I am not sharing the assignment details, I can only say that there is a long list of details, requirements (e.g. shoot this, don't shoot that), preferences, photo samples, etc.

I also don't intend to offer single subscription prices.
And team subscriptions are much more expensive and I think there are only yearly deals, so I believe they want to get a deal because of that.

The problem is, if they add a checkbox "this model was retouched", then probably nearly everything in their databank will probably get hit.

Sending out a nasty sounding legal email puts the legal responsibility on all photographers and they can claim to their customers everything coming in now is following the French guideline.

It puts the onus on us and makes it easy for them.

Programming a new checkbox for upload, adding a notice to images in france - how are they going to do that...it will take them years..

This is the fastest way to solve the problem for them. One email and officially it is all over.

What will other agencies do?

Personally I believe it should be clear that all creative content might be edited...it is creative after all...if you want the real world, buy editorial.

or pay for a custom shoot.

The law is well intentioned, but silly, why should a model not want to edit her image if she wants to? People use make up, they use clothes, some even photoshop lizard skin on, why not?

Caricature, art, satire? How does French law handle that?

Its rebadged Flashstock from what I've seen we are talking $15 an image ;-)

You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (�Unselected Submissions�). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, �Confidentiality.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will continue to have the right to display your Submissions solely as part of a personal portfolio demonstrating your photographic abilities."

What was the original title? I missed it.

Is this only photos, or videos as well?

Effective October 1, 2017 a new French law obliges clients who use commercial images in France to disclose whether the body shape of a model has been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

As a result, also effective October 1st, we have amended our Creative Stills Submission Requirements to require that you do not submit to us any creative content depicting models whose body shapes have been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

Please note that other changes made to models like a change of hair color, nose shape, retouching of skin or blemishes, etc., are outside the scope of this new law, and are therefore still acceptable.

Effective 1st October 2017, any content submitted where this type of retouching has been carried out will be a breach of our Submission Requirements and your Agreement with us.

Really, they're just trying to grab the lion's share of fees for custom work from clients by underpricing the very people they represent. I'd think the folks who are getting independent assignments would see their assignments disappear as their clients realize they can get that stuff for a few bucks, and have ten or twenty people work on it, if they go through sS.

I am asking because I found out that some images for example have made it somewhere between the first and 5th pages of ( creative) in Alamy, and I am not sure if this is an indication that those images are doing well( even if there is no sale yet ) or is it just wrong to think this way ?!

sorry but what a bruttaly idiotical title for an author with only $ in his eyes.