MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Uber drivers are workers, will this affect the Stock industry?  (Read 1419 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

H2O

« on: February 19, 2021, 10:11 »
+1
Uber drivers are workers, UK supreme court rules

Will this affect the Stock industry?

Part of the ruling was drivers were considered to be employees because they didn't set the fairs.

This is exactly the same as in Microstock, except for a few I can think of, Pond 5, Envato and Creative Markets.

Maybe this ruling will have a impact on Shutterstock.

 


« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2021, 10:13 »
+9
"Will this affect the Stock industry?"

No.

H2O

« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2021, 10:21 »
+1
"Will this affect the Stock industry?"

No.

That's what Uber said.

Here is more of the ruling coving contracts which may also have implications:-

The supreme court said any attempt by organisations to draft artificial contracts intended to side-step basic protections were void and unenforceable.

Judges criticised the controversial contracts Uber asked their drivers to sign, saying they can be seen to have as their object precluding a driver from claiming rights conferred on workers by the applicable legislation.

« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2021, 10:47 »
+5
That's what Uber said.

$5 says it'll have no effect on anything related to stock photography sales.

« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2021, 10:58 »
+1
Interesting. Let me start off by saying no, it wont affect us.

Academically though apparently the court mainly considered these elements in its judgement:

1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn. True for us with all the main agencies. They also control who sees our work and can bury or promote anyone they like in the searches. They can also send our work to partners without even consulting us as to where it is going

2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them. Very true for us

3.  Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides. See 1, there are similar parallels for us too. Also agencies suspending uploads if you have too many similars etc.

4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings this does not improve Again a very parallel relationship to the one we have with the agencies with regards to similars, noise etc.

Looking at these and other factors, the court determined that drivers were in a position of subordination to Uber where the only way they could increase their earnings would be to work longer hours.

So all in all we are in a very similar situation as Uber drivers, but so are lots of people in lots of industries. I have seen the term "Uberisation" used to describe lots of things and it's all true, but we are way down the list in terms of exploitation. Plus they can just ditch any one of us that are in a country that cares about our rights if there is a similar ruling. Uber drivers have to be where the market is.

« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2021, 11:07 »
+4
"Looking at these and other factors, the court determined that drivers were in a position of subordination to Uber where the only way they could increase their earnings would be to work longer hours."

Except that licensing intellectual property, and not actually requiring your physical presence, this isn't true.  You could increase earnings by having more content, for example and that doesn't necessarily equate to working longer hours.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2021, 11:09 »
+2
That's what Uber said.

$5 says it'll have no effect on anything related to stock photography sales.

We are self employed, commission workers, not even close to employee. Consider all the other businesses that work straight commission, will they be flipped as well.

"This verdict will undoubtedly have far and wide-reaching implications for all gig economy operators and will make it harder for companies engaging people via digital platforms to assert that they are self-employed, despite contractual documentation which may state otherwise,

Yes, in effect if this gets applied in the UK, the decision will put every individual artist using the internet as a means to make money - Out Of Business. But since sanity actually prevailed in California, the same claims were rejected, or in other words, the workers are not employees.

California voters supported Proposition 22, which lets Uber and Lyft continue to treat their drivers in the state as independent contractors rather than employees entitled to benefits. Of course that could still change. But parts of the issue were, the company told workers how much they should work, hours and other things. In our case, no one says, upload ## images a week or you won't work for us.

Not going to happen to Microstock and if it does, you can mark your account dead, except for the big volume contributors.

"Uberism" I learned a new word today.  :)

I'll make the same offer, $5.00 as a donation to the charity of your choice H2O, if this changes Micostock as a whole.

I'm not going to say that this won't hurt some agency (and there is at least one now) that says, if you don't make sale or you don't upload enough, you'll have to pay a fee to have your images hosted. That's going to put them into the employer category. Fun to watch.

FAA, Zazzle, Redbubble, Etsy and the rest, we set prices, we work when we want, no effect on those.

« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2021, 11:09 »
+3
Stock contributors are not compensated by the task (or hours worked). The level of control by agencies over the content contributors upload is minimal and over the quantity virtually non-existent.

Adhesion contracts ( take it or leave it where there's no real "meeting of the minds") are used in dry cleaning; that doesn't make dry cleaning like stock agency supply agreements. In other words, not every unreasonable or unfair contract is similar.

