pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Uber vs microstock  (Read 8134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2016, 04:33 »
+2
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.   

I thought Uber drivers chose when they worked, just as we chose when to produce images?

We chose when to work, but once we are working we get no say as to who we sell to and how we price images, and all the other pints above. I just think the parallel is interesting. I always thought there was no comparison too until I read the judgement.


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #51 on: October 31, 2016, 05:09 »
+2
Sure, we choose when to produce images... but the production of those images is of no benefit to Shutterstock. The only benefit to SS is if we then upload those images, those images are considered worthy of going live on the site, and those images then sell.

The benefit to Uber is much more direct. Customers call a ride, the driver gets told where to pick them up, where to drop them off, and that's what the driver does. Then Uber get paid X and and the driver can get paid Y. They can work when they want, but when they do decide to work, then they are very much told what to do and when... whereas we arent.

Couple of things to consider though, if hell does freeze over...

A) Everyone would have to be exclusive. They're not going to want to pay people to produce images and then have them selling them elsewhere. 

B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?


« Reply #52 on: October 31, 2016, 06:02 »
0
Sure, we choose when to produce images... but the production of those images is of no benefit to Shutterstock. The only benefit to SS is if we then upload those images, those images are considered worthy of going live on the site, and those images then sell.

I drive my car but it is only of benefit if an Uber customer is in there.

The benefit to Uber is much more direct. Customers call a ride, the driver gets told where to pick them up, where to drop them off, and that's what the driver does. Then Uber get paid X and and the driver can get paid Y. They can work when they want, but when they do decide to work, then they are very much told what to do and when... whereas we arent.

I don't think that was a major factor in the ruling. I mean as a self employed contractor when you offer a service all the above can be true, and in both cases you can walk off the job. All this would be true of a taxi driver who is an employee of a taxi cab company too.

Couple of things to consider though, if hell does freeze over...

A) Everyone would have to be exclusive. They're not going to want to pay people to produce images and then have them selling them elsewhere. 

Could be the case, but not sure as the benefit of having a bigger library could be more than having exclusive content. Who knows?

B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?

Excellent point and pretty much invalidates all my other arguments. It was interesting while it lasted...

« Reply #53 on: October 31, 2016, 06:55 »
0
Quote
B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?



In this case the car shoud belong to Uber (Toronto case)

« Reply #54 on: October 31, 2016, 07:04 »
0




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.

The very fact that someone thinks that it is required "by law" makes this discussion far from being non-sensical.

Why do you accept a 3rd party (a government) to interfere between drivers, who frewillingly signed-up their contract, and Uber? Why do you assume that Uber drivers need "protection", to be forced on them, by a 3rd party? I'm sure a lot of them are fine, as they are. Having a third party interfering in a contract and grab a share of the revenue, under the threat of force, is something worth to be discussed.

Moreover, extrapolating your logic and assumptions, those photographers posting free tutorials on youtube, allowing Youtube to make money from advertising, by exploting their popularity, should also be treated "by law" as youtube employees.
This will be the end of youtube, and the end of the free tutorials you enjoy today, obviously.

Even more, same logic dictates that microstock agencies must be forced "by law" to treat us as employees.

This will also be the end of microstock.

Maybe SS will be able to offer me that status, since I make enough sales for them to hire me. But all the other agencies, I currently work with, will have to fire me, because I will become too expensive for them.
So you think I need protection from the government? No, I don't.
The protection you want imposed on me, will make me lose at least half of my revenue.
So, please leave me without your non-sensical "protection", I'm fine as I am today.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


« Reply #55 on: October 31, 2016, 07:11 »
+2
The law provided protection for employees. You can like that or not, but that isn't the point being discussed.

The discussion is about whether the drivers are in fact employees or not, not about whether there should be any protection for employees full stop. If they are employees they are entitled to the same protection as other employees.


« Reply #56 on: October 31, 2016, 07:13 »
0
Quote
B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?


In this case the car shoud belong to Uber (Toronto case)
Thanks for clearing that up I guess?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #57 on: October 31, 2016, 07:53 »
+1
Quote
B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?



In this case the car shoud belong to Uber (Toronto case)


Wrong! The work for hire on SS would be the images or video you create. The work for hire on Uber is delivering somebody from A to B...  Uber own 'the ride', so they can charge for the ride and the driver can't. They don't own the car!

Yes, you need a car to.work for Uber, but that's not what they're selling. They're selling a service that is carried out with the use of a car.

Just like when somebody hires a wedding photographer. They own the prints and not the camera. A caterer, they own the food created and not the kitchen knives.

« Reply #58 on: October 31, 2016, 08:09 »
+1
We dont sell videos or images. We selling right to ride on them ;) And our car is iMac

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2016, 08:37 »
+1
iMac? Oh right, sorry... I didn't realise this was just your hobby. Sorry if all this is going over your head slightly.

😉

« Reply #60 on: October 31, 2016, 09:26 »
0
The law provided protection for employees. You can like that or not, but that isn't the point being discussed.

The discussion is about whether the drivers are in fact employees or not, not about whether there should be any protection for employees full stop. If they are employees they are entitled to the same protection as other employees.

You are right! The law is providing protection for employees. But for the employees of those  well established, old school, taxi companies, lawmakers and lobbyist get their sponsorship from.

When Uber drivers are forced to become employees, the same law will obviously work against them. Uber drivers, with other primary jobs, willing to work only now and then, let's say only during weekends, will become too expensive for Uber, when Uber is forced to pay for that employee a "protection tax", you take so easily for granted.
The "protection tax" will be passed on to the consumer, reducing the total amount of rides and making the services too expensive for some customers. We can also analyse additional negative implications on the local economy, but I'll leave that for some other time.

At the end of the day, the camera is for us what the car is for Uber drivers. We can use it for leisure or for an extra buck, through microstock or transportation services.

The fact that we sell our work through the royalty system, is not really relevant to the discussion. As mentioned by Ilyas, Uber drivers sell the usage of their car and their driving skills, the same way we sell the usage of our photos, or even more: the usage of our camera and our photography skills.

Uber is doing marketing and billing. This is no different than what microstock agencies do for us.

Moreover, may I remind you that some microstock sites (eg Dreamstime) allow you to sell your work in one go, by selling your "rights" forever.

The resemblance between disrupting, innovative, crowd-sourced businesses like Uber, Airbnb, microstock etc is obvious.

I really hope that we will not end-up being regulated as an industry, we will not end-up being required, by some bureaucrats, to become "certified" photographers, or being driven out of business, when forced to swallow that so called employee "protection".


« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 11:13 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #61 on: October 31, 2016, 17:29 »
+1
These companies are just following the already successfuliy established stockphoto market for their company structures, how we have allowed ourselves to be  truly shafted by companies that have NO interest in photography commercially or artistically they just see us as a GREAT source of CHEAP labour. We are just not desribed as that. Can you imagine a Barrister, Accountant, Surgeon working for an organisation that tells them that they will take 90% of the fees they charge and not allow them to work elsewhere, then sell their services to third and fourth even 20th parties, and then saying you will only get paid 50% of what their services are paid for.
Or and when someone steals your images (services) they say, it's to hard to procecute.
And worst of all they HIDE behind corporate business structures.


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #62 on: October 31, 2016, 21:53 »
0
I think the massive thing that separates the two is that although your doctor might be getting $20,000 a year rather than $200,000 with them taking 90%.... in this game, that doctor has the potential to bill for the same operation.... ten, a hundred, a thousand times over.

In that respect, we're doing pretty well compared to the poor souls over at iDoctor.com

« Reply #63 on: November 02, 2016, 15:34 »
0
http://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms/

We don't work for agencies, they work for us.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
9669 Views
Last post March 28, 2010, 18:01
by ShadySue
72 Replies
20117 Views
Last post July 08, 2011, 15:22
by cathyslife
36 Replies
11603 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:03
by Anyka
6 Replies
2198 Views
Last post September 10, 2014, 04:45
by 3Stock
16 Replies
3134 Views
Last post September 28, 2016, 09:22
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results