As far as I know - and there is zero transparency on the license terms for the SOD licenses - you don't get paid anything unless your image is one of those eventually used.

People have told stories about Alamy licensees not paying for usages until someone noticed the publication and then realized they hadn't been paid so I would be very surprised if there were not cases of "inadvertent" uses that didn't get compensation for the contributors.

It's another of those "trust us" situations where contributors have no idea what's happening, when, with whom or under what terms. I don't like it, but having complained about these terms since SODs were introduced and seen only generalized answers about how each deal is different so we can't possibly tell you about the license terms, at this point I conclude that I can leave SS or put up with it.

Until there's some sort of DepositPhotos-like scandal uncovered, I've decided to put up with it. I don't like it, but I think I can live with it for now.

People have told stories about Alamy licensees not paying for usages until someone noticed the publication and then realized they hadn't been paid so I would be very surprised if there were not cases of "inadvertent" uses that didn't get compensation for the contributors.

It's not ony Alamy - I heard exactly the same from someone who works in a Scottish editorial RM agency. Whenever there is an event which they have covered, they sent photos out to relevant publications, and at least once she accidentally found one of her own images in a publication, and had to chase up for payment. That model is necessary for that market, and there will be deliberate or accidental 'incidents' of this sort, and presumably 'twere ever thus.

I guess I feel comfortable with it because it's the "normal" way of interacting with stock houses for those of us in the ad industry, and because I see huge potential for us to make much more money from a single sale.

+1

Thanks for the information Scott.

It seems to me that a lot depends on how frequently these comps are downloaded, I�m well aware that RM agencies supply free comps for layout and evaluation purposes. Of course those companies are not also offering a companion subscription product that could be used as an alternative to giving free comps.

In your case I don�t understand why the buyers who want comps are not required to also purchase a subscription. In that case they could download as many full sized images as they want for comp use � and any other use they might want to make of those images in the future. In such a case the people whose images were only used for comp purposes would receive some compensation.

When agencies first started providing free comp images, it was usually pretty much guaranteed that once they showed the layout to the customer the image would eventually be licensed unless for some reason the whole project was killed.

It is my understanding that today when advertising agencies present their designs for a project they often present 5 or 6 different versions, using different images, to give the customer a choice. Customers love choice. Customers love to think they know more than the agency or designer about what will sell their product. In such situations everyone knows that many of the versions presented will never be used. They were created solely for the purpose of giving the customer options. From the photographer�s point of view those whose images are not eventually licensed are just helping the one whose image is licensed � for free.

It is also generally believed that a high percentage of the images downloaded through subscriptions are never actually used in a project. They are used for comp purposes, or planning purposes, or sometimes just reside on a hard drive in case they might be of some use to the art director in the future. As far as I know no one has any idea what percentage of total downloads these images might represent because there is no tracking of uses.

The big question is the percentage of comp images given away for free compared to the number that are actually licensed. If 50% of the comp images that are downloaded are actually licensed for the big money you are talking about then maybe it is not a big issue. At least the people whose images were not used had a reasonable chance of making a big sale.

But, if only one out of 100 free comp images delivered actually result in a sale then it seems to me that a lot of photographers are being treated unfairly by allowing their images to be used for free without any reasonable chance of compensation.

I don�t understand why you feel no need to compensate image creators when their images are downloaded for comp use. It would seem to me that once you make one of these big sales you could set aside a portion of that number to pay the $0.25 to $0.40 to all those whose images were used for comps on the project before you calculate the portion of the remainder that should be paid to the creator whose images was actually used. That use would not have existed if the comp images were not also available.

If, in fact, there is no end use in a significant percent of the cases where comp images are downloaded you�ve got a bigger problem.

According to my calculations if just a little over 50% of your 2013 revenue came from subscription then well over 90 million of your total 100 million downloads were subscription sales. The royalties may be small, but to the contributors the volume is very important. Another 7 million or more downloads probably came from Image On Demand sales leaving very few unit sales for enterprise and video. Jon Oringer says that enterprise may end up being 20% to 25% of your total revenue. The odds of making an enterprise sale are very long for the contributor. Rather than focusing on the chance of making enterprise sales most contributors will count on volume for their continued growth.

Are the free comps only for the "sensitive use" buyers?

The reason ad agencies don't get stock subscriptions is because they don't pay for the images themselves...their clients do. The cost of licensing the image is included in the budget for the work being produced. Smaller graphic design shops may buy subscriptions, but the large agencies who negotiate the big extended licenses for their clients do not.

Ad agencies will simply go back to Getty and Corbis if you charge them for comp use or try to force them into a subscription. They can get access to images there for free.

Well said.

I have to say I am perfectly relaxed about my images being used for comps in this way, especially when they result in a big sale __ they're always such a nice surprise! I trust SS to know the industry and understand the needs of their important clients.

I'm not saying agencies shouldn't be allowed to download comps. But given that Shutterstock is primarily a subscription company, I think they should develop some way to compensate the contributors for every download instead of saying we'll compensate you for some downloads and not others.

The practice goes back forever. I used to buy stock occasionally from stock agencies and they would send me a whack of transparencies. We paid for what we used (and returned the transparencies). It's the way the business operates and to not allow ad agencies to download comps would be counter productive.

yes this practice does go back forever, but way back when your agency actually had people that worked with people, not some computer dealing with another computer and there were controls in place more or less. i think this practice is bad news. if i can give my clients a very low res image for layouts then so can SS. why not give them an image for layout purposes at 72dpi and 600 X 400 or tops 1200 X 800 saved at 50%, it's enough for layout and can't be used and if they want the image then they have to pay for it. lets not forget this practice way back when was managed much more so than today, and there is a prevention that seems SS is not applying.
this sounds like a total free for all if you ask me, absolutely no way to manage this free layout package.

Quote from: jrwasserman on February 24, 2014, 13:34

The practice goes back forever. I used to buy stock occasionally from stock agencies and they would send me a whack of transparencies. We paid for what we used (and returned the transparencies). It's the way the business operates and to not allow ad agencies to download comps would be counter productive.

yes this practice does go back forever, but way back when your agency actually had people that worked with people, not some computer dealing with another computer and there were controls in place more or less. i think this practice is bad news. if i can give my clients a very low res image for layouts then so can SS. why not give them an image for layout purposes at 72dpi and 600 X 400 or tops 1200 X 800 saved at 50%, it's enough for layout and can't be used and if they want the image then they have to pay for it. lets not forget this practice way back when was managed much more so than today, and there is a prevention that seems SS is not applying.
this sounds like a total free for all if you ask me, absolutely no way to manage this free layout package.

Ad agencies have been using the Internet to search for/download for comps/etc. for years. Really, it's only new to Shutterstock. Anyone with images on Getty has had this option with their images for quite a while.

They only make this available to large, reputable companies. For example, when I worked at Young & Rubicam, art directors had access to these images, but when I worked at smaller shops with fewer than 100 people they did not.

why can't they use smaller images? The question is: why would they, when they can get large images from Getty? all this does is put Shutterstock (and our images) on the same playing field.

Quote from: shudderstok on February 24, 2014, 15:12

Quote from: jrwasserman on February 24, 2014, 13:34

The practice goes back forever. I used to buy stock occasionally from stock agencies and they would send me a whack of transparencies. We paid for what we used (and returned the transparencies). It's the way the business operates and to not allow ad agencies to download comps would be counter productive.

yes this practice does go back forever, but way back when your agency actually had people that worked with people, not some computer dealing with another computer and there were controls in place more or less. i think this practice is bad news. if i can give my clients a very low res image for layouts then so can SS. why not give them an image for layout purposes at 72dpi and 600 X 400 or tops 1200 X 800 saved at 50%, it's enough for layout and can't be used and if they want the image then they have to pay for it. lets not forget this practice way back when was managed much more so than today, and there is a prevention that seems SS is not applying.
this sounds like a total free for all if you ask me, absolutely no way to manage this free layout package.

Ad agencies have been using the Internet to search for/download for comps/etc. for years. Really, it's only new to Shutterstock. Anyone with images on Getty has had this option with their images for quite a while.

They only make this available to large, reputable companies. For example, when I worked at Young & Rubicam, art directors had access to these images, but when I worked at smaller shops with fewer than 100 people they did not.

why can't they use smaller images? The question is: why would they, when they can get large images from Getty? all this does is put Shutterstock (and our images) on the same playing field.

absolutely true, but i also think GI is established in controlling our work pro-actively. i know the difference in my statements are night and day. GI always shows who the client is, what the image was used for etc. IS and the micros just show you sold an image with almost no accountability.

Jo Ann.  Is only 40% of Shutterstock's revenue coming from Subscriptions? A little over a year ago they said that in a conference call that 60% was from Subscriptions, but recently I've been hearing that it is "about 50/50." If the subscription business has really declined to 40% that a much more rapid transition to "Image On Demand" than I thought. In the recent conference call they said Enterprise was about 15% of revenue and Video about 5% to 6%. That would make Image On Demand 40% of the business. Does everyone agree that the way the revenue breaks down based on the royalty statements they are receiving?

Thanks for all your comments.

I guess the real question is should comps be considered a use? You technically are using them to sell something to a client and make money. Is it really any different than making a Powerpoint presentation. At the end of the day, I'm sure nothing will change because they are used to getting comps for free, but it seems like they probably should be charged.