Hi All,

Thanks for the questions and my apologies for a delayed reply.  As stated previously, we do not support MSG as a dedicated support channel, though members from our team will come in from time to time to clear up any confusion and answer questions.

Please note that the answers and explanations we�ve given previously on these topics are forthright and accurate, including what's in the blog post.
 
First, with respect to unwatermarked comps and the �premier� license: unwatermarked comps are very common in stock image licensing. Traditionally, buyers who were purchasing an RM or RF image would request a �comp� or preview image for layout purposes because pricing was expensive and there was a direct relationship between the license fee and actual usage. This is a common practice at leading stock agencies, primarily because advertising agencies and major publishers continue to work this way. 

When Shutterstock provides unwatermarked comp images, they are only provided to trusted �large accounts� that pay much higher prices than other Shutterstock customers. Comps are not offered through the subscription model. As a result, you receive higher royalties when a customer purchases the image. The pricing of these images can be in the hundreds of dollars. You receive the corresponding royalty based on your earnings tier (up to $120 or more per download).   

The Premier License

The premier license is a variation of our standard and enhanced licenses, but contains individually negotiated terms as well as expanded rights that have been explained in this forum in the past:

When you receive a high royalty for a single image, it is because the image was sold under a license that offers the option for sensitive use. It does not mean that the use was a sensitive one.  The majority of these images will not be used in a sensitive manner.  However, such use is a possibility. Unlike some other agencies, we give you the ability to opt-out.

High royalties are often the result of a negotiated agreement with volume buyers such as large advertising agencies.  These volume buyers may require additional license or workflow features, such as the option for sensitive use, indemnification, multi-user accounts, negotiated pricing, and special billing and other features.


Because the above items are individually negotiated with each large account, for competitive reasons and because of confidentiality restrictions, we do not publish the details of each license or transaction. 

In terms of talking about your earnings, we have no objection to you speaking about your earnings in a general way.  The intent of this new requirement is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock. We know and understand that contributors often share information among themselves. We continue to welcome you to do so in general terms. We also welcome discussion about whether you are having a good experience or bad experience with us. 

It's not an issue to talk in general terms about your best month ever, worst month ever, isolated individual transactions, most popular image, or information of a very similar, generalized nature. It would violate the Terms of Service, for example, to provide a Shutterstock competitor with specific information related to your sales or your total earnings.

Please direct any questions to [email protected] for the most authoritative answer on any of these topics.  As I�ve mentioned in the past, we�re happy to discuss questions and issues in a public forum. That being said, many forum posts contain inaccurate information or speculation and the only authoritative source for explanations on these topics is the Shutterstock team and Support (submit at Shutterstock.com).

In addition � I�ll be heading over to MicrostockExpo this fall.  If you�re going, please swing by and say hello. 

Thanks for your patience, and again, we apologize for any confusion.   

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hi Mike,

Elliot and Victoria's videos were submitted as you see them -- using content they created -- except for the branding; Anja's video was created specifically as an example video to educate people about the grant program, but Anja's comments and bio were unscripted.  We're accepting text submissions in the circumstance that contributors aren't proficient in video, but we're also hoping that contributors take advantage of storytelling vehicles, and video is a great medium for storytelling.

Entries are being judged on creativity, storytelling as well as technical and artistic quality (rules are here). If the judges feel a story -- text or video -- is among the best because it's powerful, compelling, engaging, etc.., then the team will do a final pass with the finalist(s) before their video is released to the public, knowing that most contributors aren't professional videographers, animators or video editors.  Submissions are expected to come in ready for judging, however.

For people who aren't proficient in video, there are a number of tools out there, ranging from professional software to DLSRs that shoot video to iMovie to mobile apps.  Despite the acceptance of text entries, it's a great opportunity for contributors unfamiliar with video to give it a try. 

Vimeo video school might also be a good place to start: https://vimeo.com/videoschool

Best Regards,


Scott

Hi Ron,

Thanks.  Entries aren't being judged on visuals or technical merit alone and video isn't a requirement for the initial entry. 

A little background on how this project came to be:

We travel the world and talk to contributors directly and through many different channels every day.  With many artistic and creative people within the company, we're constantly fascinated by personal stories of passion, artistry, inspiration, working methods, and personal innovation.

Over the years, we've heard many unique stories of how creating and licensing visual content has affected people's lives - ranging from building a new business, to traveling, to quitting an unfulfilling job to be a full-time "creative," to learning new artistic methods, to helping families, etc...  Those stories can be very interesting, illuminating, engaging and educational. 

Video and the visuals aren't the important piece (though helpful) - the grant program is really about the diverse and interesting stories that our contributors have to tell about who they are.  It's about shining a light on the interesting (and important!) people and personalities behind the collection.   

While our contributors range from hobbyists to professionals -- I'm sure everyone has an interesting story in that regard.   With $75k in grant money and 7 different grants - we recommend that everyone tell their story and take advantage of the opportunity.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hello All,

At Shutterstock, we meet and connect with individual contributors a number of ways: daily, through email exchanges and phone calls; through contributor visits, tours and research at our HQ in New York; through forums and social media; through events; and also by visiting cities around the world and meeting contributors personally for 1:1 or small group conversations.

It's often the case that contributors tell us stories of why they're artists and what drives their passion and creativity.  Those stories are very interesting, humbling, educational and inspiring.  With that in mind, we created the "Shutterstock Stories" $75k artistic grant program to uncover and celebrate those stories.

There will be a total of seven creative grants as part of this new program: five $5,000 grants and two $25,000 grants, including one grant winner who will be selected by the public.

Please see today's announcement below and the first teaser video of contributor and excellent illustrator Anja Kaiser HERE.


*************

Entries Are Now Open for the Shutterstock Stories Artistic Grant Program!

Last week, we announced our new artistic-grant program, Shutterstock Stories, and starting today, submissions are now open! A total of $75,000 in grants will be awarded to the winners of the program, which is open to all current Shutterstock contributors in good standing.

It�s all in celebration of our 10th anniversary � the perfect occasion to showcase the inspiring stories of the artists who have made the success of our first decade possible.

Submissions are open from today at 12:00pm EDT until 11:59pm EDT on August 14, so over the next several weeks, we�ll be on a mission to uncover the most extraordinary, emotional, humbling, exciting, and downright entertaining stories of Shutterstock contributors. There will be a total of seven creative grants: five $5,000 winners and two $25,000 winners, including one who will be selected by you, the public.

If you have a story to tell, get your thinking caps on and get ready to share it. You can watch a few of them in the video above for initial inspiration, then check out the story of contributor Anja Kaiser for more, and keep reading for full submission details.

Please read and get more details here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/celebrating-a-decade-of-creativity-announcing-the-shutterstock-stories-artistic-grant-program

Thank you!

Best Regards,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hell all,

Thanks. 

Our team has been contacted about this. 

For any other issues, inquiries or complaints regarding potential legal issues with content on Shutterstock, please email [email protected].

Thanks again,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

I got 4 sales at 13.50 from different kind of subjects.
It seems that it affected most of the contributors. I know it's not the case but it reminds me of the istock deal with Google.

The customer in this circumstance was an educational book publisher, so the anticipated use itself is very different. 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hey CD,

Totally understood.  To be clear, I'm trying to provide some factual transparency to the status of the queues and the difference between them.  In general, there are two paths: the normal individual queues based on content type specialization and then a secondary review.   If anyone is experiencing over 7-10 day turnarounds and their images aren't vectors, then they're likely in that secondary process. 

Rather than characterizing that queue as just for "problem" submissions, I'd say that the secondary process is generally reserved for images that require a more involved determination to be made, or possibly Support help.  There could be a trademark or copyright question, missing credentials, a question for the contributor, etc...   What we're trying to do through contributor education and policy improvements is to remove images that shouldn't be impacting those "tier 2" queues in the first place, which also cuts down on support requests, etc...  Which ultimately makes things faster for everyone.   

Totally agreed regarding "smoke"; as mentioned, we want every review to go through in a fast and efficient manner, with the goal of getting as many images as possible approved.

Best,

Scott

   

Hi guys,

When people come to the forums, they're usually commenting about a group of images that took much longer than normal (i.e., people rarely come to the forums to say "my review was fast and efficient").  Therefore, it builds a notion that everyone is experiencing the same thing or that the worst-case-scenario is the mainstream scenario, which isn't the case.  Of course that still matters to us greatly, since everyone should be getting fast and efficient service.

Submission volume has been high across all of our queues. There are two queues that have -- very admittedly -- spiked for us lately: one is our vector queue; the other is our queue of batches of images that have issues (this secondary track).  Hence, we've come out with various policy communications to make sure that the images coming to us meet our standards and are less likely to be problematic.  For example, blog posts on marking illustrations accurately, our editorial credential policy, standardized releases, property releases for illustrations, etc..., all of which are designed to prevent problematic submissions from happening in the first place. 

Its probably obvious, but every contributor has an interest in other contributors providing frictionless submissions, because the most time-intensive submissions slow things down for everyone.   As with the Contributor Success Guide and our numerous blog posts, our goal is to increasingly invest in internationalized educational material, contributor tools and policy simplifications (as well as our internal processes) to reduce turnarounds for everybody. 

Best,

Scott

Hi All,

To help ensure efficient reviews, I'd respectfully ask that you refrain from speculation, which can misinform people of our processes. On our end, we'll endeavor to be as transparent and informative as possible so you're not trying to fill in the blanks.   

You can think of our review process as a system of train tracks.  There are different tracks for different content types (illustration, vectors, editorial, commercial photos, etc...) that go to different groups of specialists.  Like trains, images don't "jump" over other images within a track - it's a first-in, first-out process. 

If an image or set of images is problematic, it gets pulled onto a different track to a secondary review.  That routes the images to a more experienced reviewer and also keeps "regular" images moving through the system quickly and efficiently.  Some of the most common reasons for those secondary reviews:

• Incorrectly labeled images.  Blog post here.
• Event images lacking credentials (i.e., those taken on private property, etc...).  Blog post here.
• Images with problematic model or property releases. Greater release support and numerous languages here and refined policies here.
• Images with more complex trademark or copyright determinations
• "Spam"-type submissions where the commercial value is unclear (large submissions of abstract backgrounds, etc...)

Every image is looked at by a human reviewer and we monitor the performance of reviewers.  These reviewers are highly trained (many have been with us for years) and we're in constant communication with them daily about standards, specific images, and sets of images. That doesn't mean a reviewer will never make a mistake, but we entertain requests for re-evaluations and we respect the time and effort that went into creating content.  Most times, images are pulled into a secondary review with the goal of making sure they get accepted and get the best review possible.

Even though it's a critical forum for feedback, people often post specific anecdotes in the forums.  We have  40k contributors and hundreds of thousands [millions] of images moving through the system; the vast majority of images move through the system smoothly, efficiently and without issue.

As mentioned previously, we've seen increases in submission volume lately.  As a result, we've been refining our educational materials and making improvements.  For example, proactive submission of credentials means that an editorial submission won't get hung up in a time-consuming, back-and-forth support request waiting for credentials. 

As mentioned by Anthony in the SS forums, we�re taking a number of steps to bring review times down. 

�   We�ve added additional trained reviewers to each queue.
�   We are asking that contributors submit credentials prior to an event for editorial images. 
�   We are reminding contributors to accurately differentiate between photos and illustrations.   
�   Lastly, we�ve clarified some policies around illustration reviews.

We're also coming out with educational materials such as the Contributor Success Guide (now in five languages) to better educate contributors on how to get their images accepted.

Ultimately, our goal is to provide the highest-quality review in the shortest time possible and appreciate your patience and understanding. 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hi guys,

To clarify...

As has been our policy, credentials are required for events taking place on private property or events which require a paid ticket or entry fee. In our assessment, these types of events commonly restrict attendees from shooting and licensing content taken of the event without the event holder's permission.

Based on our policy, a free festival or parade in a public area would not require credentials as the event is open to the public and does not take place on private property.

The reason we are now requesting event badges and/or correspondence with an authorized representative of the event is that these are the most common types of credentials we receive, and we believe them to be a trustworthy indicator of permission to shoot an event. Our goal is that by having contributors submit these specific credentials to us, the process of reviewing these images will go faster.

However, we also recognize that different events may provide credentials other than a badge or correspondence with an authorized representative. As we state in our policy, we will evaluate credentials on a case-by-case basis when you email us.

If you have any further questions regarding whether content you wish to submit requires credentials, please contact [email protected] for more information.

Thanks,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hello,

Just to clarify things...we've had an existing policy of requiring credentials for editorial events like those described above (ticketed events, sporting events, concerts, etc..., that might be held on private property).  We're now asking contributors to send us the credentials prior to the event as a way to speed up the review process. 

Previously, images would be submitted and when there was a question about access or credentials (or if the images were submitted without credentials) --- the images would have been rejected or not approved --- kicking off a back-and-forth email chain with Support.  By sending in the credentials beforehand, you are proactively making sure that your images can get approved in a timely fashion, which makes review go faster for everyone.

Ultimately, the goal is to speed up the review process, as well as protect your ability to license these images while protecting our customer's ability to use them without issues as well.

Ploink - I don't know which account in yours, but if you private message me your Shutterstock username - I can ask the team to look up your account.  As I've mentioned in other threads, the extraordinary review times you're mentioning are almost always circumstances in which there was a problem with a group of images, the images required more information from the contributor, etc...    But I'd like to look into it to make sure you're receiving the best service possible - so please PM me your info.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Yes, sorry - I replied quickly and then was in the process of refining - that's what I meant.   In practice, we reach out to the contributor to let them know what's being requested, check on distribution, etc...   

- Scott

30% for non exclusive content, I presume?

We'll release royalty details when there's a public submission process, but yes, the collection is non-exclusive.  We have some artists giving us exclusive content, but we're not requiring exclusivity.

In general, Shutterstock has a strong philosophy of wanting our relationship with contributors to be driven by delivering sales and new opportunities, while affording contributors freedom and the ability to make their own decisions about their strategy and business.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock