Author Topic: Changes to the TOS at Shutterstock (Read 54672 times)

tickstock · « **Reply #200 on:** October 03, 2013, 00:27 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 02, 2013, 09:01

The real beauty of the subscription model - for the agency - is that it completely eliminates the concept of 'commission' or 'royalty, becasuse there is never a point at which an actual 'sale' takes place. The buyer pays a single upfront fee for services. The agency allows the customer to 'use' images in various ways, and payment to the photographer/artist is basically an arbitrary amount. Until now we've been in a sort of hybrid world where we received so-called royalty payments at the time an image was downloaded - but that royalty had no real percentage relationship to a buyer payment, it was just an amount set by the agency. Now we're moving into the next phase where we, as contributors, don't even know when a customer actually acquires our image, or in what form, or in what number of copies, or with what licensing terms.

Bottom line - today's agency markets our work in any way it chooses, pays us whatever it decides to, and can change things at any time and in any way - including amending the TOS if necessary. Our only recourse is to stop participating entirely.

I agree with everything you said except I think there are more options than just quitting. Contributors could get together and make demands for real change. It hasn't happened yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen within the next year. Things are changing quickly and we may be near a tipping point.

cobalt · « **Reply #201 on:** October 03, 2013, 04:55 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 00:27

I agree with everything you said except I think there are more options than just quitting. Contributors could get together and make demands for real change. It hasn't happened yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen within the next year. Things are changing quickly and we may be near a tipping point.
[/quote]

We´re getting off topic here, but I think there already are quite visible changes. More people leaving exclusive contracts to lower their overall risk, contributors selecting more carefully wether to send content to high price or high volume agencies, more people putting energy into building their own site and selling direct. This last route is probably the most profitable long term because once you have regular customers and treat them well, you have an agency independent income stream.

And then you have Shutterstock, the only agency open to everyone who passes their acceptance test where you can buy stocks of the company and become a shareholder. If enough high ranking artists who earn a lot of money also become active shareholders, go to meetings, ask questions - you have quite a public channel to interact with management in addition to being a contributor.

stocksy is the only other agency I know where the contributors are also owners, but stocksy is not designed for the masses of 100 000 or more artists.

Shutterstock´s philosophy of not owning any exclusive content really forces them to offer the best of service - to the customers and the contributors. And it looks like they have been doing a good job so far.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #202 on:** October 03, 2013, 06:52 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 00:27

Quote from: stockastic on October 02, 2013, 09:01
The real beauty of the subscription model - for the agency - is that it completely eliminates the concept of 'commission' or 'royalty, becasuse there is never a point at which an actual 'sale' takes place. The buyer pays a single upfront fee for services. The agency allows the customer to 'use' images in various ways, and payment to the photographer/artist is basically an arbitrary amount. Until now we've been in a sort of hybrid world where we received so-called royalty payments at the time an image was downloaded - but that royalty had no real percentage relationship to a buyer payment, it was just an amount set by the agency. Now we're moving into the next phase where we, as contributors, don't even know when a customer actually acquires our image, or in what form, or in what number of copies, or with what licensing terms.

Bottom line - today's agency markets our work in any way it chooses, pays us whatever it decides to, and can change things at any time and in any way - including amending the TOS if necessary. Our only recourse is to stop participating entirely.
I agree with everything you said except I think there are more options than just quitting. Contributors could get together and make demands for real change. It hasn't happened yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen within the next year. Things are changing quickly and we may be near a tipping point.

just dropped a tear man, that was be-au-ti-ful!

actually it reminds me of iStock, they are always looking after contributors and clearly following their advice and demands

Mantis · « **Reply #203 on:** October 03, 2013, 07:24 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2013, 18:08

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 20:28
So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free?
Just like iStock has given themselves the right to do with promotional files.

Pssst. TS, Google deal????Heard of that?

tickstock · « **Reply #204 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:20 »

Quote from: Mantis on October 03, 2013, 07:24

Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2013, 18:08
Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 20:28
So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free?
Just like iStock has given themselves the right to do with promotional files.

Pssst. TS, Google deal????Heard of that?

Those weren't free either.

tickstock · « **Reply #205 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:25 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 03, 2013, 06:52

Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 00:27
Quote from: stockastic on October 02, 2013, 09:01
The real beauty of the subscription model - for the agency - is that it completely eliminates the concept of 'commission' or 'royalty, becasuse there is never a point at which an actual 'sale' takes place. The buyer pays a single upfront fee for services. The agency allows the customer to 'use' images in various ways, and payment to the photographer/artist is basically an arbitrary amount. Until now we've been in a sort of hybrid world where we received so-called royalty payments at the time an image was downloaded - but that royalty had no real percentage relationship to a buyer payment, it was just an amount set by the agency. Now we're moving into the next phase where we, as contributors, don't even know when a customer actually acquires our image, or in what form, or in what number of copies, or with what licensing terms.

Bottom line - today's agency markets our work in any way it chooses, pays us whatever it decides to, and can change things at any time and in any way - including amending the TOS if necessary. Our only recourse is to stop participating entirely.
I agree with everything you said except I think there are more options than just quitting. Contributors could get together and make demands for real change. It hasn't happened yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen within the next year. Things are changing quickly and we may be near a tipping point.

just dropped a tear man, that was be-au-ti-ful!

actually it reminds me of iStock, they are always looking after contributors and clearly following their advice and demands

There hasn't been a group effort to make things change yet.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #206 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:27 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 09:25

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 03, 2013, 06:52
Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 00:27
Quote from: stockastic on October 02, 2013, 09:01
The real beauty of the subscription model - for the agency - is that it completely eliminates the concept of 'commission' or 'royalty, becasuse there is never a point at which an actual 'sale' takes place. The buyer pays a single upfront fee for services. The agency allows the customer to 'use' images in various ways, and payment to the photographer/artist is basically an arbitrary amount. Until now we've been in a sort of hybrid world where we received so-called royalty payments at the time an image was downloaded - but that royalty had no real percentage relationship to a buyer payment, it was just an amount set by the agency. Now we're moving into the next phase where we, as contributors, don't even know when a customer actually acquires our image, or in what form, or in what number of copies, or with what licensing terms.

Bottom line - today's agency markets our work in any way it chooses, pays us whatever it decides to, and can change things at any time and in any way - including amending the TOS if necessary. Our only recourse is to stop participating entirely.
I agree with everything you said except I think there are more options than just quitting. Contributors could get together and make demands for real change. It hasn't happened yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen within the next year. Things are changing quickly and we may be near a tipping point.

just dropped a tear man, that was be-au-ti-ful!

actually it reminds me of iStock, they are always looking after contributors and clearly following their advice and demands
There hasn't been a group effort to make things change yet.

glad I own a couch and a few chairs

tickstock · « **Reply #207 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:29 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 03, 2013, 09:27

glad I own a couch and a few chairs

I wouldn't expect anything more from you Luis.

cobalt · « **Reply #208 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:31 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 09:20

Quote from: Mantis on October 03, 2013, 07:24
Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2013, 18:08
Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 20:28
So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free?
Just like iStock has given themselves the right to do with promotional files.

Pssst. TS, Google deal????Heard of that?
Those weren't free either.

6 dollars for 400 million users is free imo... and my 1.3 million downloads on the microsoft deal were never paid for. not even 6 dollars.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #209 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:32 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 09:29

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 03, 2013, 09:27
glad I own a couch and a few chairs
I wouldn't expect anything more from you Luis.

got a table as well

tickstock · « **Reply #210 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:34 »

Quote from: cobalt on October 03, 2013, 09:31

Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 09:20
Quote from: Mantis on October 03, 2013, 07:24
Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2013, 18:08
Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 20:28
So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free?
Just like iStock has given themselves the right to do with promotional files.

Pssst. TS, Google deal????Heard of that?
Those weren't free either.

6 dollars for 400 million users is free imo... and my 1.3 million downloads on the microsoft deal were never paid for. not even 6 dollars.

I agree 'paying' for promotional use doesn't mean much when it's a deal like the Google one, but the images for the Google deal were paid.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #211 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:40 »

actually tickstock I believe you should clean your mouth before talking about SS and the fact that we need to get together and fight for changes when you are represented by the shameless iStock made by Getty that pay the lowest royalties of the all industry and pulls shady deals for contributors one after another, you should think twice before saying where we should or shouldn't contribute to, truly pathetic in fact what you said here

tickstock · « **Reply #212 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:42 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 03, 2013, 09:40

actually tickstock I believe you should clean your mouth before talking about SS and the fact that we need to get together and fight for changes when you are represented by the shameless iStock made by Getty that pay the lowest royalties of the all industry and pulls shady deals for contributors one after another, you should think twice before saying where we should or shouldn't contribute to, truly pathetic in fact what you said here

I didn't say you should do anything. Also my royalty rate is much higher than what Shutterstock is paying.

cobalt · « **Reply #213 on:** October 03, 2013, 09:53 »

Your files are exclusive to istock, aren´t they? So getting a higher royalty should be expected. But why don´t you demand a royalty of say - 50% - for your exclusive content? The same rate stocksy is now paying out.

SS is paying a decent rate for non exclusive content.

Anyway this thread was about the TOS changes on SS that don´t affect you as an istock exclusive. For a debate on royalties, why not open a new thread?

tickstock · « **Reply #214 on:** October 03, 2013, 10:02 »

Quote from: cobalt on October 03, 2013, 09:53

Your files are exclusive to istock, aren´t they? So getting a higher royalty should be expected. But why don´t you demand a royalty of say - 50% - for your exclusive content? The same rate stocksy is now paying out.

SS is paying a decent rate for non exclusive content.

Anyway this thread was about the TOS changes on SS that don´t affect you as an istock exclusive. For a debate on royalties, why not open a new thread?

I didn't take this thread off topic, you can see Luis brought up royalty rates for iStock, someone else brought up the Google deal, etc.. I'd rather talk about the TOS in this thread, it seems that might not be possible though. If you want to discuss other issues in appropriate threads I'd be happy to.

cobalt · « **Reply #215 on:** October 03, 2013, 10:05 »

I´d say a thread about royalty rates across the agencies could be an interesting one. Fotolia pays up to 60% for exclusive content and many artists make a full time living supplying only them with RF content. And new files get views and sales. So there are a lot of options.

But I hope this thread gets back to the TOS, on that we agree.

tickstock · « **Reply #216 on:** October 03, 2013, 10:12 »

Quote from: cobalt on October 03, 2013, 10:05

I´d say a thread about royalty rates across the agencies could be an interesting one. Fotolia pays up to 60% for exclusive content and many artists make a full time living supplying only them with RF content. And new files get views and sales. So there are a lot of options.

But I hope this thread gets back to the TOS, on that we agree.

Speaking of the TOS and royalty rates at Shutterstock, you're not allowed.

If you want to talk about those things you're going to need an iStock exclusive to do it for you.

stockastic · « **Reply #217 on:** October 03, 2013, 10:57 »

I think this thread shows very clearly that we currently have zero leverage against a big, publicly owned agency like SS.

They have 10s of millions of images, and huge numbers pouring in every week. On the other hand, they have investors pressuring them to increase profits. Like the other agencies, SS is realizing they can probably cut their supplier costs (i.e. payments to us) almost without limit, and encounter no serious resistance. They can do it by reducing royalties, or raising prices (in one way or another) without increasing so-called "royalty" payments. They probably won't do anything drastic all at once, it will continue to be a slow death by 1,000 cuts.

There is push-back against this, but it's of a subtle and long-term sort. The more creative people will gradually find other pursuits. Niche subjects will be forgotten. New marketing channels will be developed and start to reach buyers.

Eventually, the existing archive of photos starts to look dated, and buyers are going elsewhere for unusual subjects and creative styles, and some of the bigger producers are successfully selling direct. At some point SS will start to react to these changes, but that's a long time off.

I've pretty much moved on. If and when new marketing possibilities appear I expect I'll get back into it.

cobalt · « **Reply #218 on:** October 03, 2013, 11:17 »

Ok, tickstock, that was funny

SS - see all the complications those TOS create? Amend the TOS and bring it closer to the real world...so we don´t need istock exclusives discussing our royalty rates...

gostwyck · « **Reply #219 on:** October 03, 2013, 19:46 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 02, 2013, 19:34

... So buyers get more images, shutterstock pays out less, and contributors get paid less.

Whatever you think *ickstock is fine by me. All I know is I've scooped well over $200 on SOD's alone today and I'm enjoying a nice little drink. Thanks for asking!

Surely it must be time by now for you to pester Scott on some other microscopic issue than doesn't actually affect you? We're all sitting on our hands waiting. Any chance that one day you might even grow a pair and ask such a question on your beloved IS's forum?

tickstock · « **Reply #220 on:** October 03, 2013, 19:56 »

Quote from: syphiliticrambler on October 03, 2013, 19:46

Whatever you think *ickstock is fine by me.

Good to hear.

disorderly · « **Reply #221 on:** October 03, 2013, 19:58 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 03, 2013, 19:46

Whatever you think *ickstock is fine by me. All I know is I've scooped well over $200 on SOD's alone today and I'm enjoying a nice little drink. Thanks for asking!

I'm not doing nearly as well as you, gostwyck, but it's the very first time I've made my minimum payout on the third of a new month. If Shutterstock is screwing me, I can only hope they keep it up. And maybe teach a few other agencies the trick.

As for *ickstock, I wish we'd stop feeding the trolls. I have him on ignore, which doesn't work if everybody repeats his drivel in their replies.

Mantis · « **Reply #222 on:** October 03, 2013, 20:26 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 09:20

Quote from: Mantis on October 03, 2013, 07:24
Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2013, 18:08
Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 20:28
So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free?
Just like iStock has given themselves the right to do with promotional files.

Pssst. TS, Google deal????Heard of that?
Those weren't free either.

Get real TS. They gave away our * rights in perpetuity, so while we got paid "one time" the image/s can be used unlimited times by unlimited people----WITHOUT US GETTING PAID.

tickstock · « **Reply #223 on:** October 03, 2013, 20:57 »

Quote from: Mantis on October 03, 2013, 20:26

Get real TS. They gave away our * rights in perpetuity, so while we got paid "one time" the image/s can be used unlimited times by unlimited people----WITHOUT US GETTING PAID.

I don't think anyone got fairly compensated for the google deal and I don't think the deal is defensible. This is a thread about Shutterstock though and whatever Istock did doesn't really matter for this discussion does it?

Mantis · « **Reply #224 on:** October 04, 2013, 05:07 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 20:57

Quote from: Mantis on October 03, 2013, 20:26
Get real TS. They gave away our * rights in perpetuity, so while we got paid "one time" the image/s can be used unlimited times by unlimited people----WITHOUT US GETTING PAID.
I don't think anyone got fairly compensated for the google deal and I don't think the deal is defensible. This is a thread about Shutterstock though and whatever Istock did doesn't really matter for this discussion does it?

So that's how you defend your comments by saying this isn't about Istock, it's a SS thread. I think I made my point. And if the MSG community is angry with me for going off topic I guess I am in for a bunch of "negatives".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Changes to the TOS at Shutterstock (Read 54672 times)

tickstock

cobalt

luissantos84

Mantis

tickstock

tickstock

luissantos84

tickstock

cobalt

luissantos84

tickstock

luissantos84

tickstock

cobalt

tickstock

cobalt

tickstock

stockastic

cobalt

gostwyck

tickstock

disorderly

Mantis

tickstock

Mantis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors