Author Topic: Uber vs microstock (Read 14983 times)

Pauws99 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 30, 2016, 08:17 »

No chance......Microstock sites impose no conditions on us that could be construed as employment.

PureArt · « **Reply #26 on:** October 30, 2016, 08:48 »

What conditions does Uber impose? Some fixed working day/time? (I just know almost nothing about their conditions.)

Pauws99 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 30, 2016, 09:07 »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37629628.

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** October 30, 2016, 09:10 »

That ruling only affects uber drivers in the UK and is being challenged.
There's a huge difference with Micro where suppliers are from most countries. If some legal judgement ruled in favour of contributors from one country, the agencies could choose to disallow contributors from that country. If they needed particular locations, plenty people travel widely.
Also, I have no idea about other agencies, but for example when I signed with IS, the contract was very specific about which legislations governed the contract or any disputes, and it wasn't mine (offhand, IIRC, it was Canada, England and one other).

Pauws99 · « **Reply #29 on:** October 30, 2016, 09:14 »

We are more akin to suppliers than employees Mstock agencies impose no conditions on us in terms of targets what we shoot or performance manage us. It sounds to me that the Uber case is quite borderline and no doubt will make lawyers plenty of money.

PureArt · « **Reply #30 on:** October 30, 2016, 09:17 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2016, 09:10

... If some legal judgement ruled in favour of contributors from one country, the agencies could choose to disallow contributors from that country. ...

I thought about that too. But, can they break the contract with existing contributors? They can write: "We do not accept UK contributors any more." (and state some "valid reason"), but what about existing contributors? Just close their accounts?

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** October 30, 2016, 09:26 »

Quote from: PureArt on October 30, 2016, 09:17

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2016, 09:10
... If some legal judgement ruled in favour of contributors from one country, the agencies could choose to disallow contributors from that country. ...

I thought about that too. But, can they break the contract with existing contributors? They can write: "We do not accept UK contributors any more." (and state some "valid reason"), but what about existing contributors? Just close their accounts?

If they wanted to do that, they probably could. Again, I haven't studied other agencies, but iS reserved the right to close your account with IIRC 30 days' notice, just like contributors can request closure of accounts without giving a reason. Micro agencies wouldn't want to have the infrastructure to build in favourable conditions for a subgroup of suppliers, and they'd rather get rid of that subgroup to discourage others.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 30, 2016, 09:32 »

But its not going to happen! Its like saying "Just Eat" employs all the restaurants on their list. How would you even begin to calculate an hourly rate?

PureArt · « **Reply #33 on:** October 30, 2016, 09:42 »

Ok, let's think about another thing: How can contributors control the honesty of a Microstock agency? Amount of sales, the sale price, sales via partners, offline sales, etc.

Is there any legal way like an audit or so?

cathyslife · « **Reply #34 on:** October 30, 2016, 10:32 »

Quote from: PureArt on October 30, 2016, 09:42

Ok, let's think about another thing: How can contributors control the honesty of a Microstock agency? Amount of sales, the sale price, sales via partners, offline sales, etc.

Is there any legal way like an audit or so?

Contributors can control the honesty of agencies by refusing to do business with them, but you are never going to see that happen, for various reasons, like: "my earnings pay my mortgage" or "it's better to make 5 cents per image than nothing at all." Those are just a couple of examples.

ShadySue · « **Reply #35 on:** October 30, 2016, 10:44 »

Quote from: PureArt on October 30, 2016, 09:42

Ok, let's think about another thing: How can contributors control the honesty of a Microstock agency? Amount of sales, the sale price, sales via partners, offline sales, etc.

Is there any legal way like an audit or so?

You can request an audit at iS at your own expense. You need to check your contract with and terms and conditions of all the companies you're considering supplying.

PureArt · « **Reply #36 on:** October 30, 2016, 10:54 »

ShadySue, thank you for your answer. Does "iS" mean "iStock"? Did anybody ever paid for such an audit at iStock? Maybe at any other agency?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 30, 2016, 11:08 »

I think though in practical terms you have to trust them and hope the country they are based enforce the various regulations of that country. Scary really but I see no real alternative. I'm guessing it would cost quite a bit to pay for an audit.

dpimborough · « **Reply #38 on:** October 30, 2016, 11:24 »

The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits. It's parasitical

Zero Talent · « **Reply #39 on:** October 30, 2016, 18:23 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on October 30, 2016, 11:24

The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits. It's parasitical

You forget that the sharing economy provides tons of free stuff, you most probably enjoy every day: free photography tutorials, free photography apps, etc.

I wonder who is that "parasite" in these cases!

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** October 30, 2016, 18:41 »

Quote from: PureArt on October 30, 2016, 10:54

ShadySue, thank you for your answer. Does "iS" mean "iStock"?

Yes

Quote

Did anybody ever paid for such an audit at iStock? Maybe at any other agency?

I have no idea.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #41 on:** October 30, 2016, 18:57 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 30, 2016, 18:23

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on October 30, 2016, 11:24
The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits. It's parasitical

You forget that the sharing economy provides tons of free stuff, you most probably enjoy every day: free photography tutorials, free photography apps, etc.

I wonder who is that "parasite" in these cases!

That's not "the sharing economy". That's just sharing.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #42 on:** October 30, 2016, 19:04 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 30, 2016, 18:57

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 30, 2016, 18:23
Quote from: Teddy the Cat on October 30, 2016, 11:24
The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits. It's parasitical

You forget that the sharing economy provides tons of free stuff, you most probably enjoy every day: free photography tutorials, free photography apps, etc.

I wonder who is that "parasite" in these cases!

That's not "the sharing economy". That's just sharing.

Just sharing, true... but free stuff is part of the economy, like it or not.

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #43 on:** October 30, 2016, 20:08 »

In Toronto Uber now pays for driver's commercial car insurance since the city passed a byline forcing drivers to have it. If they did not pay it, it would be uneconomical for drivers to work. Somehow in the stock photo business people carry on even if it is not economical. Defies logic.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #44 on:** October 30, 2016, 21:53 »

I can't see how it would work. At least with Uber, the drivers are carrying out a defined activity, for a specific amount of time, all of which is pretty constant from one driver to the next.

How would you quantify the time taken to shoot an image or a video? Would my tomato on a plate be worth the same as an aerial polar bear party at the north pole? How would you factor in the cost of props, travel, models etc?

They'd also have to have barriers to entry. Would people get paid for clips that aren't approved? They've put in the time, so they should get paid. As a result, approval rates would drop so tat SS don't have to pay out on clips that might not make them a bunch of money.

If they do have to pay out on clips that aren't approved, and there aren't any barriers to entry, then global unemployment could be eradicated overnight for anyone that owns or buys a camera... just sit at home for eight hours a day taking pictures of your cat and you're guaranteed minimum wage.

Not to mention the direct correlation on Uber of rides booked and wages paid... they know what it costs and they know what they'll make. SS have no idea what they will make from any one image or clip. For it to work, they'd have to reduce commissions considerably to compensate for the massive amounts they'd be paying out in minimum wages. Great for people who don't sell much, really bad for people who were making a lot more than minimum wage in the first place.

So yeah, with the current model, it will never work and it's very unlikely it would ever happen. It would be like the app store paying minimum wage to app developers, or Amazon with e-book writers. The only way it could work is if SS lowered commiasions, dictated how many clips you needed to submit a month, the content of those clips, and a specific level of quality... all of which are reviewed on a regular basis and can result in you getting 'fired'.

I think I'd rather it stayed how it is now!

Zero Talent · « **Reply #45 on:** October 30, 2016, 22:04 »

Quote from: jrwasserman on October 30, 2016, 20:08

In Toronto Uber now pays for driver's commercial car insurance since the city passed a byline forcing drivers to have it. If they did not pay it, it would be uneconomical for drivers to work. Somehow in the stock photo business people carry on even if it is not economical. Defies logic.

You do realise that is not Uber who pays the extra insurance. It is the end user who will have to dig deeper in the pockets for the same ride, to cover for the regulation costs.
It is no different than the city asking its residents to pay an additional transport tax on top of other direct taxations.

When it comes to photography, what defies logic is that we have a lot of microstockers complaining about low royalties, while happily giving their work away, for free, in exchange for "exposure" and other illusions of fame.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

dpimborough · « **Reply #46 on:** October 31, 2016, 02:11 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 30, 2016, 18:23

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on October 30, 2016, 11:24
The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits. It's parasitical

You forget that the sharing economy provides tons of free stuff, you most probably enjoy every day: free photography tutorials, free photography apps, etc.

I wonder who is that "parasite" in these cases!

We are not talking about individuals or companies who choose to share information for free (usually it's done to draw people to sites or in support for existing products and advertising)
but corporations who use zero hours contracts and the so-called sharing economy to avoid their social and economic obligations by not employing a permanent workforce.

Delivery drivers cleaners taxi drivers warehouse staff paid less than minimum wage classed as "self employed" when in actuality they are employees and should be entitled to employment benefits but the employer uses this situation to avoid these societal and legislated costs and place themselves at an advantage over companies that do have employees.

People like you complain about paying "higher" prices but if it supports the self employed and employees I say say good. They have mortgages and bills to pay too and deserve not to be used as indentured or casual labor.

Neither does government and the wider tax paying community need to be loaded with providing social benefits to cover the "sharing economy's" staff when they should be covered by the employer.

In the case of Uber in the UK they effectively avoid the costs of holiday provision, maternity pay, sick pay, training, national inurance contributions and a raft of other items such as employees liability insurance and redundancy cover. They also avoid the costs of health and safety and the implementation of other legal requirements in the work place. Placing the onus of that cost on the worker.

Your inference about the end user of freely provided stuff being a parasite is wide of the mark.

dpimborough · « **Reply #47 on:** October 31, 2016, 03:29 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 30, 2016, 22:04

Quote from: jrwasserman on October 30, 2016, 20:08
In Toronto Uber now pays for driver's commercial car insurance since the city passed a byline forcing drivers to have it. If they did not pay it, it would be uneconomical for drivers to work. Somehow in the stock photo business people carry on even if it is not economical. Defies logic.

You do realise that is not Uber who pays the extra insurance. It is the end user who will have to dig deeper in the pockets for the same ride, to cover for the regulation costs.
It is no different than the city asking its residents to pay an additional transport tax on top of other direct taxations.

When it comes to photography, what defies logic is that we have a lot of microstockers complaining about low royalties, while happily giving their work away, for free, in exchange for "exposure" and other illusions of fame.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

All companies have to be covered by employee, public liability vehicle and property insurance these are all costs to normal companies and are used in accounting to determine overall costs to the company these costs are factored in to the prices charged to customers.

So Uber should be no different. Though they try to work it so they don't have these costs which is an unfair advantage.

To say that a normal company is charging too much when they have to cover these costs that are required by law is a nonesensical argument.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #48 on:** October 31, 2016, 03:44 »

Okay here is the quote I mentioned in the other thread. I don't want to clog that one up as I don't think this is immediately relevant to the IStock case but interesting. This is a list of the main reasons the court found for the drivers posted here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/59ucyb/uber_drivers_in_the_uk_have_won_an_employment/

I have added notes for how it relates to us as microstock photographers:

The key reasons why the tribunal considered Uber drivers as employees are here: https://imgur.com/a/q7iPo
Edit - summary of the key reasons:

Uber has sole and absolute discretion to accept or decline bookings Microstock agencies have sole discretion over when to make sales, and who to allow to sell their work on the site

Uber interviews and recruits drivers Microstock sites test photographers before allowing them to sell and can "sack them" at their discretion

Uber controls key information – passenger contact details and destination in particular. Drivers can’t access such information and don't even know where they are going until the trip starts. Mirostock sites control key information, customer contact details, photographers have no access to the information and don't even know who has licensed their copyright material

Uber requires drivers to accept trips assigned to themMicrostock sites require photographers to sell to customers regardless of who the customer is

Uber sets the default route Microstock sites set all the terms of sale etc.

Uber fixes the fare and drivers can’t negotiate a higher fare or other terms with passengers (as an independent contractor would be able to)Same, microstock sites can arbitrarily change prices, offer our work for sale etc. and we have no say.

Uber imposes fixed conditions such as the type of vehicle that drivers must use and how drivers do their work Microstock sites have fixed conditions of what can be sold on the site in terms of file formats, resolutions etc.

Uber subjects drivers to performance management and disciplinary procedures Same again, account suspensions and so on.

Uber determines issues such as rebates without involving the driverRefunds anyone?

The discontinued guaranteed earnings scheme (fixed pay being a characteristic of employees)
Uber takes on risk of loss such as in the case of fraudulent passengers Also ditto in some caes of fraud, refunds

Uber (not the drivers) handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about drivers Again, same

Uber can amend the drivers’ terms unilaterallyAbsolutely

Forbidding drivers from contacting passengers after rides (someone running a business would normally be able to contact his clients) This too

Using terms like "on-duty" and "off-duty" and referring to "our drivers" and "our vehicles" Our collection, our photographers, also yes

Remember the issue here isn't that we can walk away it is whether we are employees. An employee of a company can also just walk away from their job, even if it a part time one they are still employees and allowed some protection.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #49 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:24 »

That's all well and good, but I think you're missing the main point, which isn't even in your list as it kind of goes without saying... whether they're an employee or an independent contractor, people who work for Uber are given assignments to complete, and they are paid as a result of completing those assignments.

We don't do that. We submit images as and when we like with absolutely no obligation to do so. SS don't tell us to upload stuff and then they pay us for uploading that stuff. We're using their services as a marketplace for us to sell our stock content. We don't work for them in any way shape or form.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Uber vs microstock (Read 14983 times)

Pauws99

PureArt

Pauws99

ShadySue

Pauws99

PureArt

ShadySue

Pauws99

PureArt

cathyslife

ShadySue

PureArt

Pauws99

dpimborough

Zero Talent

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

Zero Talent

jefftakespics2

SpaceStockFootage

Zero Talent

dpimborough

dpimborough

Justanotherphotographer

SpaceStockFootage

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors