2020, 08:30 »

Quote from: angelawaye on February 24, 2020, 12:13

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.

Opalescence · « **Reply #19 on:** February 25, 2020, 08:51 »

Maybe I mixed up now and haven't opted out of anything. Def got some nice Enhanced downloads. Peanuts is what stock is about. Subscriptions bring even less peanuts. I don't have any real treasures out there, nor anything that can be used as defamatory etc.

wds · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2020, 08:56 »

Quote from: wds on February 24, 2020, 22:32

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

So no other sites have sensitive use opt-outs?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #21 on:** February 25, 2020, 09:10 »

Quote from: wds on February 25, 2020, 08:56

Quote from: wds on February 24, 2020, 22:32
Which of the other major sites have similar opt outs...does Adobe?

So no other sites have sensitive use opt-outs?

Honestly, with the terms and use, maybe someone can explain what this change actually means. Was there a way to license images, outside of the blanket restriction?

SS you may not: Shutterstock images may not be used together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content.

Adobe, may not: (d) use the Work in a pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful manner; (e)use the Work in a way that depicts models and/or property in connection with a subject that a reasonable person could consider unflattering, immoral, or controversial, taking into account the nature of the Work, examples of which could include, without limitation, ads for tobacco; adult entertainment clubs or similar venues or services; endorsements of political parties or other opinion-based movements; or implying mental or physical impairment;

Oh edit, I can answer my own question, I found it.

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000006549?l=en_US

Are there any restrictions with a sensitive use license?
Shutterstock will not license Content for use in connection with matter that is pornographic, defamatory or deceptive, or in a manner that could be considered libelous, obscene, or illegal in nature.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #22 on:** February 25, 2020, 09:18 »

Quote from: angelawaye on February 25, 2020, 07:49

...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.

wds · « **Reply #23 on:** February 25, 2020, 11:14 »

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

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** February 25, 2020, 12:22 »

Quote from: wds on February 25, 2020, 11:14

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

oooo · « **Reply #25 on:** February 25, 2020, 14:22 »

if your models successfully sueing,
you pay the model and the taken down advert

with the ss model release, you will likely not get away
by saying you explained all to the model

further content requires EXCPLICIT OPT IN FROM MODELS IN RELEASE
this will become ***** expensive and difficult to find
ss is going lunatic

oooo · « **Reply #26 on:** February 25, 2020, 15:59 »

so one more rant,
the blinkered arrogance to declare this with one week time left
to take any action

this is out of control

OM · « **Reply #27 on:** February 25, 2020, 20:41 »

As George Carlin (RIP) once remarked, " You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. "

wordplanet · « **Reply #28 on:** March 01, 2020, 13:32 »

I used to get a fair number of ELs @ $28 and had only a handful of model-released images so I took them off and stayed with ELs - this year mine have been $14 and $20 so far, pretty par for the course, but as my ELs are mostly travel images, it seemed to make sense at the time. Glad I did now as I'd be in a panic to delete them - my model releases always had no sensitive use language, so I could not (and would not have wanted to) leave them on there anyway.

But this is an outrageous move that will really hurt the big sellers who shoot model released images. How do you change the game this completely? Feel really badly for those of you how do - especially if you use family. What a mess stock imaging has become.

jonbull · « **Reply #29 on:** March 02, 2020, 08:42 »

in my model release there is written clearly all content but pornography and defamatory, so the sensitive option in the ss email don't bother me, and i'm sure they won't bother any professional model who shoot stock, who know their content will be used in any way, and most fo them will not be pissed off to be featured on a tobacco ads for example, different is for top notch model or modelcfor commissioned work....the biog problem arise when u use amateur model , friend or people who don't have any experience.

angelawaye · « **Reply #30 on:** March 02, 2020, 09:07 »

I completely agree. If you use friends or family this is really bad.

marthamarks · « **Reply #31 on:** March 02, 2020, 10:21 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 25, 2020, 09:18

Quote from: angelawaye on February 25, 2020, 07:49
...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.

Last month, I saw my first SS EL in a loooooong time. It came in at $27.86 (which my mind quickly rounded up to $28).

I'd almost forgotten about that kind of sale. Would love to see a trend starting, but alas, one nice sale doth not a trend make.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #32 on:** March 02, 2020, 10:35 »

Quote from: marthamarks on March 02, 2020, 10:21

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 25, 2020, 09:18
Quote from: angelawaye on February 25, 2020, 07:49
...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.

Last month, I saw my first SS EL in a loooooong time. It came in at $27.86 (which my mind quickly rounded up to $28).

I'd almost forgotten about that kind of sale. Would love to see a trend starting, but alas, one nice sale doth not a trend make.

ELs are like the great Auk or the Dodo bird. We've could have seen them in the past, but they are now extinct.

angelawaye · « **Reply #33 on:** March 02, 2020, 11:34 »

I have photos of children and babies and I asked SS about "abortion" images. Looks like clients can use your baby photos for abortion content too. I have a lot of deleting to do today.

'Many people are concerned about the Sensitive Use changes Angela, there is no guarantee from Shutterstock that your images would not be used for abortion images.

This doesn't give much comfort though, sorry!"

oooo · « **Reply #34 on:** March 02, 2020, 13:50 »

Quote

professional model who shoot stock, who know their content will be used in any way, and most fo them will not be pissed off to be

really?
most is not all
+ i would guess most will be pissed by mental impairment for example
+ maybe decide they have not clarified and compensated enough

every country and judge will decide different + different in different cases

it was fine like it was: you got a request when opted out and could then ask the model,
this change is serious shady

just wonder how many not even have read the news

angelawaye · « **Reply #35 on:** March 02, 2020, 14:42 »

I just messaged a Photographer who has a big portfolio of "beautiful woman" and he did not even know about the news.

So I'm guessing there are others who don't know ...

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #36 on:** March 03, 2020, 08:19 »

Quote from: angelawaye on March 02, 2020, 14:42

I just messaged a Photographer who has a big portfolio of "beautiful woman" and he did not even know about the news.

So I'm guessing there are others who don't know ...

There are many who never opted out, so they never got an email notice of something that didn't apply to them. Me for example.

Quote from: angelawaye on March 02, 2020, 11:34

I have photos of children and babies and I asked SS about "abortion" images. Looks like clients can use your baby photos for abortion content too. I have a lot of deleting to do today.

'Many people are concerned about the Sensitive Use changes Angela, there is no guarantee from Shutterstock that your images would not be used for abortion images.

This doesn't give much comfort though, sorry!"

That's terrible. SS needs to make it clear what can or can't be done. The message from Kate seemed to say, most uses wouldn't be allowed, the same as all the other agencies, which have the same restrictions. Only thing I've gotten down to now is, SS shouldn't have a special license at all for sensitive use. And if they removed the opt out, anyone who is worried about potential problems, should be removing anything that could be misused.

Too bad, but there's no other option at this point, but to remove images.

I don't have any, I don't care, I'm not worried, but I fully understand why others are concerned.

oooo · « **Reply #37 on:** March 04, 2020, 14:09 »

Quote

bah for me really you are making something so big actually is not...losing thousand of dollar for fears one image is sold as sensitive use,, considering that model will probably never know about it..

it seems some dont realise the scope of the issue.

-from now its YOU and not ss nor the customer that bears the consequences

-you warrant that content fit to ss guidelines

ss provided the solution:
but if you wish to make your content unavailable for download, you can delete single images
from your portfolio by using your Catalog Manager.
(should be the reason for unlimited delete update)

lets assume your content gets used for the next president campain...
or mental impairment billboard worldwide ..

then you are done my friend

that ss will shut down your portfolio first step at a glance (as one could read here)
will be your SMALLEST problem, for shure

even if you win the case you WILL KNOW what you ve been going through afterwards..

angelawaye · « **Reply #38 on:** March 04, 2020, 14:41 »

Exactly! All it takes is one bad ad campaign to ruin your business and also destroy the model's reputation.

jonbull · « **Reply #39 on:** March 05, 2020, 06:38 »

Quote from: oooo on March 04, 2020, 14:09

Quote
bah for me really you are making something so big actually is not...losing thousand of dollar for fears one image is sold as sensitive use,, considering that model will probably never know about it..

it seems some dont realise the scope of the issue.

-from now its YOU and not ss nor the customer that bears the consequences

-you warrant that content fit to ss guidelines

ss provided the solution:
but if you wish to make your content unavailable for download, you can delete single images
from your portfolio by using your Catalog Manager.
(should be the reason for unlimited delete update)

lets assume your content gets used for the next president campain...
or mental impairment billboard worldwide ..

then you are done my friend

that ss will shut down your portfolio first step at a glance (as one could read here)
will be your SMALLEST problem, for shure

even if you win the case you WILL KNOW what you ve been going through afterwards..

thats why you should move to other country if you shoot model and stock...do you think russian producer care a dime of this?
anyway i doubt what you said...ss didn't let us step down from sensitive usage..they are in the wrong side changing the termite release were accepted...it's a case that every court will see as ss fault not photographer....the send jus t an email, i have not received at all for example, didn't leave any option to photographer.. probably only amateur or friend will be upset, doubt a stock model will. you are free to cancel all your portfolio i won't . and in case it will be ss to lose.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** March 05, 2020, 06:55 »

Quote from: jonbull on March 05, 2020, 06:38

...ss didn't let us step down from sensitive usage..they are in the wrong side changing the termite release were accepted...it's a case that every court will see as ss fault not photographer

Dream on. From the Contributor Terms of Service:
18
The validity, interpretation and enforcement of the TOS, matters arising out of or related to the TOS or its making, performance or breach, and related matters shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of New York (without reference to choice of law doctrine). Subject to the Arbitration Agreement above, any legal action or proceeding concerning the validity, interpretation and enforcement of the TOS, matters arising out of or related to this TOS or its making, performance or breach, or related matters shall be brought exclusively in the courts of the State of New York in the County of New York or of the United States of America for the Southern District of New York, and all parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts, waiving any objection to the propriety or convenience of such venues.
...
Please note that Shutterstock reserves the right to modify these terms at any time in its sole discretion, it being understood that no changes shall apply to any pending arbitration proceeding commenced or legal claims asserted prior to such change. Shutterstock will notify you of any such change by an announcement on this page, your login page, and/or by other means to provide you the opportunity to review the modifications before they become effective. Modifications to these TOS will not apply retroactively. By continuing to make Content available through Shutterstock, you agree to be bound by all such changes. If you do not agree with any of the changes, please remove from Shutterstock, pursuant to the terms herein, all or that portion of your Content to which you do not wish the changes to apply.
There is a possible issue if one was not notified, but how would one establish that legally?

jonbull · « **Reply #41 on:** March 05, 2020, 07:36 »

in my opinion this is insane from ss...for me they did this just to clean most of database...especially those from western world country contributor where legal apply...in eastern world russia ukraine and serbia for example ., nobody will ever care if a model make a problem about the usage of an image, the court will laugh at it, and probably any model will ever consider a problem....they want an agency made only by russian contributor...maybe is that why in their article they use only russian contributors images:),,., even if their portfolio is boring as hell. consider i have 99% of images with model from those country i will not touch an image but i understand th doubts of those using model friend or from country where laws is something serious.

oooo · « **Reply #42 on:** March 05, 2020, 10:24 »

just wondering how professional male and female models (or whatever)
should have less rights than a fotographer,
do some professions (or whatever) have less rights than others in russia and ukraine?

was offtopic, sorry,

it would be nice shutterstock sensitive use opt in out Contributor Operations Team
could leave some more clarification here or anywhere on this move.

trucic · « **Reply #43 on:** March 05, 2020, 10:42 »

Quote from: jonbull on March 05, 2020, 07:36

in my opinion this is insane from ss...for me they did this just to clean most of database...especially those from western world country contributor where legal apply...in eastern world russia ukraine and serbia for example ., nobody will ever care if a model make a problem about the usage of an image, the court will laugh at it, and probably any model will ever consider a problem....they want an agency made only by russian contributor...maybe is that why in their article they use only russian contributors images:),,., even if their portfolio is boring as hell. consider i have 99% of images with model from those country i will not touch an image but i understand th doubts of those using model friend or from country where laws is something serious.

... I will help you with this... all those model can contact you about your concerns... you invested big money and because of your further investments, those people will gladly contact you about clarification...

jonbull · « **Reply #44 on:** March 05, 2020, 11:40 »

Quote from: oooo on March 05, 2020, 10:24

just wondering how professional male and female models (or whatever)
should have less rights than a fotographer,
do some professions (or whatever) have less rights than others in russia and ukraine?

was offtopic, sorry,

it would be nice shutterstock sensitive use opt in out Contributor Operations Team
could leave some more clarification here or anywhere on this move.

unfortunately yes.

jonbull · « **Reply #45 on:** March 05, 2020, 11:43 »

Quote from: oooo on March 05, 2020, 10:24

just wondering how professional male and female models (or whatever)
should have less rights than a fotographer,
do some professions (or whatever) have less rights than others in russia and ukraine?

was offtopic, sorry,

it would be nice shutterstock sensitive use opt in out Contributor Operations Team
could leave some more clarification here or anywhere on this move.

i cant' see another reason because they risk lose thousand millions images if it's like many here are stating.i doubt

oooo · « **Reply #46 on:** March 05, 2020, 20:01 »

was saying offtopic because it dont matters imho

recommend to read #40 attentive, then in particular the first passage,
+consider models havnt agreed TOS but you

georgep7 · « **Reply #47 on:** March 06, 2020, 06:10 »

Ignore comment, a bad day here.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #48 on:** March 11, 2020, 16:43 »

Well if the Corona Virus doesn't get you, and now they have kids wearing shirts that say, we'll all be dead by 2045, here's something else.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/sophiegadd/18-reasons-you-should-never-become-a-stock-image-model

18 People Who Probably Regret Becoming Stock Photo Models

To brighten up your day and sensitive use licenses as possibly offensive to a model. There's one guy posing in front of his poster at a transit shelter.

Makes me glad I don't have any model shots with nice expressions or relatives, that could be abused like these.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Say Bye to Opting-Out (Read 8870 times)

marthamarks

marthamarks

georgep7

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors