We'll see many contributors disabling video portfolio at Shutterstock this year.  That'll hopefully cause big video buyers to stop buying from Shutterstock and use Adobe Stock and Pond5 instead.

Same here.  Will be down 75% from last January. 

You do it for "Exposure".

》》》》So, if Alamy asks me if they can license an editorial photo putting liability on my shoulder, I would definitely say no.《《《《

Alamy don't f**k contributors like that.
If they'll ask you if you can lift the restrictions,  you can state that you will not take the liability.

Remember that you just supply the images and license them to your best knowledge. You cannot control the actions of someone else. Just search online. How many "editorial" stock images are used wrongly.
Buyers license them and it is up to them what they will do with them. We cannot control that, that is not our responsibility.

It's very good to be careful with image licensing, but not neurotic!

It's not neurotic, just being careful to avoid potentially costing me a lot of money.  But if they assure me that I won't be liable, of course I would license.  If we won't be liable, why would they even ask?  Shutterstock license editorial stock as commercial upgrade for extra fee without asking us, I think. 

I decided to go all RF on Alamy based on my research on how much money either way would make.

Actually, Alamy leaves that responsibility/liability to buyers it seems.  So, a contributor/photographer won't be liable even if he/she didn't check "Editorial only" box when uploading because buyers supposed to know if it's model released or not.

This page about releases is written for buyers, not contributors.  Interesting.
https://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx

"Why do I need a release?
If you fail to secure releases before using the image, you might get into difficulty with an owner/agent or estate and you or your company will be liable for any claims. This is part of the agreement you make when you buy images from Alamy (you can find out more about the legal stuff in our T&Cs).

It�s your responsibility to make sure you have all the right releases to use the image for your project. We think you should always get legal advice when intellectual property is included in your work.

Friendly disclaimer - we�re not lawyers, laws vary from country to country and legal requirements may change over time. We�ve done our best to clarify a complex issue as simply and as accurately as we can.
"

Quote from: helloitsme on December 30, 2020, 14:03

Quote from: Firn on December 30, 2020, 13:54

Quote from: helloitsme on December 30, 2020, 13:52

It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.

And rightfully so if they think they can sell photos with property that doesn't belong to them or people who didn't agree to this for commercial usage.

Contributor can forget to check the "Editorial only" box.  That's why Shutterstock and Adobe Stock decide which photos they sell as commercial, not contributors.

But you have to answer, "Is there property in this image?" "Do you have a release?" "Are there people in this image?" "Do you have release/s"
If you don't tick these, the default is set that there are no releases, even if none is needed.
Alamy is much stricter about what consitutes property or people (SS is pretty lax). I indicate property even if it's very old and e.g. iS would accept it. Also tiny bits of people, even out of focus pixels way in the background are regarded as people on Alamy. At that point, it is the responsibility of the buyer to decide whether they would be taking a risk in using it.
Most of Alamy's buyers are editorial buyers. In my limited experience, I've never found an editorial image being misused by an Alamy buyer - I have had several instances of iStock editorial files being used commercially by buyers, which I've reported to iStock - who each time assured me that I would have no liability for these misuses. And, by the way, contributors have to upload editorial files to iStock via the editorial route, rather than the bizarrely-named 'creative' route. However, I understand that files sent as creative are still being rejected if there is a possible IP issue, so there is that extra level of protection.
Alamy expects their contributors to know what they're doing.

So, for this photo for example.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-people-walking-in-street-shimla-simla-himachal-pradesh-india-101671139.html

has many people who are not model released and the description clearly indicates no model release.  If a buyer use it for commercial, contributor isn't liable at all, I think.

The seller and the buyer can be sued for misuse of photos. Even if buy is at no fault they can still be held liable. The good news most photographers that I know are broke. It is really hard to get money out of a broke person. Then if the buyer has money and assets that is were the lawyers will go. Then the buyer can sue the photographer but again if photographer is broke , hard to money out of a broke person.

Does the Shutterstock take that responsibility instead of a photographer?  Because they are the ones who decide if the photos can be used for commercial use?  Is this the difference between Alamy and Shutterstock?  How they take responsibility for liability?

Quote from: helloitsme on December 30, 2020, 13:48

Is the contributor liable if a person in the photo decide to sue?

Yes.

If that's the case, it's a major difference between Alamy and Shutterstock/AdobeStock.  It can potentially cost contributors a lot of money in lawsuit.

sold 64 videos yesterday for 84 cents each under 'clip packs'

Congrats!!

I will enable my video licensing again if they create "opt out" option for their video subscription.  Until then, I'll be happy with having only Pond5 and Adobe Stock.

Pond5's resonse again on Pond5 artist forum.


gregp5 2020-02-13 17:50
Hi guys,

I know many of you are already communicating directly with our Support Team, but I thought an extra message here would clarify the situation even further.

Hyperstock is not live, and we are not launching or marketing anything at the moment. You found it while we were still working on it in a test phase prior to the launch of any go-to-market efforts. Aside from the couple of artists who signed up last night, we have made no sales and no content has been downloaded.

Clearly many of you are upset though and I�d like to address your concerns since it means a lot to us. While we tried to communicate our intentions with Hyperstock in the public Town Hall, several forum posts, and numerous individual conversations, it's obvious from the reactions here that we weren't as clear as we intended. Let me be perfectly clear: anybody who wants to opt out of this program can do so - just let us know. This was always our intention and we are sorry if we have upset anyone with our communication shortcomings. We will also try to improve communications and options in the future.

Hyperstock was conceived as Pond5�s answer to the growing number of unlimited download subscription sites that have proliferated over the last year or so. Like it or not, there is now a large buyer base that is only interested in an unlimited content subscription product. No, it is not TV/film or big budget advertisers but a growing group of social/digital producers that produce content frequently but on very tight budgets. We know because we frequently survey our customer base, we follow the data internally/externally, and we hear it directly from customers who call us. As some of you have correctly pointed out, competing subscription sites do have much smaller libraries than Pond5 and Hyperstock will similarly be a very limited library (less than 5% of content). Subscription sites are growing in number and collection size, and as they grow, budget-conscious buyers are tempted to trade depth and breadth for cost savings. This is the reality of the market in 2020.

While we do want to enter this space, and secure that subscription revenue for our contributors, we also want to do it in a way that protects our core marketplace business. This is incredibly important to us, we have as much to lose as you do if we do not do it well, and we would not launch a product like this if we thought we couldn�t do it. Again, I encourage you to re-watch the Hyperstock segment from our last Town Hall, or email Support for full details of the protections we�ve put in place.

Most of the comments here about Hyperstock have been negative - and that�s fine. Everyone is entitled to have their say on this forum. I�ll share with you, however, that many of you have reached out to us directly since our Town Hall to specifically request inclusion in Hyperstock and there is currently a deep waiting list of interested artists who realize that a subscription is a good way to monetize older, unsold content.

We know the 2nd half of 2019 was a difficult period and we are not yet out of the woods. We believe we�ve identified the reasons for the slowdown and we�re working hard to turn things around. While we do that, however, we�ll continue to pursue new opportunities in this evolving market. But certainly your consent to participate in any specific programs, including Hyperstock, is in your hands. If you�d like to get in touch and request to be included or excluded, please contact support and we will prioritize your request prior to launch.

As always, we are reachable. I�ve got phone calls scheduled with a bunch of you for tomorrow to go over questions, so if you�d like to get on that list, just shoot me an email.

Thanks