MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock New Sub. Model Just Announced!  (Read 25528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: March 05, 2014, 12:45 »
+7
Methinks they're getting confused and thinking the terms protect the "PAYG" RF market:
"Are the other sites selling files with a "use-them-only-as-long-as-you-subscribe" bit? This is a huge difference."

The OP says:
"One difference for subscription licenses vs. images licensed with credits or cash is that customers are required to use the images they download within the term of their subscription. If they dont use the image, the right to use that image terminates when the subscription terminates. For example, if a customer has a one-month subscription, they must use the images they download within that same month in order to continue using that image following the end of the subscription term."

So, as long as you use the image before the term ends, you're fine.  You can use them forever.  Put it on a website during your subscription period, and it's good for all time.  "Use" it in a comp, and you're covered.  There's no definition of "use".   You just can't stockpile a thousand images you don't "use".  Of course, there's absolutely no way for them to police that, but whatever. 

SS: "You may not ... Stockpile or otherwise store downloaded Images that are not used within twelve (12) months of the date on which you first downloaded such Image. If you fail to use an Image within twelve (12) months from the date of your first download of that Image, you lose all rights to use that Image"
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 12:48 by Sean Locke Photography »


« Reply #151 on: March 05, 2014, 12:47 »
+1
On SS I read you must use the file within 12 months. So this is probably a normal thing to do. I understood it was meant to block people from just hoarding files they will never use or dont have immediate projects for.

From the SS standard license:

"20. Stockpile or otherwise store downloaded Images that are not used within twelve (12) months of the date on which you first downloaded such Image. If you fail to use an Image within twelve (12) months from the date of your first download of that Image, you lose all rights to use that Image."

http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?hsb=1&type=standard

eta: Sean was faster...of course ;)
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 12:50 by cobalt »

EmberMike

« Reply #152 on: March 05, 2014, 12:49 »
+1
^^ I've worked for three of the biggest IT companies on the planet and I could say the same thing about any of them. Doesn't mean much really until you put it in context...

Agree 100%. I said some of those things about a company I worked for about 8 years ago. "They're not going anywhere, I'm not optimistic about the future of this company," etc. Well, that little company I left voluntarily and didn't think was going anywhere, they got huge and were acquired by NewsCorp. So when I was getting emails from former coworkers celebrating their rapid increase in value of their stock options, well, I wasn't celebrating because I didn't buy in. Because I'm an idiot and thought some of the things the people above thought about Shutterstock. 

I'm really good at turning my back on good investments. If you ever hear me say that a company is going nowhere, invest in it. I dumped a bunch of stock many years ago for this silly little burrito place that I also thought wasn't going anywhere. It was called Chipotle. Oh, and Bitcoin. I looked at that a few years back and thought "This is dumb, these things won't ever be worth a buck."

My point being that you're right, context matters. Just because some disgruntled former employees don't like the company doesn't mean anything. Generally those employees don't know what they're talking about. Like me. :)


« Reply #153 on: March 05, 2014, 12:52 »
0
On SS I read you must use the file within 12 months. So this is probably a normal thing to do. I understood it was meant to block people from just hoarding files they will never use or dont have immediate projects for.

From the SS standard license:

"20. Stockpile or otherwise store downloaded Images that are not used within twelve (12) months of the date on which you first downloaded such Image. If you fail to use an Image within twelve (12) months from the date of your first download of that Image, you lose all rights to use that Image."

http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?hsb=1&type=standard

eta: Sean was faster...of course ;)


I'm pretty sure they used to have straightforward rule that you had to have an active subscription to be allowed to continue using the file - or was the DT? I'm too lazy to check - in any case, the 12 month rule is potentially even more restrictive.

« Reply #154 on: March 05, 2014, 13:01 »
+1
If an image has to be used within a month or 12 months, or as long as you have a subscription what happens if you post an image on the Internet within the allowed time period and then drop your subscription? Nobody removes documents once they post them on the Internet. Are all those images in violation if the poster doesn't keep an active subscription forever?

« Reply #155 on: March 05, 2014, 13:08 »
+1
If an image has to be used within a month or 12 months, or as long as you have a subscription what happens if you post an image on the Internet within the allowed time period and then drop your subscription? Nobody removes documents once they post them on the Internet. Are all those images in violation if the poster doesn't keep an active subscription forever?
I think it means that a project using it has to be completed and published in that time, after which continued use in that project is allowed.  If there isn't a project you don't need the file.

« Reply #156 on: March 05, 2014, 13:10 »
0
On SS I read you must use the file within 12 months. So this is probably a normal thing to do. I understood it was meant to block people from just hoarding files they will never use or dont have immediate projects for.

From the SS standard license:

"20. Stockpile or otherwise store downloaded Images that are not used within twelve (12) months of the date on which you first downloaded such Image. If you fail to use an Image within twelve (12) months from the date of your first download of that Image, you lose all rights to use that Image."

http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?hsb=1&type=standard

eta: Sean was faster...of course ;)


I'm pretty sure they used to have straightforward rule that you had to have an active subscription to be allowed to continue using the file - or was the DT? I'm too lazy to check - in any case, the 12 month rule is potentially even more restrictive.


As we know Shutterstock recently acquired a digital asset management company used by large enterprises. I wonder if Shutterstock will utilize this software to enforce it's 12 month terms of use clause?  If not this acquisition will just add to and compound the problem and it will reduce the number of times an image will be downloaded by the same company. 

Right now many large corporations are using the subscription model in lieu of digital asset management software to give its marketing and sales teams access to images, video, illustrations. Therefore each time someone on a team uses an instance of an image, it is a paid download. 

Not so for images bought a single time and stored in WebDAM for very large teams to use at will, potentially at the price of one subscription download. The SS/WebDAM model will need to be based on something other than subscription if the images is stored in WebDam for multiple users. The good news is that they could potentially will be able to track how many times each image is used.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/03/shutterstock-acquires-digital-asset-management-service-webdam/
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 14:47 by gbalex »

ShadySue

« Reply #157 on: March 05, 2014, 13:27 »
+2
If an image has to be used within a month or 12 months, or as long as you have a subscription what happens if you post an image on the Internet within the allowed time period and then drop your subscription? Nobody removes documents once they post them on the Internet. Are all those images in violation if the poster doesn't keep an active subscription forever?
I think it means that a project using it has to be completed and published in that time, after which continued use in that project is allowed.  If there isn't a project you don't need the file.

I wonder:
1. what proportion of subs buyers have any idea that such a clause exists, or care even if they do?
2. whether even one site polices this and has followed up on any found misuse.

We can't know the first, but has anyone ever heard of the second?

EmberMike

« Reply #158 on: March 05, 2014, 13:38 »
0
I think it means that a project using it has to be completed and published in that time, after which continued use in that project is allowed.  If there isn't a project you don't need the file.

I don't think they can enforce this in print projects. Hard to prove that the image was used outside of the subscription timeframe when you're dealing with print. I can send final designs to be printed, but that could happen tomorrow or next month depending on the company I'm using to do the printing, their schedule, proofing, if they're overseas, etc. I've had a project finalized and approved and not go on a press for 6 months.

A project could technically be considered "finished" when I hand off the final files. But would I need to maintain an active subscription until the printing is done? Good luck to any company trying to enforce that.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #159 on: March 05, 2014, 13:44 »
+2
The money people in the big companies buy the subscriptions. The designers download the images and don't have a clue about the restrictions. Two different animals.

« Reply #160 on: March 05, 2014, 14:18 »
0
I think it means that a project using it has to be completed and published in that time, after which continued use in that project is allowed.  If there isn't a project you don't need the file.

I don't think they can enforce this in print projects. Hard to prove that the image was used outside of the subscription timeframe when you're dealing with print. I can send final designs to be printed, but that could happen tomorrow or next month depending on the company I'm using to do the printing, their schedule, proofing, if they're overseas, etc. I've had a project finalized and approved and not go on a press for 6 months.

A project could technically be considered "finished" when I hand off the final files. But would I need to maintain an active subscription until the printing is done? Good luck to any company trying to enforce that.

Yes, enforcement would seem problematic, but I think that is what the rule means.

« Reply #161 on: March 05, 2014, 16:58 »
+1
The money people in the big companies buy the subscriptions. The designers download the images and don't have a clue about the restrictions. Two different animals.
I'm sure you are right. But these rules aren't there to be vigorously enforced at all times, they are there so they can be used when something happens that the agency wants to act upon.  And if some people stick strictly to them, all the better.

« Reply #162 on: March 05, 2014, 17:21 »
0
This explains the move some time ago to increase the allowable submission rates from a very controlled few to near infinity.
I don't think so.  I think that had more to do with Thinkstock since the submission rates were mainly changed for nonexclusives, for nearly all exclusives you could already upload more than you could produce before the change.

but they definitely changed in what they would accept. Especially in vector they had gotten to where they would accept almost nothing unless it was elaborate. They now accept black and white and simpler designs again.

PZF

« Reply #163 on: March 06, 2014, 09:34 »
0
Sorry about this - no intention to hijack the thread - but I have just seen reference to a thread about Getty giving LOTS of images away. But I can't find the thread.
Anybody care to point me in the right direction?

Ta.

PS I agree the IS subs thing is definitely A BAD IDEA !

ShadySue

« Reply #164 on: March 06, 2014, 09:36 »
0
Sorry about this - no intention to hijack the thread - but I have just seen reference to a thread about Getty giving LOTS of images away. But I can't find the thread.
Anybody care to point me in the right direction?

Ta.

PS I agree the IS subs thing is definitely A BAD IDEA !


http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen

« Reply #165 on: March 06, 2014, 10:06 »
0
This explains the move some time ago to increase the allowable submission rates from a very controlled few to near infinity.
I don't think so.  I think that had more to do with Thinkstock since the submission rates were mainly changed for nonexclusives, for nearly all exclusives you could already upload more than you could produce before the change.
I think it related to the new Istock sub. model:
Theoretically If Istock will accept all indi images available on SS + subscription model + exclusive images SS does not have - why should one buy from SS if he can buy same content + exclusive content from Istock?

« Reply #166 on: March 06, 2014, 10:41 »
+4
This explains the move some time ago to increase the allowable submission rates from a very controlled few to near infinity.
I don't think so.  I think that had more to do with Thinkstock since the submission rates were mainly changed for nonexclusives, for nearly all exclusives you could already upload more than you could produce before the change.
I think it related to the new Istock sub. model:
Theoretically If Istock will accept all indi images available on SS + subscription model + exclusive images SS does not have - why should one buy from SS if he can buy same content + exclusive content from Istock?

because they can't get all of my pics of course (or Sean's or plenty of others who have been forced out or given up w/ Getty)

« Reply #167 on: March 07, 2014, 08:37 »
+15
From the forum:
"Im sure that iStock will make all the adjustments to achive that contributors be happy and motivated and the change be good to everyone. im sure they know the importance of this.  Why not wait and see what happens? Why not trust?"

Oh, my.

« Reply #168 on: March 07, 2014, 09:17 »
+8
Someone needs to lay off the crack pipe!

« Reply #169 on: March 07, 2014, 09:45 »
+6
From the forum:
"Im sure that iStock will make all the adjustments to achive that contributors be happy and motivated and the change be good to everyone. im sure they know the importance of this.  Why not wait and see what happens? Why not trust?"

Oh, my.

Amazing.
The new iIstock sub. model will drastically decrease contributor's income.
It is not about playing with RC 35% vs 30% or even 20%.
It is about getting 28 cent - 75 cent for XXXL image sale!!!
Istock site is so buggy and so complicated - it will not move even single buyer back from SS.
This move will accelerate the race to the bottom as many exclusives will drop the crown and flood the market with their ports.

« Reply #170 on: March 07, 2014, 09:54 »
+11
From the forum:
"Im sure that iStock will make all the adjustments to achive that contributors be happy and motivated and the change be good to everyone. im sure they know the importance of this.  Why not wait and see what happens? Why not trust?"

Oh, my.

Holy st*t, how naive.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #171 on: March 10, 2014, 10:13 »
+2
I was asking why some people haven't had enough of this, free photos, subs and other tricks from IS. Then I came upon this message from Lobo, which makes it look fairly scary to go Independent. But wondering how many people who have dropped the crown have adapted and equaled their income by adding SS, DT and FT. (for a minimum example) How long did it take?

"Your content on Getty Images would be deactivated. Your royalty rate for Thinkstock, Getty 360, Getty Connect would be dropped from 20% to 15%. All your iStock content would be moved into the main collection. Any file you didn't have at thinkstock would be moved over to thinkstock. Your royalty rate on iStock would go from 35% to 18%."

Much of that TS and 20-15%, balances or isn't too important but the 50% cut in commissions would be a big bite. And all GI images deactivated? Long road back to the same income?

ShadySue

« Reply #172 on: March 10, 2014, 10:16 »
+2
I was asking why some people haven't had enough of this, free photos, subs and other tricks from IS. Then I came upon this message from Lobo, which makes it look fairly scary to go Independent. But wondering how many people who have dropped the crown have adapted and equaled their income by adding SS, DT and FT. (for a minimum example) How long did it take?

"Your content on Getty Images would be deactivated. Your royalty rate for Thinkstock, Getty 360, Getty Connect would be dropped from 20% to 15%. All your iStock content would be moved into the main collection. Any file you didn't have at thinkstock would be moved over to thinkstock. Your royalty rate on iStock would go from 35% to 18%."

Much of that TS and 20-15%, balances or isn't too important but the 50% cut in commissions would be a big bite. And all GI images deactivated? Long road back to the same income?

You didn't expect that? Did you think they would let exclusives becoming indie keep their exclusive rate?
The crown is Golden Handcuffs, especially for those of us who can't supply the high-demand subjects (e.g. no models). I'd have thought that was obvious.
However, with low cost subs being forced upon us, we now have nowhere to go.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 10:24 by ShadySue »

« Reply #173 on: March 10, 2014, 10:49 »
+7
If you go independent expect to lose more than 80% of your istock income. It is not just the drop in percentage - your images are much, much cheaper than exclusive files and you are no longer favoured in best match. However you will probably see a rise in the volume of downloads, because more people can buy your files. Doesnt help much with the income.

When you then take your portfolio to the new agencies, you have to remember that many best match placements are taken by excellent indie artists who have been there for years. Uploading files isnt difficult, but it takes time for your portfolio to move up in the ranks.

Of course it also depends on the quality of your content. I am sure sean will be making a lot of money again soon, at least on SS where he is contributing. But for me with a "normal" quality portfolio it will take a while.

The problem is really - if you stay exclusive and keep uploading but have no sales, especially from new work - what do you do? If your income keeps falling - when do you pull the plug?

Because when you go indie - all your work will sell, I have no problem getting sales for my new or old work on the new sites.

But nobody can give you a definite time frame how long it takes to regain your income, just like nobody can tell you how much you will be earning on istock in a year.

I think if you are uploading to istock, feel comfortable with the way they work and your new files get sufficient sales, at least enough to pay for your ongoing production, these people tend to stay.

It is the artist that can no longer pay for their production and have falling sales that at some point go indie. Or they start doing something else and just stop uploading.

Some people take a gradual approach - go indie with a second subject, video or illustrations. this way you can get to know the other agencies, see how much time it takes to upload there etc..

Originally my plan was to just go indie with video, also because the istock queue for video was over 3 months, even for exclusives, and I absolutely wanted to stay exclusive with photos.

Then came the Microsoft deal with over 1.3 million unpaid downloads and then the Getty Google deal. And I left.

I absolutely dont regret it, but of course I still dont have my old income. However - i havent tried. I looked at other ways to earn an income and took my time to get to know the agencies before I really decide where my energy should go.

I was not very interested in uploading to SS in the beginning - 33 cent downloads - who cares about that? But now I see I get these 28 dollar downloads, 12.50, 80 dollars,extended license etc...so this is a completely different result than I expected. Same goes for other sites. If it was only the sub income, it wouldt be interesting, it is the mix of credit sales, extended licenses etc...that makes them interesting.

But of course: the agencies havent been waiting for you and the quality of the top level indie artist is the same as the top level istock exclusives. You will have to fight your way to the top like any other contributor and nobody is going to favour you in best match.

So - it is a personal decision. I dont regret mine and from the people I know who went indie at the same time with me nobody is considering to go back to exclusivity. It just isnt attractive to us, there are so many agencies and opportunities that I never even knew about.

But if somebody believes they just move everything to SS and will earn the same as before, they will be disappointed. they wouldt be earning the same on istock if they came in with all their portfolio today.

I would definitely not advise anyone to just go indie without understanding what it means for their income.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 10:52 by cobalt »

« Reply #174 on: March 10, 2014, 10:51 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:43 by tickstock »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1163 Views
Last post July 29, 2007, 09:15
by perkmeup
2 Replies
2776 Views
Last post July 14, 2008, 06:44
by Adeptris
40 Replies
17416 Views
Last post February 14, 2009, 13:01
by yingyang0
4 Replies
6946 Views
Last post August 30, 2010, 10:55
by RGebbiePhoto
8 Replies
3104 Views
Last post December 05, 2013, 16:07
by heywoody

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results