Color me worried:

We�re Upgrading
In response to artist feedback, we�ll be upgrading our licensing terms.

By offering more options -- like the ability to pay more for additional seats, indemnification protection, and broader usage rights -- we can attract a wider audience of customers. More customers means more money in your pocket.

In preparation for these enhancements, we�ll be reviewing our entire collection, so we may reach out with a question or two. We�ll also be sharing a revised contributor agreement, as well as an overview of the new licensing options and what they mean for you.

We�re excited about these changes, and we�ll be in touch over the next few months with all the details. Stay tuned!

Each time I see a statement like this, I get worried. 

Color me worried:

We�re Upgrading
In response to artist feedback, we�ll be upgrading our licensing terms.

By offering more options -- like the ability to pay more for additional seats, indemnification protection, and broader usage rights -- we can attract a wider audience of customers. More customers means more money in your pocket.

In preparation for these enhancements, we�ll be reviewing our entire collection, so we may reach out with a question or two. We�ll also be sharing a revised contributor agreement, as well as an overview of the new licensing options and what they mean for you.

We�re excited about these changes, and we�ll be in touch over the next few months with all the details. Stay tuned!

Their standard and the only license (for now) is something like EL of Shutterstock, right? They have membership program and they have a huge number of artists selling great content for the prices significantly lower than Shutterstock. Please explain me why would they need any new licensecs? 'More customers' - kind of option to sell even cheaper for some small projects?

Reading 'reviewing our entire collection, so we may reach out with a question or two.' suggests that some contributors might be asked to ply their trade elsewhere; or am I over-analysing the message?

There is so much low quality stuff diluting the search results, let's hope they remove some.

Exactly. They should also do a MASSIVE control of how clips are marked - editorial or commercial. I find clips every single day that are marked as Royalty Free with no model/property release that should clearly, without slightest doubt, be editorial.

I read that they lost business from the likes of Nat Geo commissioned production companies because the license wasn't extensive enough (this was a rumor so who knows if 100% accurate.) If indeed this was the case then it might be a corresponding response to win back such business.

However I too get worried when I see such announcements - maybe an end to free flow pricing?! If that is the case I sincerely hope they have a high price point available in the $299 - $399 range.

Membership seems to have zero effect on my sales. So far at least.

Extended licenses are a good thing in principle, but every time an agency writes they are "excited" it usually means bad news and commission cuts for the contributors.

What happened to the newsletter they wanted to send out with clear guidelines what they will accept and reject?

It�s been announced several months ago. How hard can it be?

Glad you reminded us about it. No hope there, well ...obviously!
Took them over 10 years to introduce extended license (THANKS LORD FOR IT)...go figure how long that newsletter might take....