In! 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hello guys,

The team has been looking into this and FTP should be getting back to normal in the next few hours.  We appreciate your patience and apologize for the inconvenience!

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Scott,

Thank you much for communicating with us here. Now that you've given us a better understanding of what Offset is looking for is it possible to withdraw an application (and apply with a better-suited portfolio at a later time)?

Best,
nicole

Hi Nicole,

Absolutely and thank you for your interest.  I'll inform the team. 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on October 07, 2013, 14:10

OFFSET is not exclusive.

Can you submit the same images on Offset to Shutterstock?

Offset is non-exclusive, but as a policy, we wouldn't accept images to Offset that were also being sold at Shutterstock.com, which could create confusion around pricing, the difference in the collections, etc...

Best,

Scott

Question regarding this Offset image:

 http://www.offset.com/photos/60931

My question to the group and Scott: Are model release forms required for this type of image?

Hi Sedge,

If the individual subjects are recognizable or in some way identifiable, yes.  This image is a good discussion case because the subjects are so tiny and side-lit.  I'd usually ask our compliance folks to look at the image and would want to see the original at 100% before suggesting an exact "yes" or "no" in a case like this.  As a general rule, when in doubt, it's better to have a release than not have one. 

Best,

Scott

Hi Fritz,

As a practical answer - since you're posting anonymously - did you apply to Offset? 

The selection process has been invitation-only focused on assignment photographers and illustrators, with some collections.   We're not averse to taking Shutterstock artists or applicants into Offset.   That being said, we're also not segmenting our "core" collection into many price points as some other agencies have done.   And as noted, we're focused very specifically on images with the aforementioned qualities. 

There are many amazing, top-quality images at Shutterstock.com. We have higher price points (up to $400 or more), as well as ad agencies and other major buyers transacting on images in our main collection, so current Shutterstock contributors can already access higher-royalty sales at Shutterstock.com, in addition to all of the volume that subscriptions generate.  Therefore, we encourage many contributors to be on the appropriate platform for their work.  For many, that's Shutterstock.com. 

In terms of the risk of having an image removed from the collection - most of the artists that we work with are very understanding about creating a good experience for image customers, even if it means making decisions about the quantity of their work. They understand and believe in what we're doing.  In practical terms, we're usually talking about a few images per contributor, not wholesale collections, when a further edit is done.

Best,

Scott

Be very careful even *trying* this out. Could well be installing a virus on your machine.

Yes, to reinforce this point - anything like this stands a high chance of being fake and possibly out there to trick you into installing something malicious.   The best route (again) is to contact our team to investigate.

Best,

Scott

I've passed this along to our team for further investigation.

In any circumstance of suspected infringement, please promptly contact Shutterstock directly and notify:
[email protected]
 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Funny, on SS authentic images are also known as rejected for LCV. Maybe I would have done better waiting for offset.

That said, there are many fantastic images there. If SS gets Bigstocked I'll definitely be looking for an outlet for better images.

Well, for what it's worth, the good news here is that we did away with LCV rejections a long time ago.  The original idea behind LCV (back in the day) was that it shouldn't be used as a standalone rejection.  We would get spammed with abstract backgrounds for example, so the concept of LCV was intended to stem the tide of similars that didn't provide anything of added value.  Eventually, it was too confusing as a rejection for everyone involved, so we did away with it. 

There is a different editing and curation process with Offset, which gives us some more flexibility in how we think about acceptance criteria, but we're also continuously evaluating our standards in our Core offering as well. 

These things evolve.  We have an obligation to create clarity for contributors as to what our standards are, but we also don't expect things to be rigidly set in stone forever.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
 

Hey all,

We regularly go in and iterate on the exact edit, but for some perspective -- Offset isn't meant to simply be about standalone, exceptional and perfect "hero" images.  What we're looking for in Offset is imagery that resonates with editorial and commercial art directors and sometimes, those are images that look very "real" and work as part of a set or a broader multi-image story.   

As one example of an impactful single image:
http://www.offset.com/photos/62666

In general, as criteria, we generally look for exceptional, "authentic" images and / or images with a storytelling quality to them - images that are useful, but those that also work together. 

For example, you can easily pull a number of images out of this search that immediately hang together:
India Search

For that storytelling quality, you can also see:
Farm to Table
The Art of Cooking

And then, of course, there are exceptional individual artists who through the quality of their art direction, styling, subject and lighting, provide unique work:

http://www.offset.com/artist/Gentl+and+Hyers

Just in response to Sean's comment - it's not all about National Geographic-style images.  It's about authenticity, storytelling, art direction and style.  It's also about what we know resonates with art directors, ad agencies, and publications based on the conversations we're having every day with them.   

Best,

Scott
VP of Content

Hi Tickstock,

Team (multi-seat) subscription royalties generate the same payout as standard subscription royalties. The primary difference in the license is the number of reproductions, but that also brings the product in line with that of competitors, who offer ~500k reproductions (or more) as part of their standard license.  In addition, Shutterstock offers additional legal indemnification to the customer as part of the multi-seat subscription. The costs of indemnification are covered by Shutterstock.

It's important to keep in mind that Shutterstock pays royalties on every single download, regardless of how many team members access a single account at one business.  Putting customers on a team subscription ensures that they're in compliance with our ToS.

You had also asked about images used for marketing purposes in the other thread. Although we're not obligated to pay royalties for images used for the marketing and promotion of Shutterstock, it is our general practice to pay royalties for images that are used in marketing (including images that are provided to media outlets).  In addition, as one example, marketing uses can include payouts for enhanced licenses if the images were used in trade show items given to image buyers for promotional purposes.   

Best,


Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hi Jo Ann,

Thanks for the response.   

A few years ago, we had a discussion internally at Shutterstock as to whether we should comment on support-related topics in third-party forums.   The discussion was a practical one: we support many different communication channels across multiple brands and different languages and it can be tough to provide full coverage to all of those places at once.   

That said, we believe in participating actively in the forums.  Many people on our team (myself included) are life-long photographers, photo editors, art buyers, etc�, and part of the creative community, and as you pointed out, we want to be where conversations are happening.

At times, forum posters will take a lack of a prompt reply to mean a particular thing, as was the case in this thread. More often than not, the answer is a simple one and a response is forthcoming or we�re simply dividing our time between response channels.  It�s important to note that we try to comment on facts and not speculation or inaccurate info. 

My post was simply to suggest that contacting us directly is always the best option. 

As far as licensing goes, Shutterstock has a long history of delivering earnings as well as expanding the royalty opportunities available through new products.  We�ve been transparent with respect to the kinds of rights that we�re granting and --- as is the case with sensitive use � creating �opt-in and opt-out� scenarios for contributors as much as possible when we feel those rights will be a concern for you.  We also believe in non-exclusivity.  All of these policies are intended to put you in control and underscore a strong philosophy of supporting contributors.

The premier license is an individually negotiated product fundamentally based on our standard and enhanced RF licenses.  It includes additional features such as the option for sensitive use, pre-negotiated pricing, indemnification (provided by Shutterstock), multiuser accounts, and workflow and billing features.  If you remain concerned, opting out of sensitive use will effectively opt you out of the premier license. That also opts you out of the highest paid sales to volume buyers such as large ad agencies and major publishers.  Of course, we recommend that you take advantage of these opportunities because they can drive significant royalties for you.   

Thanks for the discussion; we do take all feedback into consideration and we will endeavor to better explain our products and policies.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content