MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: gostwyck on September 17, 2013, 10:32
-
Read a summary of the changes here;
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/terms-of-service-updates (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/terms-of-service-updates)
Here's the details;
At Shutterstock, one of our most important goals is to support your success by delivering healthy and reliable earnings to you. We do that by growing and investing in customer relationships. Over the years, that investment has led us to deliver record milestones of 750,000 customers, 300 million paid downloads, $150 million in contributor earnings, and royalties of up to $120 or more per download.
We also have goals to minimize changes and to be open and transparent when changes do have to be made. With the latter goal in mind, we’d like to explain a few modifications to our Terms of Service. A summary of the most significant changes is below; please consult the Terms of Service for the full details.
1. If you decide to remove more than 100 items or 10% of your content, whichever is greater, Shutterstock has up to 90 days to accommodate the request. With over 29 million assets, we’re seeing record levels of content growth and contributor activity, but also record levels of customer activity. As we grow, there are new technical, workflow and customer realities that we need to accommodate. Ninety days gives us some time to make sure images come out of search results gracefully, as well as handle other administrative and technical tasks. In practice, we expect this to go faster.
2. Customers that have shown a commitment to licensing an image can convert their “comp” licenses into full licenses. Some of our most trusted large accounts request unwatermarked preview images (also called “comp” images) in exchange for paying higher rates — and as a result of that, royalties – when they purchase a license. If you choose to remove your images, but a customer has already signaled the intention to license an image, they can complete the transaction and we’ll make sure that you get paid. This avoids any last-minute changes for customers when layouts have already been approved or a project is close to completion.
3. We can market your content via social media. We already market your content to customers through many different channels, and social media is one of the most powerful ways to drive customers to your work. This update formalizes our ability to use social media channels for marketing with the intention of growing sales for you.
4. Images used in commercial contexts related to “tobacco use” are now considered a type of “sensitive use.” Unlike many of our competitors who don’t give you a choice, Shutterstock puts you in control of whether your images can be licensed for “sensitive use.” In reality, “sensitive uses” are rare and a very tiny percentage of image uses, but opting-in gives you access to higher royalties and the highest number of sales opportunities. This minor adjustment brings our licenses in line with those of competitors and industry standards.
In addition, if your image or your description of your image already depicts a sensitive subject, you acknowledge that it’s appropriate for sensitive use (for example, a model-released image clearly depicting drug abuse being used for a poster campaign against drugs).
For a full explanation of sensitive use, see here.
5. If you are paid by paper check, $500 is the minimum payout threshold. We want to spend the majority of our time driving sales and royalties for you. In a digital world, relatively few contributors get paid by paper checks. We’re raising the payout threshold for paper checks to $500 to increase efficiency and decrease the amount of time we spend on paperwork.
6. Shutterstock has the option to control litigation and costs in the event of a legal complaint. “To indemnify” means “to protect against damages.” In this case, depending on which party has offered to protect the other from damages in a legal claim, there’s mutual agreement to promptly let the other party know about the complaint. The “protected” party also agree to cooperate in defending against the complaint. This clause also contains specific language with regards to the obligations of each party, including financial obligations.
7. Confidentiality: We Protect And Respect Your Privacy. Please Respect Ours. As an artist at Shutterstock, you’re in a position to acquire information that you would not otherwise receive outside of our platform. Your earnings information might sometimes contain data that can be used by our competitors to reverse-engineer our products and services. We work hard to both protect and respect your privacy; we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine.
These are highlights of the most important changes to our Terms of Service. Please consult the full document for additional details, and please let us know if you have any questions at [email protected].
Best Regards,
The Shutterstock Team
-
I read those. All very reasonable IMO. #1 and #2 seem to be a direct result of Yuri's departure leaving them and their customers in the lurch. No wonder they want to avoid that sort of thing in the future.
Also pleased about the second paragraph in #4 stating that if your photo depicts sensitive uses, it is automatically available for sensitive uses. I have my images opted out of sensitive uses because it's too broad, but I do have some photos of people smoking, or experiencing illness and it would be silly if the opt out prevented them for being used for those purposes.