An Uber driver can't be driving on multiple journeys simultaneously for multiple ride hailing companies, but stock contributors can license content multiple times via multiple agencies at the same time. Driving a car to ferry passengers is inherently a different type of activity from receiving royalties for music, stock licenses, book sales or any other activity related to intellectual property. Ours isn't an "hours worked" type of business.

No comparison, and unfortunately no sign of legal relief from the outrageous contracts stock agencies use.

« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2021, 11:33 »
+2
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.

« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2021, 11:56 »
+1
Uber drivers are workers, UK supreme court rules

Will this affect the Stock industry?

Part of the ruling was drivers were considered to be employees because they didn't set the fairs.

This is exactly the same as in Microstock, except for a few I can think of, Pond 5, Envato and Creative Markets.

Maybe this ruling will have a impact on Shutterstock.

Seeing as most stock agencies are not based in the United Kingdom how on earth do you even begin to think that this ruling would in any way shape or form have an effect on the the stock industry?  :o

Plus what Jo Ann said above which I agree with.

« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2021, 11:56 »
+3
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.

Oh I hope that was a tongue in cheek statement  ::)

H2O

« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2021, 13:14 »
0

No comparison, and unfortunately no sign of legal relief from the outrageous contracts stock agencies use.

Thanks for all the replies I generally agree with all of them, in that I can't see Microstock agencies taking any notice, especially as most of them are based in America.

But I do think there is a pointer in this to how the market will play out in the future, the 'outrageous contracts' are really the crux of the matter for all Contributors, it was only a couple of years ago that Envato changed there Site so that you can set the price.

It would only take Adobe to make this move to flatten Shutterstock.

« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2021, 20:10 »
+1
It could effect stock industry if we go to court like those 25 Uber drivers decided to go, but not for employees benefits but to put some regulations so it's not possible to change terms of use retroactively. Things will change on Internet also in next few years. This will be tough fight but we unfortunately must fight for our rights.

It doesn't matter where company is based if EU decide not to allow those shady deals with changing terms we never agreed upon then agency can loose whole EU market.

Also in Germany is already against the law not to report where your image is used or in EU to prohibit rights to protect my rights on court in case of image usage violation. Agency have to provide you all buyer contact details and they do if you know how to ask even it's not in their terms of use.

Uber driver can also leave like we can, so it doesn't matter.

We need patience.

« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2021, 20:57 »
+2
a better comparison is with writers who work with publishers & receive royalties

« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2021, 23:41 »
+1
It is not the first country in Europe to sentence this and other companies.

On our topic. In theory they do not tell us what we have to do, nor schedules, nor exclusivity.

Another thing is, perhaps and supposedly, those collaborators who guide them what jobs they should do, some agency. There is the possibility of being similar to salaried workers that group of special collaborators. Of course, I do not know their contracts and I do not know everything.

Another problem in this concept is, if the company provides you with the work material.

Clients from the European Union will have access, free files, the deadline is running out and I do not believe that the agencies have taken steps to ensure that the files they have in their possession have the correct and adequate copyright. Therefore, the fines can be outrageous if there are stolen files for sale.

The famous article 13, which has been given a period of two years to adapt the companies to fight against this issue. It is no longer useful to delete a stolen file in a short period of time, nor to rely on the good faith of the collaborators. Those responsible are the companies.

There are other problems in the world now, but at any moment the dance will begin.

YouTube has been trying for a long time to avoid this problem in its videos. I suppose that the agencies have also invested time, infrastructure and money in this matter.

« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2021, 05:47 »
0
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.

Oh I hope that was a tongue in cheek statement  ::)
Kind of :) Sometimes I feel better looking at things from a different perspective. Otherwise I get depressed.

« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2021, 06:34 »
+1
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.

I know you were joking but to reply for others who maybe think different:

agencies choose price
agencies choose commission
agencies choose discounts
agencies choose even free promotions
agencies choose partners (and their commission)
agencies choose content (rejecting or accepting)

we can only choose to be with them or not (as all others, Uber drivers, workers etc.)

all of this was "under the radar" and will not go for a long time, that's why agency opening their own studios to do their own content because they know it can't continue to go like. Or they will go full AI generated content. (EU directive will soon became law)

as I said, times are changing as we all can see, and I expect in some future there will be no more single image on internet without copyright name, as well as not knowing where your image is bought and in what contest used will be past.

will this all go for better or worst to us, I don't know.


H2O

« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2021, 08:28 »
0
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.

I know you were joking but to reply for others who maybe think different:

agencies choose price
agencies choose commission
agencies choose discounts
agencies choose even free promotions
agencies choose partners (and their commission)
agencies choose content (rejecting or accepting)

we can only choose to be with them or not (as all others, Uber drivers, workers etc.)

all of this was "under the radar" and will not go for a long time, that's why agency opening their own studios to do their own content because they know it can't continue to go like. Or they will go full AI generated content. (EU directive will soon became law)

as I said, times are changing as we all can see, and I expect in some future there will be no more single image on internet without copyright name, as well as not knowing where your image is bought and in what contest used will be past.

will this all go for better or worst to us, I don't know.

I think you are absolutely right, America where most of the agencies are based are behind the curve on legislation; copyright and usage control are coming, this will be by mutually agreed contracts, some may laugh at this, in reality the UK Uber ruling was about 'artificial contracts'.

The ruling made it quite clear these are unenforceable.

The EU are already looking at this across loads of internet companies, when it comes down to exploitation, which again is basically what these contracts are, they will legislate to change this.

Shutterstocks business model has at the maximum ten years, maybe less, they may even end up being fined.

As for 'better or worst to us', it can only be better.


« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2021, 11:31 »
+5
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

H2O

« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2021, 11:46 »
0
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

It's all very well saying this, in reality the Agencies are always changing the Contracts, so you start off with a reasonable contract and then over the years after you have put a great deal of time and effort into the portfolios they change the terms you originally signed up for.

This is not being compelled to sign, this is being forced to sign.

« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2021, 12:04 »
+2
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

It's all very well saying this, in reality the Agencies are always changing the Contracts, so you start off with a reasonable contract and then over the years after you have put a great deal of time and effort into the portfolios they change the terms you originally signed up for.

This is not being compelled to sign, this is being forced to sign.
and you can leave. I'm not saying I like it but to put up any kind of case is next to impossible. If they required exclusivity or had any requirements to produce material possibly. The Uber drivers are considered employees for the time they are logged into the app how would that work?

« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2021, 12:34 »
+2
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.

I know you were joking but to reply for others who maybe think different:

agencies choose price
agencies choose commission
agencies choose discounts
agencies choose even free promotions
agencies choose partners (and their commission)
agencies choose content (rejecting or accepting)

we can only choose to be with them or not (as all others, Uber drivers, workers etc.)

all of this was "under the radar" and will not go for a long time, that's why agency opening their own studios to do their own content because they know it can't continue to go like. Or they will go full AI generated content. (EU directive will soon became law)

as I said, times are changing as we all can see, and I expect in some future there will be no more single image on internet without copyright name, as well as not knowing where your image is bought and in what contest used will be past.

will this all go for better or worst to us, I don't know.
I agree with you, but I was half joking half not. Agencies are choosing commissions, discounts, promotions, partners, yes, because it is their job to do. I don't know to do that and I don't want to do that. I hired them to do that :)
But, joke aside, this idea came up on my mind looking at artist gallery relation. And what law applies here. At least, in my country, law recognizes artist as special entity - they are not employees, they are not workers. They sell their copyrighted work through gallery. If law recognizes this specific situation, then there is something about it.

« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2021, 12:37 »
+2
There may be some mileage in looking at the iStock Royalty Free Exclusive agreement, since that effectively says you can't sell ANY of your work anywhere else except through them using the most ubiquitous, widely understood method of distribution. It's quite different to all other exclusive deals which are image exclusive.

« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2021, 14:33 »
+1
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

did you sign anything when contract terms were changed? nobody did

contract can be changed only if both sides agrees, at least in EU, anything other than that is illegal.

retroactively changing terms of use is and will always be illegal if both parties dont agree, and option that we can remove all of our images and leave is not real options because in that way everyone can leave, uber drivers, workers, employees. (yes, we dont have same rights and employees, but uber drivers didn't have few days ago either).

In soon regulated internet market we will have options to agree to new terms or choose not to, where our already approved content stay in same conditions as we agreed and we just don't upload any new content for conditions that we didn't agree upon.

If agencies don't want to work under EU law they can leave 450 millions EU market. But they will not do that, count on that.

« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2021, 15:10 »
+1
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

It's all very well saying this, in reality the Agencies are always changing the Contracts, so you start off with a reasonable contract and then over the years after you have put a great deal of time and effort into the portfolios they change the terms you originally signed up for.

This is not being compelled to sign, this is being forced to sign.

You are not compelled to do anything.

Even Jon Oringer was quite blunt about the latest royalty reductions when he stated publicly that anyone who didn't like should just go and take their portfolios with them.

« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2021, 15:31 »
+1
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

did you sign anything when contract terms were changed? nobody did

contract can be changed only if both sides agrees, at least in EU, anything other than that is illegal.

retroactively changing terms of use is and will always be illegal if both parties dont agree, and option that we can remove all of our images and leave is not real options because in that way everyone can leave, uber drivers, workers, employees. (yes, we dont have same rights and employees, but uber drivers didn't have few days ago either).

In soon regulated internet market we will have options to agree to new terms or choose not to, where our already approved content stay in same conditions as we agreed and we just don't upload any new content for conditions that we didn't agree upon.

If agencies don't want to work under EU law they can leave 450 millions EU market. But they will not do that, count on that.
So do you reckon Stock Sites should be allowed to continue to sell our work if  we decide to leave under the conditions at the time forever? Same logic.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 15:35 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2021, 15:59 »
0
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

It's all very well saying this, in reality the Agencies are always changing the Contracts, so you start off with a reasonable contract and then over the years after you have put a great deal of time and effort into the portfolios they change the terms you originally signed up for.

This is not being compelled to sign, this is being forced to sign.

You are not compelled to do anything.

Even Jon Oringer was quite blunt about the latest royalty reductions when he stated publicly that anyone who didn't like should just go and take their portfolios with them.

Lol, of course he will say that.


« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2021, 16:07 »
0
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

did you sign anything when contract terms were changed? nobody did

contract can be changed only if both sides agrees, at least in EU, anything other than that is illegal.

retroactively changing terms of use is and will always be illegal if both parties dont agree, and option that we can remove all of our images and leave is not real options because in that way everyone can leave, uber drivers, workers, employees. (yes, we dont have same rights and employees, but uber drivers didn't have few days ago either).

In soon regulated internet market we will have options to agree to new terms or choose not to, where our already approved content stay in same conditions as we agreed and we just don't upload any new content for conditions that we didn't agree upon.

If agencies don't want to work under EU law they can leave 450 millions EU market. But they will not do that, count on that.
So do you reckon Stock Sites should be allowed to continue to sell our work if  we decide to leave under the conditions at the time forever? Same logic.

you answered your own question. OUR work. but with this you also confirmed what I wrote, as it makes no sense to sell other people's works for life, even if their creators do not agree.

H2O

« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2021, 16:22 »
0
I believe the EU is looking at what is termed 'Big Tech', at the moment, across the board with these companies the playing field is not level, from tax, contracts and competition, I would bet that the writing is on the wall and the Wild West is over.

Within the next five years a lot of these companies are going to have to abide by new laws, which will be fairer for the citizens and the workers.

Make no mistake the Microstock business will be part of this.

« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2021, 16:32 »
0
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.
Too bad you can't decide how much you pay them.

« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2021, 16:36 »
0
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

did you sign anything when contract terms were changed? nobody did

contract can be changed only if both sides agrees, at least in EU, anything other than that is illegal.

retroactively changing terms of use is and will always be illegal if both parties dont agree, and option that we can remove all of our images and leave is not real options because in that way everyone can leave, uber drivers, workers, employees. (yes, we dont have same rights and employees, but uber drivers didn't have few days ago either).

In soon regulated internet market we will have options to agree to new terms or choose not to, where our already approved content stay in same conditions as we agreed and we just don't upload any new content for conditions that we didn't agree upon.

If agencies don't want to work under EU law they can leave 450 millions EU market. But they will not do that, count on that.
So do you reckon Stock Sites should be allowed to continue to sell our work if  we decide to leave under the conditions at the time forever? Same logic.

you answered your own question. OUR work. but with this you also confirmed what I wrote, as it makes no sense to sell other people's works for life, even if their creators do not agree.
But why do you think they should compelled to sell it using their resources if they don't want to?

« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2021, 17:04 »
+5
Make no mistake the Microstock business will be part of this.

No, it won't, Nikola.

« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2021, 19:52 »
0

Make no mistake the Microstock business will be part of this.

I don't think too many of us should wish for this.

Just think: how many microstockers are able to make a minimum monthly wage now?

If through some absurd regulation, all microstock agencies will be obligated to consider their contributors as employees, the natural consequence will be massive "layoffs", since they will only afford to pay very few of us a minimum wage, not to mention other mandatory benefits.

Firing let's say 95% of the contributors will also translate in culling the database by similar amounts, since they will not be allowed to sell the work of non-employees.
The price asked from customers will skyrocket in order to be able to pay a critical mass of contributors their legal minimum wage.

This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices. The income for all agencies will decline rapidly.

Smaller agencies like DT, DP, 123RF will go bankrupt.

So... think twice before wishing the end of this industry.  ;)

« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2021, 22:11 »
+3
Make no mistake the Microstock business will be part of this.

No, it won't, Nikola.

if we say it 3 times, it will be true!  (or clap loud enough for tinkerbell!)

« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2021, 22:15 »
+1

did you sign anything when contract terms were changed? nobody did

contract can be changed only if both sides agrees, at least in EU, anything other than that is illegal.

retroactively changing terms of use is and will always be illegal if both parties dont agree, ...
 
...
NO! legality depends on the ToS you signed when you joined that allows such practices

« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2021, 01:51 »
0

Make no mistake the Microstock business will be part of this.

I don't think too many of us should wish for this.

Just think: how many microstockers are able to make a minimum monthly wage now?

If through some absurd regulation, all microstock agencies will be obligated to consider their contributors as employees, the natural consequence will be massive "layoffs", since they will only afford to pay very few of us a minimum wage, not to mention other mandatory benefits.

Firing let's say 95% of the contributors will also translate in culling the database by similar amounts, since they will not be allowed to sell the work of non-employees.
The price asked from customers will skyrocket in order to be able to pay a critical mass of contributors their legal minimum wage.

This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices. The income for all agencies will decline rapidly.

Smaller agencies like DT, DP, 123RF will go bankrupt.

So... think twice before wishing the end of this industry.  ;)
The other possibility is that agencies would simply not accept EU contributors.

« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2021, 02:20 »
0

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.


« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2021, 03:02 »
0

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.
The real question is why do you think you are an employee when the agency doesn't even own what you produce? Or perhaps why Shutterstock have a duty to pay you what you think you are worth.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2021, 03:30 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2021, 03:43 »
0

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.
The real question is why do you think you are an employee when the agency doesn't even own what you produce? Or perhaps why Shutterstock have a duty to pay you what you think you are worth.

Where did i wrote that? That we are employees, nonsense.

The real question is why do you think that things don't ever change? 15 years ago you could use stolen music on your youtube video, try it now. 2 years ago social media haven't accused or banned anyone for writing whatever they think is a fact(even i personality don't agree with censorship for whatever reason). 3 days ago uber drivers had no benefits. Today we have no control of our contents, where it will be sold or given away for free. Internet changed a lot in last few years and that's only start.

EU based contributors doesn't have anything to do with that, because it doesn't work like that, but agencies can of course choose not to sell in EU market.

This is beginning to be repeatable and pointless conversation, putting some word i didn't even wrote, time will tell. Cheers and good luck!!

« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2021, 04:29 »
0

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.
The real question is why do you think you are an employee when the agency doesn't even own what you produce? Or perhaps why Shutterstock have a duty to pay you what you think you are worth.

Where did i wrote that? That we are employees, nonsense.

The real question is why do you think that things don't ever change? 15 years ago you could use stolen music on your youtube video, try it now. 2 years ago social media haven't accused or banned anyone for writing whatever they think is a fact(even i personality don't agree with censorship for whatever reason). 3 days ago uber drivers had no benefits. Today we have no control of our contents, where it will be sold or given away for free. Internet changed a lot in last few years and that's only start.

EU based contributors doesn't have anything to do with that, because it doesn't work like that, but agencies can of course choose not to sell in EU market.

This is beginning to be repeatable and pointless conversation, putting some word i didn't even wrote, time will tell. Cheers and good luck!!
The thread is about the judgement that some Uber employees being classed as employees. You agree that we are not employees so we would probably need to look at monopoly and unfair competition laws rather than employment.  I don't think the laws of supply and demand in a capitalist world are going to change anytime soon.  Shutterstock could easily decide what countries they accept contributors from. Music is an interesting parallel. Recorded music per se is now close to worthless so the industry now focusses on value added products such as Vinyl and live music. We have to adopt the same thinking. But you are right in that only time will tell.

« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2021, 04:45 »
0

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.
The real question is why do you think you are an employee when the agency doesn't even own what you produce? Or perhaps why Shutterstock have a duty to pay you what you think you are worth.

Where did i wrote that? That we are employees, nonsense.

The real question is why do you think that things don't ever change? 15 years ago you could use stolen music on your youtube video, try it now. 2 years ago social media haven't accused or banned anyone for writing whatever they think is a fact(even i personality don't agree with censorship for whatever reason). 3 days ago uber drivers had no benefits. Today we have no control of our contents, where it will be sold or given away for free. Internet changed a lot in last few years and that's only start.

EU based contributors doesn't have anything to do with that, because it doesn't work like that, but agencies can of course choose not to sell in EU market.

This is beginning to be repeatable and pointless conversation, putting some word i didn't even wrote, time will tell. Cheers and good luck!!
The thread is about the judgement that some Uber employees being classed as employees. You agree that we are not employees so we would probably need to look at monopoly and unfair competition laws rather than employment.  I don't think the laws of supply and demand in a capitalist world are going to change anytime soon.  Shutterstock could easily decide what countries they accept contributors from. Music is an interesting parallel. Recorded music per se is now close to worthless so the industry now focusses on value added products such as Vinyl and live music. We have to adopt the same thinking. But you are right in that only time will tell.

you are kind of right about music, problem is that those streaming services where billions of people listen to music on their phone is not the same thing as buying music to use it in your commercial project like stock photos works. try to buy some artist music to use in your movie and see is it still worth few cent like just personally listening to it in your home.

agencies (I am not talking here about SS, all of them) are wrong if they think few millions buyers unlimited subscription will translate to photos/illustrations/videos because demand is not the same like almost  few billions people using music streaming services only for their joy and not for business projects.


« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2021, 07:16 »
0

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.
The real question is why do you think you are an employee when the agency doesn't even own what you produce? Or perhaps why Shutterstock have a duty to pay you what you think you are worth.

Where did i wrote that? That we are employees, nonsense.

The real question is why do you think that things don't ever change? 15 years ago you could use stolen music on your youtube video, try it now. 2 years ago social media haven't accused or banned anyone for writing whatever they think is a fact(even i personality don't agree with censorship for whatever reason). 3 days ago uber drivers had no benefits. Today we have no control of our contents, where it will be sold or given away for free. Internet changed a lot in last few years and that's only start.

EU based contributors doesn't have anything to do with that, because it doesn't work like that, but agencies can of course choose not to sell in EU market.

This is beginning to be repeatable and pointless conversation, putting some word i didn't even wrote, time will tell. Cheers and good luck!!
The thread is about the judgement that some Uber employees being classed as employees. You agree that we are not employees so we would probably need to look at monopoly and unfair competition laws rather than employment.  I don't think the laws of supply and demand in a capitalist world are going to change anytime soon.  Shutterstock could easily decide what countries they accept contributors from. Music is an interesting parallel. Recorded music per se is now close to worthless so the industry now focusses on value added products such as Vinyl and live music. We have to adopt the same thinking. But you are right in that only time will tell.

you are kind of right about music, problem is that those streaming services where billions of people listen to music on their phone is not the same thing as buying music to use it in your commercial project like stock photos works. try to buy some artist music to use in your movie and see is it still worth few cent like just personally listening to it in your home.

agencies (I am not talking here about SS, all of them) are wrong if they think few millions buyers unlimited subscription will translate to photos/illustrations/videos because demand is not the same like almost  few billions people using music streaming services only for their joy and not for business projects.

$5 music https://audiojungle.net/search?msclkid=04d4707019f415dcaf481042543d2307&sort=price-asc&tempo=upbeat&utm_campaign=bing_market_aj_en_1_b&utm_content=music_stock_b&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=bing&utm_term=%2Bstock%20%2Bmusic&view=grid

« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2021, 08:07 »
0

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.

I sense the wishful thinking fallacy combined with a poor understanding of how the real economy works.  ;)

Obviously, prices are always passed on to the end customers, the consumers.

And the customers able to afford those inflated prices will be fewer.
Besides, the bulk of the buyers is made by bloggers, and small  companies advertising on social media or their own website, in other words low budget users, who will never afford those high prices.

The customer base will be drastically smaller, and so will be the number of contributing "employees" the agencies will afford to keep and their payroll.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2021, 08:09 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2021, 08:56 »
0
this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

Did I?  They ( or their twin ) is posting the exact same thing on FB including the same wording about retroactive.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/stockcoalition/permalink/444978646740060/

« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2021, 10:06 »
0
this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

Did I?  They ( or their twin ) is posting the exact same thing on FB including the same wording about retroactive.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/stockcoalition/permalink/444978646740060/

I assure you h2o is not that person. And what are you even trying to accomplish sharing private group or personal information here?

« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2021, 13:07 »
0
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.
Too bad you can't decide how much you pay them.
I'm aware they are an expensive employee, but there is no much choice on the market, so I agreed.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2021, 14:16 »
+1

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.

I 'did the math' and even for every contributor at SS to just earn minimum wage (and SS to earn the same as they are now), then SS would either have to increase their customer base by 100 times, or keep their customer numbers the same and increase their revenue per customer by 100 times. I.E. their $1,999 per year subscription would then become their $199,900 a year subscription. 

Do you really think these web design companies would have no problem at all with such prices?

Bottom line... Sean is right.


« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2021, 14:58 »
+1

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.

I 'did the math' and even for every contributor at SS to just earn minimum wage (and SS to earn the same as they are now), then SS would either have to increase their customer base by 100 times, or keep their customer numbers the same and increase their revenue per customer by 100 times. I.E. their $1,999 per year subscription would then become their $199,900 a year subscription. 

Do you really think these web design companies would have no problem at all with such prices?

Bottom line... Sean is right.

Minimum wage? who mentions any minimum wages? you are completely lost.

but this is the internet, trolls are all around us. no worries, I understand.

What I mentioned are the greater rights of copyright authors. where they are sold, whether other people's copyrights are shared for free, whether anyone uses photos and illustrations without paying, etc. 10 years ago, istock had prices that would still be acceptable for most companies today. Im not talking about the times of macro stock when 5 people in town had a camera and you could sell it at the price you wanted. it is a long-forgotten past.

mentions streaming music services, try playing music in a cafe through such services for personal use or playing Netflix movies in public like in a movie theater so I can see if you get a fine.

there is a lot of misunderstanding of the basics here. confusion of non-commercial and commercial use.
 I have said mine many times, I will remind you in year two on this topic. just that much.

Sean publicly shares someones personal information (although he mistakenly says its h2o) against his will which is also punishable by law.

but that is now really all of me on this subject.

about 100 years ago people laughed at workers demanding paid annual leave. imagine, they dont work and someone pays them for it. yesterday they laughed at the uber workers, today they laugh at the fact that the creators of copyright works demand greater rights to their works, that without their knowledge they are not distributed for free, and the same creators of copyright works laugh at them.

no wonder we are where we are.

« Reply #48 on: February 21, 2021, 15:13 »
0

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.

I 'did the math' and even for every contributor at SS to just earn minimum wage (and SS to earn the same as they are now), then SS would either have to increase their customer base by 100 times, or keep their customer numbers the same and increase their revenue per customer by 100 times. I.E. their $1,999 per year subscription would then become their $199,900 a year subscription. 

Do you really think these web design companies would have no problem at all with such prices?

Bottom line... Sean is right.
I'm not sure how you got to that were you assuming contributors are full time? The Uber judgement says they are employed while they are logged into the app. If we were paid for the time we were logged in  loading stock to SS im not sure everyone would be earning more. In fact best best earners would probably be worse off. It just illustrates its absurd to try and class contributors as employees.

« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2021, 15:20 »
0

....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....

this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.

but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.

I 'did the math' and even for every contributor at SS to just earn minimum wage (and SS to earn the same as they are now), then SS would either have to increase their customer base by 100 times, or keep their customer numbers the same and increase their revenue per customer by 100 times. I.E. their $1,999 per year subscription would then become their $199,900 a year subscription. 

Do you really think these web design companies would have no problem at all with such prices?

Bottom line... Sean is right.

Minimum wage? who mentions any minimum wages? you are completely lost.

but this is the internet, trolls are all around us. no worries, I understand.

What I mentioned are the greater rights of copyright authors. where they are sold, whether other people's copyrights are shared for free, whether anyone uses photos and illustrations without paying, etc. 10 years ago, istock had prices that would still be acceptable for most companies today. Im not talking about the times of macro stock when 5 people in town had a camera and you could sell it at the price you wanted. it is a long-forgotten past.

mentions streaming music services, try playing music in a cafe through such services for personal use or playing Netflix movies in public like in a movie theater so I can see if you get a fine.

there is a lot of misunderstanding of the basics here. confusion of non-commercial and commercial use.
 I have said mine many times, I will remind you in year two on this topic. just that much.

Sean publicly shares someones personal information (although he mistakenly says its h2o) against his will which is also punishable by law.

but that is now really all of me on this subject.

about 100 years ago people laughed at workers demanding paid annual leave. imagine, they dont work and someone pays them for it. yesterday they laughed at the uber workers, today they laugh at the fact that the creators of copyright works demand greater rights to their works, that without their knowledge they are not distributed for free, and the same creators of copyright works laugh at them.

no wonder we are where we are.
I think you are confusing people as the thread was about the Uber judgement about drivers being employees. Copyright control is a completely different subject which the Uber judgement only has a distant relationship to.

H2O

« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2021, 16:57 »
0
this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

Did I?  They ( or their twin ) is posting the exact same thing on FB including the same wording about retroactive.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/stockcoalition/permalink/444978646740060/

I am NOT that person, you are just wrong, I'm not even sure why you would say such a thing.

Sure this Nikola has posted something similar, other people are allowed to have the same thoughts, indeed one can often see virtually the same photo on Microstock sites.


« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2021, 17:14 »
+1
this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.

Did I?  They ( or their twin ) is posting the exact same thing on FB including the same wording about retroactive.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/stockcoalition/permalink/444978646740060/

I am NOT that person, you are just wrong, I'm not even sure why you would say such a thing.

Sure this Nikola has posted something similar, other people are allowed to have the same thoughts, indeed one can often see virtually the same photo on Microstock sites.

Don't even try to explain anyone here anything, time waste and pointless.

Shortsight is only word that can describe here.

Btw we are twins if you didn't know that.

« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2021, 19:28 »
+1

Minimum wage? who mentions any minimum wages? you are completely lost.

As soon as the contributors are declared "employees", their employer must comply with the minimum wage laws:

The Act requires that employees must receive at least the minimum wage and may not be employed for more than 40 hours in a week without receiving at least one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for the overtime hours.


A minimum wage of $7.25/hour or even up to $15/hour, in some states, would translate into something between $1,232/month/agency, up to $2,550/month/agency.

So if you are currently not in that neighborhood you'll be fired as soon as such a stupid law is enacted.
Or maybe you are among the good ones who can make that amount on SS or AS, but you will still be fired by DT, DP, 123RF, etc before they will have no option left but to declare bankruptcy.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2021, 20:53 by Zero Talent »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2021, 11:10 »
+2

Minimum wage? who mentions any minimum wages? you are completely lost.

As soon as the contributors are declared "employees", their employer must comply with the minimum wage laws:

The Act requires that employees must receive at least the minimum wage and may not be employed for more than 40 hours in a week without receiving at least one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for the overtime hours.


A minimum wage of $7.25/hour or even up to $15/hour, in some states, would translate into something between $1,232/month/agency, up to $2,550/month/agency.

So if you are currently not in that neighborhood you'll be fired as soon as such a stupid law is enacted.
Or maybe you are among the good ones who can make that amount on SS or AS, but you will still be fired by DT, DP, 123RF, etc before they will have no option left but to declare bankruptcy.

Plus the people arguing how this could turn things upside down, either they haven't read the article or don't understand what it says. I don't know how someone can post a claim and mistaken interpretation. Or how someone else jumps in with conclusions about contracts, when that is a simple matter of choice. We can accept or leave.

Uber drivers are workers, UK supreme court rules
Not quite true.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/19/tech/uber-uk-workers/index.html

"We respect the Court's decision which focused on a small number of drivers who used the Uber app in 2016."

"The UK court decision comes just months after Californians voted to make Uber and other gig economy companies exempt from state laws requiring them to class their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. "

What could happen is many less drivers in the UK, maybe this will kill off agencies for our images, in countries that enact this law. OR the companies would move to places that don't have the laws.

Real bottom line, there's no way that stock agencies will ever pay us minimum wage, or call us employees. This is meaningless in relation to independent commission creatives.

will this affect the Stock industry?

In regards to our pay or status as an employee? No

Uber will re-word the contracts and change the standards, benefits and conditions. But the drivers will not be employees, because they will adjust to fit the terms of the law that will not identify the drivers as employee class people.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3532 Views
Last post January 06, 2008, 04:16
by stock_fan
52 Replies
13518 Views
Last post June 26, 2008, 17:26
by louoates
7 Replies
3078 Views
Last post August 22, 2010, 11:32
by click_click
57 Replies
11102 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 03:33
by cascoly
1 Replies
2065 Views
Last post December 18, 2015, 11:46
by PeterChigmaroff

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle