Quote from: Pauws99 on February 20, 2021, 11:31

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.

Quote from: panicAttack on February 20, 2021, 14:33

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 20, 2021, 11:31

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.

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.

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

No, it won't, Nikola.

Quote from: H2O on February 20, 2021, 16:22

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!)

Quote from: H2O on February 20, 2021, 16:22

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.

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 20, 2021, 19:52

....
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.

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 21, 2021, 03:02

Quote from: panicAttack on February 21, 2021, 02:20

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 20, 2021, 19:52

....
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.

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 21, 2021, 04:29

Quote from: panicAttack on February 21, 2021, 03:43

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 21, 2021, 03:02

Quote from: panicAttack on February 21, 2021, 02:20

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 20, 2021, 19:52

....
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

�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/

Quote from: pics2 on February 19, 2021, 11:33

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.

Quote from: panicAttack on February 21, 2021, 02:20

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 20, 2021, 19:52

....
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. I�m 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 someone�s personal information (although he mistakenly says it�s 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 don�t 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.

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on February 21, 2021, 14:16

Quote from: panicAttack on February 21, 2021, 02:20

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 20, 2021, 19:52

....
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. I�m 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 someone�s personal information (although he mistakenly says it�s 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 don�t 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.