MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Morphart on May 02, 2012, 08:12
-
I got quite a surprise this morning when checking my Shutterstock stats...
ONE single sale image for a commission of 90.60$. I am really wondering what these licenses are, but seeing high numbers like this from Shutterstock is definetly extremely encouraging!!! :)
-
I got quite a surprise this morning when checking my Shutterstock stats...
ONE single sale image for a commission of 90.60$. I am really wondering what these licenses are, but seeing high numbers like this from Shutterstock is definetly extremely encouraging!!! :)
congrats... still waiting for mine :D
-
I got quite a surprise this morning when checking my Shutterstock stats...
ONE single sale image for a commission of 90.60$. I am really wondering what these licenses are, but seeing high numbers like this from Shutterstock is definetly extremely encouraging!!! :)
congrats... still waiting for mine :D
Wishing this for everyone. Good to see those prices on a popular MICROstock agency :)
-
Don't think I've ever had anything more than $28 for an EL. Would be interesting to know what this was for? Has anyone else had one?
-
Congratulations. I guess this is some sort of partner sale.
-
I got my first $90.60 on April 12th. It was a good day!
-
The new sensitive uses license maybe?
-
Congrats. If you write to support, will they tell you what sort of license this is? It'd be nice to know...
-
Fantastic! What a wonderful thing to hear. Congratulations! ;D
-
I got a $75 sale a week ago. Totally surprised me.
-
I don't know what is going on at IS, but I like it. As of today - the 2nd day of the month I have already earned more than last years 2 lowest months.
Modified: - everyone figured out that I meant to say "SS" right? I can't foresee bragging about IS in the near future :)
-
Bas-tards!
;)
-
Is it image with people on it?
-
Tea Leaves isolated on white. (one of my best sellers)
-
We've figured that it's not the sensitive use license as some people who've gotten those amounts are opted out of that.
I could sure use a few of those would make the push to the $3000 tier a little more bearable :p
-
I've had quite a few $18 dollar sales in the "single and other downloads" category, but not a $90 dollar one. I wonder if it is indeed the"sensitive use" license. My question to people who had them - is your portfolio "opted in" for the sensitive use?
Edit: Anita posted the reply to my question a minute earlier:)
-
When I wrote here that I hadn't had an 18$ sale yet I got a couple very soon afterwards so I'd just like to say that I haven't had a 90$ one yet :)
-
I've had quite a few $18 dollar sales in the "single and other downloads" category, but not a $90 dollar one. I wonder if it is indeed the"sensitive use" license. My question to people who had them - is your portfolio "opted in" for the sensitive use?
Edit: Anita posted the reply to my question a minute earlier:)
I'll echo Elena's question. Anita, I know we determined the $18 sales were not sensitive use, but I haven't read that about the $90 and $75 sales. Like Elena, I haven't had any of those, and I am opted out of SU also.
Congrats to those of you who are getting those big sales! If they are not SU, I hope to join you soon :)
-
Anita, what is Harry to you?
If he is your cousin,maybe we should ask him what is going on, with our single sales on SS... ;D ;)
-
Ok now I am really interested if photogrpahers who had 75-90 dollar sales have opted in their portfolio for sensitive use. I didn't since I have to protect my models, but I also have (and am still producing) many images with no people in them. If these images would be at disadvantage because my portfolio is opted out, I'd rather not give them to Shutterstock - I have many other channels to distribute them.
-
Anita, what is Harry to you?
If he is your cousin,maybe we should ask him what is going on, with our single sales on SS... ;D ;)
Har har :D I do believe he's my cousin twice removed on my father's side of the family. It would be nice if I could take advantage of his wizarding ways to give us all these fantabulous high dollar downloads.
Lisa I could've sworn that the person on SS that got the $70 ones that they weren't opted into sensitive use. I'll have to go back and look at that thread again to see if I misread it.
*edit*
Re-read the thread and they didn't mention at all if they were opted into that sensitive use license or not. It was in fact the ones with the $18 ones there was one on there also for $28 where the guy is also opted out of sensitive use.
-
Opted in.
-
Lisa I could've sworn that the person on SS that got the $70 ones that they weren't opted into sensitive use. I'll have to go back and look at that thread again to see if I misread it.
*edit*
Re-read the thread and they didn't mention at all if they were opted into that sensitive use license or not. It was in fact the ones with the $18 ones there was one on there also for $28 where the guy is also opted out of sensitive use.
Thanks a lot for taking the time to check on that Anita :)
I don't keep up with the SS forums, so there could be things said there that haven't filtered over to microstockgroup yet.
I'd love to get those big sales, but if they do turn out to be sensitive uses, I'll have to pass. Like Elena, I can't take that risk with my models.
-
I am opted in, but I only got $18 sales.
-
No problem. I'm opted in as well but if I were to photograph models (not likely to happen) then I would also be opted out. They could use my illustrations for all the sensitive use they'd like. I've never seen an SOD above $4.75 though. And tripping through the new version of the site hasn't really offered any clues as to what those would be either.
-
Is it image with people on it?
No, a simple b&w vector file of a tree... Nothing exceptionnal.
-
I've had quite a few $18 dollar sales in the "single and other downloads" category, but not a $90 dollar one. I wonder if it is indeed the"sensitive use" license. My question to people who had them - is your portfolio "opted in" for the sensitive use?
Edit: Anita posted the reply to my question a minute earlier:)
I'll echo Elena's question. Anita, I know we determined the $18 sales were not sensitive use, but I haven't read that about the $90 and $75 sales. Like Elena, I haven't had any of those, and I am opted out of SU also.
Congrats to those of you who are getting those big sales! If they are not SU, I hope to join you soon :)
I'm opted IN of SU... I never read any thing about SU, what exactly does it imply?
-
Opted in.
Im opted in also, but I do Illustrations so no models for me.
-
It's a special license a buyer purchases to use images in a "sensitive" nature i.e. medical, homelessness stuff like that. My brain is drawing a blank to explain it better.
The SU license gets the contributor up to $70 in royalties. Not sure what the $90 would fall under. So far they're not telling us anything unless it's them testing things out?
-
It's a special license a buyer purchases to use images in a "sensitive" nature i.e. medical, homelessness stuff like that. My brain is drawing a blank to explain it better.
The SU license gets the contributor up to $70 in royalties. Not sure what the $90 would fall under. So far they're not telling us anything unless it's them testing things out?
Thanks for thé explanation. I can understand the meaning behind sensitive use.
But for an illustration, I wouldnt think someone will buy a SU license... Confusing :)
-
It's a special license a buyer purchases to use images in a "sensitive" nature i.e. medical, homelessness stuff like that. My brain is drawing a blank to explain it better.
The SU license gets the contributor up to $70 in royalties. Not sure what the $90 would fall under. So far they're not telling us anything unless it's them testing things out?
Thanks for thé explanation. I can understand the meaning behind sensitive use.
But for an illustration, I wouldnt think someone will buy a SU license... Confusing :)
Well my understanding is that sensitive use is just a part of a new license that SS is offering - it may include other things like better number of copies, etc. So when someone buys a picture of tea leaves they don't care about sensitive use aspect of the license, but may want some other terms that this license contains. Which really sucks for photographers with people in their portfolios - just because I don't want to allow my models to be used in some questionable campaigns, my other images - not containing people - can not be sold with this new license! This still doesn't make any sense to me - why couldn't they allow to opt-out just images with model releases attached to them?
-
It's a special license a buyer purchases to use images in a "sensitive" nature i.e. medical, homelessness stuff like that. My brain is drawing a blank to explain it better.
The SU license gets the contributor up to $70 in royalties. Not sure what the $90 would fall under. So far they're not telling us anything unless it's them testing things out?
Thanks for thé explanation. I can understand the meaning behind sensitive use.
But for an illustration, I wouldnt think someone will buy a SU license... Confusing :)
Well my understanding is that sensitive use is just a part of a new license that SS is offering - it may include other things like better number of copies, etc. So when someone buys a picture of tea leaves they don't care about sensitive use aspect of the license, but may want some other terms that this license contains. Which really sucks for photographers with people in their portfolios - just because I don't want to allow my models to be used in some questionable campaigns, my other images - not containing people - can not be sold with this new license! This still doesn't make any sense to me - why couldn't they allow to opt-out just images with model releases attached to them?
you are right, SS should have an option to opt-in in pictures not containing MR's, doesn´t look hard to implement I guess..
-
Even better would be to opt in (or out) on a per-model basis. Then SS would see almost everyone sign on I'd think.
-
Exactly. We posted to them on the forum over there when they were first getting ready to implement it that it would be better to opt in on either a per image basis or the ways suggested here. Doesn't make any sense to alienate a huge photography base that wants to protect their models and themselves.
Maybe if enough people were to talk to them about it.
-
I'm opted in apparently. The image had no way to identify the subject and it was fitness related.
In my opinion, there is no reason to opt out. Pictures get bought and used for all kinds of stuff regardless... microstock customers don't read the fine print and who on earth draws the line on sensitive use? Weight loss campaigns are sensitive to some, not to others. An add for tampons? Again... depends on your opinion.
-
Just to throw this out there, from a SS post:
Customers must indicate that the image is of a model and used for illustrative purposes only.
They also mention that sensitive use is already common at other agencies and you probably didn't even realize it. I always tell all my models that these uses are a possibility. So far no one has said no to modeling.
-
Hmm, I was going to reply to this saying that Istock doesn't allow "sensitive use", but then decided to go and read their licensing agreement more carefully. Here it the quote from Restrictions:
"Use that depicts model in a sensitive way i.e. mental or physical health issues, substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual activity or preference without a disclaimer."
Now, little addition of "without a disclaimer" means that you can use images that way if you make a disclaimer. Which is what SS is saying about their "enterprise" license.
They were right, the other agencies, Istock specifically, allows for it and just phrases it in a more sneaky way.
SS' enterprise license says this:
A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of Submitted Content that contains one or more recognizable people in a context that might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject(s): a) suffers from a physical or mental health condition or infirmity; b) uses, endorses, advocates, or believes in a particular, product, service, cause, and/or opinion; and/or c) is otherwise associated with a position that some might consider controversial or unflattering. Sensitive Uses of Submitted Content shall require an accompanying statement to the effect that the person(s) depicted are models and are used for illustrative purposes only. Enterprise Plus licenses shall still prohibit the use of Submitted Content in connection with the promotion, advertisement and/or packaging of tobacco products, as well as in connection with pornography, escort services, dating services and/or other adult entertainment services and/or products.
So... I guess it is the same thing. I might now consider opting in, unless I am prepared to take down all my model-released files from Istock...
-
I'm opted in apparently. The image had no way to identify the subject and it was fitness related.
In my opinion, there is no reason to opt out. Pictures get bought and used for all kinds of stuff regardless... microstock customers don't read the fine print and who on earth draws the line on sensitive use? Weight loss campaigns are sensitive to some, not to others. An add for tampons? Again... depends on your opinion.
I won't dispute that pictures sometimes get used in "sensitive" ways without permission. Once I had a picture of a woman holding a cup of coffee as holding a "urinatte" (urine instead of a latte). Another time I had a sweet elderly couple used on a billboard for getting checked for syphilis.
In both cases, I was able to contact the end user, quote the license terms, and get them to take down the image. If I allowed the usage, I would not have a legal leg to stand on and would have to let the offending usage stand.
Elena, I get what you are saying about the Istock license. That must have been changed somewhere along the line. Not good. I think whether or not they use a disclaimer is splitting hairs.
-
A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of Submitted Content that contains one or more recognizable people in a context that might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject(s): a) suffers from a physical or mental health condition or infirmity;
I'm opted in and I have some shots of my friend that looks really naive in a few photos. I hope I'll finally get some big bucks.
P.S. He wouldn't mind even if the buyer wouldn't add a disclaimer ;)
-
May be the answer is...
http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?enhanced=1 (http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?enhanced=1) :o
-
A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of Submitted Content that contains one or more recognizable people in a context that might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject(s): a) suffers from a physical or mental health condition or infirmity;
I'm opted in and I have some shots of my friend that looks really naive in a few photos. I hope I'll finally get some big bucks.
P.S. He wouldn't mind even if the buyer wouldn't add a disclaimer ;)
The word "naive" is not really socially acceptable in the United States. It's not about freedom of speech. It's about respect.
-
May be the answer is...
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?enhanced=1[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?enhanced=1[/url]) :o
or NOT