All in all, a smart batch of changes.
-
I read those. All very reasonable IMO. #1 and #2 seem to be a direct result of Yuri's departure leaving them and their customers in the lurch. No wonder they want to avoid that sort of thing in the future.
Also pleased about the second paragraph in #4 stating that if your photo depicts sensitive uses, it is automatically available for sensitive uses. I have my images opted out of sensitive uses because it's too broad, but I do have some photos of people smoking, or experiencing illness and it would be silly if the opt out prevented them for being used for those purposes.
All in all, a smart batch of changes.
I'd agree __ especially about #1&2! There's nothing there that particularly concerns me.
-
I'll admit to a shiver of discomfort when I saw that the TOS was changing. But after reading the details I can't see any cause for concern. Only minimal impact on me personally, and everything in there seems reasonable and fair.
-
This is the only one that has me worried a bit
3. We can market your content via social media
Its too easy to steal off social media.
-
I'd be curious to see what the reaction would be if iStock. changed their terms to add things like a 90 day lock in period (exclusives leaving and they want to stop the bleeding), using social media to market (more google drive deals), free (full sized?) comps (giving away our images), secrecy about earnings (the company is about to collapse), no opt out for sensitive use of some images (taking away our choices), etc....
To me those changes look bad for contributors.
-
I'd be curious to see what the reaction would be if iStock. changed their terms to add things like a 90 day lock in period (exclusives leaving and they want to stop the bleeding), using social media to market (more google drive deals), free (full sized?) comps (giving away our images), secrecy about earnings (the company is about to collapse), no opt out for sensitive use of some images (taking away our choices), etc....
To me those changes look bad for contributors.
You are so predictable
-
I'd be curious to see what the reaction would be if iStock. changed their terms to add things like a 90 day lock in period (exclusives leaving and they want to stop the bleeding), using social media to market (more google drive deals), free (full sized?) comps (giving away our images), secrecy about earnings (the company is about to collapse), no opt out for sensitive use of some images (taking away our choices), etc....
To me those changes look bad for contributors.
You are so predictable
I really don't like the lock in period. I don't like giving away full sized non watermarked comps for free (are they full sized comps). Who likes being told they can't talk about their earnings? I don't get the sensitive use one (but I don't think we've seen that license yet) images that depicted a sensitive use before could be used in that context I thought. I guess now they can be used for tobacco ads.
-
"we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine."
That seems a bit restrictive. Wonder what extent is too much.
90 days seems fine now, until someone decides they need out this minute! I'm not a fan of restrictions like that. If you wanted that thing at the store, you should have bought it when you saw it.
-
I'd be curious to see what the reaction would be if iStock. changed their terms to add things like a 90 day lock in period (exclusives leaving and they want to stop the bleeding), using social media to market (more google drive deals), free (full sized?) comps (giving away our images), secrecy about earnings (the company is about to collapse), no opt out for sensitive use of some images (taking away our choices), etc....
To me those changes look bad for contributors.
You are so predictable
I really don't like the lock in period. I don't like giving away full sized non watermarked comps for free (are they full sized comps). Who likes being told they can't talk about their earnings?
There is no lock in period, it can take UP to 90 days to full fill your request. If someone comes along and says, please delete 5000 images, it can take UP to 90 days.
Comp images are normal in the industry and as far as know low res and compressed images.
You can still talk about earnings just no specifics.
-
The 90 days lock in period combined with the fact that they can change the TOS at anytime means you've agreed to any future change at least for 90 days no matter how terrible that change is.
-
Every company on the internet can change their TOS whenever they want to. Shutterstock is no exception.
-
Every company on the internet can change their TOS whenever they want to. Shutterstock is no exception.
Not every company says they can hold your images for 90 days after they make whatever change they make.
-
The part that you cannot talk about your own earning does not seem to be fair.
I wish they allow the contributors to opt out of social media.
-
The part that you cannot talk about your own earning does not seem to be fair.
I think that's also a first in the industry isn't it?
-
"we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine."
That seems a bit restrictive. Wonder what extent is too much.
Are they asking or telling?
-
The part that you cannot talk about your own earning does not seem to be fair.
it seems to be a request rather than an order
-
"we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine."
That seems a bit restrictive. Wonder what extent is too much.
Are they asking or telling?
6. Confidentiality
By submitting any Content to Shutterstock, you acknowledge that you will acquire certain confidential information, including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data (collectively, "Confidential Information"). Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party other than representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms/ (http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms/)
It's in the TOS so talking about your "royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data" or other things (whatever they are) would be a violation and I guess could result in the termination of your account.
-
"we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine."
That seems a bit restrictive. Wonder what extent is too much.
Are they asking or telling?
It appears to be a contractual obligation that you don't talk about your earnings. I am surprised that your family members are not included in the exemption.
Other agencies, if I remember correctly, such as Fotolia or maybe DT, forbid contributors to talk about DLs and earnings in their own forums, but put no restrictions other than their own sites. IS has a monthly thread discussing DLs and earnings.
The new terms are nicely penned, but it does not change the harsh nature of the reality. By the way, I am a video contributor to SS.
6. Confidentiality
By submitting any Content to Shutterstock, you acknowledge that you will acquire certain confidential information, including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data (collectively, "Confidential Information"). Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party other than representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms/[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms/[/url])
It's in the TOS so talking about your "royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data" or other things (whatever they are) would be a violation and I guess could result in the termination of your account.
-
The part that you cannot talk about your own earning does not seem to be fair.
It's because SS are now a publically traded company and therefore have to comply with regulations.
Significant changes to your own earnings for example could be deemed 'insider information' so they don't want contributors blabbing about it all over the internet. It might lead to a situation in which some traders have information, that could affect the share price, that others do not.
-
Good luck enforcing that. You'd need a full time staff just doing that. ;D
-
Every company on the internet can change their TOS whenever they want to. Shutterstock is no exception.
Not every company says they can hold your images for 90 days after they make whatever change they make.
Fair point. Point taken.
-
Read a summary of the changes here;
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/terms-of-service-updates[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/terms-of-service-updates[/url])
Here's the details;
At Shutterstock, one of our most important goals is to support your success by delivering healthy and reliable earnings to you. We do that by growing and investing in customer relationships. Over the years, that investment has led us to deliver record milestones of 750,000 customers, 300 million paid downloads, $150 million in contributor earnings, and royalties of up to $120 or more per download.
We also have goals to minimize changes and to be open and transparent when changes do have to be made. With the latter goal in mind, we’d like to explain a few modifications to our Terms of Service. A summary of the most significant changes is below; please consult the Terms of Service for the full details.
1. If you decide to remove more than 100 items or 10% of your content, whichever is greater, Shutterstock has up to 90 days to accommodate the request. With over 29 million assets, we’re seeing record levels of content growth and contributor activity, but also record levels of customer activity. As we grow, there are new technical, workflow and customer realities that we need to accommodate. Ninety days gives us some time to make sure images come out of search results gracefully, as well as handle other administrative and technical tasks. In practice, we expect this to go faster.
3. We can market your content via social media. We already market your content to customers through many different channels, and social media is one of the most powerful ways to drive customers to your work. This update formalizes our ability to use social media channels for marketing with the intention of growing sales for you.
7. Confidentiality: We Protect And Respect Your Privacy. Please Respect Ours. As an artist at Shutterstock, you’re in a position to acquire information that you would not otherwise receive outside of our platform. Your earnings information might sometimes contain data that can be used by our competitors to reverse-engineer our products and services.
We work hard to both protect and respect your privacy; we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine.
These are highlights of the most important changes to our Terms of Service. Please consult the full document for additional details, and please let us know if you have any questions at [email protected].
Best Regards,
The Shutterstock Team
1. Could be a response to Yuri leaving or it could be prompted by something yet to be reveled.
2. Is too broad, I would like to know how they plan on marketing our assets on social media, at what size and where.
3. I don't buy the reverse engineering blather, more likely they do not want analyst and contributors to see it. And LOL I guess they forgot about the top 50 and newsletters which report the details of various contributor files that sell in high numbers. http://submit.shutterstock.com/top50.mhtml (http://submit.shutterstock.com/top50.mhtml)
-
"we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine."
That seems a bit restrictive. Wonder what extent is too much.
Are they asking or telling?
It appears to be a contractual obligation that you don't talk about your earnings. I am surprised that your family members are not included in the exemption.
Other agencies, if I remember correctly, such as Fotolia or maybe DT, forbid contributors to talk about DLs and earnings in their own forums, but put no restrictions other than their own sites. IS has a monthly thread discussing DLs and earnings.
The new terms are nicely penned, but it does not change the harsh nature of the reality. By the way, I am a video contributor to SS.
6. Confidentiality
By submitting any Content to Shutterstock, you acknowledge that you will acquire certain confidential information, including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data (collectively, "Confidential Information"). Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party other than representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms/[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms/[/url])
It's in the TOS so talking about your "royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data" or other things (whatever they are) would be a violation and I guess could result in the termination of your account.
That sounds a lot different then what Gostwyck posted. So we can no longer discuss our earnings, other than saying BME or 10% up from September, etc.
-
Good luck enforcing that. You'd need a full time staff just doing that. ;D
Hmmm. Must admit if I had friends or family who owned SSTK stock then I'd certainly be keeping them appraised of how I thought the business might be doing in relation to my own earnings. Who wouldn't?
-
The part that you cannot talk about your own earning does not seem to be fair.
It's because SS are now a publically traded company and therefore have to comply with regulations.
Significant changes to your own earnings for example could be deemed 'insider information' so they don't want contributors blabbing about it all over the internet. It might lead to a situation in which some traders have information, that could affect the share price, that others do not.
How would me talking about my earnings affect the share price, when their numbers are public anyway?
-
Hmm, the whole 'you can't talk about your business with anyone you like' thing seems a bit draconian to me.
-
How would me talking about my earnings affect the share price, when their numbers are public anyway?
Financials are only published every quarter. It's the periods in between that are sensitive.
-
Good luck enforcing that. You'd need a full time staff just doing that. ;D
Hmmm. Must admit if I had friends or family who owned SSTK stock then I'd certainly be keeping them appraised of how I thought the business might be doing in relation to my own earnings. Who wouldn't?
You might also want to send them this link, it should be interesting once the details become available for the Registration Statement for Proposed Follow-On Offering filed this week.
Sec Filings Insider Trading - Shutterstock Inc. (SSTK)
http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm (http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm)
-
How would me talking about my earnings affect the share price, when their numbers are public anyway?
Financials are only published every quarter. It's the periods in between that are sensitive.
Ok, thanks.
So I guess we can no longer post the SOD with the royalties earned on the SS forum, and other screenshots and stuff like that containing the royalties.
-
The part that you cannot talk about your own earning does not seem to be fair.
It's because SS are now a publically traded company and therefore have to comply with regulations.
Significant changes to your own earnings for example could be deemed 'insider information' so they don't want contributors blabbing about it all over the internet. It might lead to a situation in which some traders have information, that could affect the share price, that others do not.
If that is the case then why are they giving a completely different reason in what you posted ?
Also - there is nothing to stop a company's suppliers from also trading stock in that company. Farmers can own and trade supermarket stock, for example.
-
How would me talking about my earnings affect the share price, when their numbers are public anyway?
Financials are only published every quarter. It's the periods in between that are sensitive.
Ok, thanks.
So I guess we can no longer post the SOD with the royalties earned on the SS forum, and other screenshots and stuff like that containing the royalties.
However they have no problem at all posting our best selling files in newsletters and http://submit.shutterstock.com/top50.mhtml (http://submit.shutterstock.com/top50.mhtml)
-
How can they stop you talking about earnings - you are not an employee? Do they try to stop any of their other suppliers discussing what SS pay them?
90 day turnaround - maybe something to do with them not having exclusivity? Or are they seeing a lot of contributors selling rights on other sites and asking for removal of their images from SS? It would be interesting to see what happens in a case whereby you sell the rights and therefore have to remove the image from all other sites. Would the 90 day turnaround with SS stop the sale?
Social media - just formalising marketing strategy I guess, they already do it, this just confirms that individual contributors are happy for them to do it. Probably a lashback from Facebook in case any contributors are not on Facebook and therefore do not accept FB T&Cs, this covers FB and SS in case of any legal response from a contributor.
-
The part that you cannot talk about your own earning does not seem to be fair.
It's because SS are now a publically traded company and therefore have to comply with regulations.
Significant changes to your own earnings for example could be deemed 'insider information' so they don't want contributors blabbing about it all over the internet. It might lead to a situation in which some traders have information, that could affect the share price, that others do not.
I think that's quite a stretch to say that posting your royalty rate on a public website would be insider information. Even Yuri couldn't be considered an insider, none of us could be, that point has been made countless times by people on this site. The policy is, as gbalex said, aimed at keeping contributors in the dark and keeping bad press to a minimum.
-
90 day turnaround - maybe something to do with them not having exclusivity? Or are they seeing a lot of contributors selling rights on other sites and asking for removal of their images from SS? It would be interesting to see what happens in a case whereby you sell the rights and therefore have to remove the image from all other sites. Would the 90 day turnaround with SS stop the sale?
You can disable 100 images instantly which should cover the issue of selling the rights on another site. Or making a mistake with the image or for a number of other reasons. If you want to disable more than 10% or your port or more than 100 images (whichever is less) you'll have to wait the 90 days.
-
The part that you cannot talk about your own earning does not seem to be fair.
It's because SS are now a publically traded company and therefore have to comply with regulations.
Significant changes to your own earnings for example could be deemed 'insider information' so they don't want contributors blabbing about it all over the internet. It might lead to a situation in which some traders have information, that could affect the share price, that others do not.
Definitely not, please read the definition of "insider" carefully, I doubt even someone like Yuri could qualify for an "insider" because contributors are not employees and their shares in SS would not likely to be of "controlling" significanc. As a public trading company, SS only has higher obligation for transparency and disclosure.
-
The only thing that worries me is the social media marketing, if the images are not watermarked. The reactions below the TOS article state that images are available for grabs at a pretty high resolution. SS should try to prevent image theft by watermarking or showing smaller images, or both.
The request not to talk about earnings is fine by me. Most people aren't keen on telling what they are earning anyway. I believe you can still mention your total earnings, but not to publicly disclose more specific details about the number of SDs or ODs. I think it's good to be a little secretive about it, since any of SS's competitors may use the information to devise new strategies to compete with SS, which could turn out bad for us.
-
I think someone had raised the issue of enforceability earlier. It is unlikely they are going to police the whole community, but they can terminate you for cause by citing the confidentiality clause, especially in a situation when one contributor causes some real discomfort like Sean did at IS.
It is dangerous.
-
I think someone had raised the issue of enforceability earlier. It is unlikely they are going to police the whole community, but they can terminate you for cause by citing the confidentiality clause, especially in a situation when one contributor causes some real discomfort like Sean did at IS.
It is dangerous.
They could do that anyway at any time. Why start talking about it unless they have some plan involved?
-
You can disable 100 images instantly which should cover the issue of selling the rights on another site.
although:
If you choose to remove your images, but a customer has already signaled the intention to license an image, they can complete the transaction
Not that I see this as a big deal unless the image has never previously sold anywhere. Since a designer who already has the image RF can continue to use it in any number of different projects and with multiple final clients. I suppose it means that people need to tell anyone who wants to buy the rights to an image that it could potentially still be sold to one or more other users who have somehow signaled their intentions - for an indefinite period but will not be on general sale.
-
The only thing that worries me is the social media marketing, if the images are not watermarked. The reactions below the TOS article state that images are available for grabs at a pretty high resolution. SS should try to prevent image theft by watermarking or showing smaller images, or both.
The request not to talk about earnings is fine by me. Most people aren't keen on telling what they are earning anyway. I believe you can still mention your total earnings, but not to publicly disclose more specific details about the number of SDs or ODs. I think it's good to be a little secretive about it, since any of SS's competitors may use the information to devise new strategies to compete with SS, which could turn out bad for us.
This is what the TOS says " including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data". Total earnings would seem to fit under earnings data but that doesn't really matter because it's not limited to those things listed, there are other unknown things you can't talk about.
-
I don't see a problem with the wait on a portion of your portfolio - we already accepted it with DT years ago (although if you remember they originally proposed 12 months no exceptions and we stopped uploading and fussed and they changed it to 6 months). I don't like it, but I can see that as they're dealing with larger companies as clients they need to accommodate more of these types of requests - grab the comp now and buy in a month or two.
I wish they would be more forthcoming about what exactly happens with these premier customers. What makes a customer premier; how many unwatermarked comps (at what size) can they have for how long without purchasing anything before SS will audit them to see what they're up to; do these higher prices paid for the premier customers who get unwatermarked comps show up in higher royalties for contributors when they do buy? Does that show up as a single and other download? Do they offer unwatermarked comps on subscriptions (one would think not, but as I had no idea they were even offering such a service, it makes me wonder how this works).
I wasn't comfortable when they introduced the Single and Other Downloads that they wouldn't give us any information about the price the customer paid or what the license terms were. I'm still not happy (but not unhappy enough to walk away from SS) as it may or may not be a good deal for us - the numbers can be high (yesterday I had one for $82.50 which was great, but I have no idea what I sold for that amount) but we can't know if we're being ripped off or fairly compensated. Finding out about these other Premier customers with special rates just adds to this concern that they are not being transparent enough with contributors about what terms they sell our content on.
Our content, not theirs, and we can't see the terms of the sales (other than subscriptions, enhanced licenses and on demand).
As far as not discussing earnings, they post an earnings schedule with royalty rates (http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml) - how can we not discuss publicly what they post on their web site? The full section in the new TOS says:
Confidentiality
By submitting any Content to Shutterstock, you acknowledge that you will acquire certain confidential information, including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data (collectively, "Confidential Information"). Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party other than representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential.
I might also argue that as fellow contributors have a need to know about rising or falling monthly earnings, it'd be fine to keep discussing it. However, that's a stretch and as they can terminate my account at any time for pretty much any reason, I'm a little concerned that this might give them an excuse. Section 3.a. about termination of our accounts for various reasons ends "..., or for convenience."
People are always writing about guesstimates of public companies' earnings and whether they're on the rise or fall. I don't see why writing about how well (or not) SS is doing is suddenly not acceptable.
I don't talk about my monthly totals in $$ in forums, but I don't like being told I can't :)
I'm not thrilled at the Facebook and other social media section not making any mention of steps they would take - such as watermarking our content - to prevent theft when "marketing" our work this way. I hope that they would, but I think they should say so.
-
The only thing that worries me is the social media marketing, if the images are not watermarked. The reactions below the TOS article state that images are available for grabs at a pretty high resolution. SS should try to prevent image theft by watermarking or showing smaller images, or both.
The request not to talk about earnings is fine by me. Most people aren't keen on telling what they are earning anyway. I believe you can still mention your total earnings, but not to publicly disclose more specific details about the number of SDs or ODs. I think it's good to be a little secretive about it, since any of SS's competitors may use the information to devise new strategies to compete with SS, which could turn out bad for us.
This is what the TOS says " including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data". Total earnings would seem to fit under earnings data but that doesn't really matter because it's not limited to those things listed, there are other unknown things you can't talk about.
Whoopee!
Like a superinjunction 8)
-
The 90 days lock in period combined with the fact that they can change the TOS at anytime means you've agreed to any future change at least for 90 days no matter how terrible that change is.
Yes.
-
7. Confidentiality: We Protect And Respect Your Privacy. Please Respect Ours. As an artist at Shutterstock, you’re in a position to acquire information that you would not otherwise receive outside of our platform. Your earnings information might sometimes contain data that can be used by our competitors to reverse-engineer our products and services. We work hard to both protect and respect your privacy; we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine.
Nice of them to let us know what we can and cannot say on outside public forums. Should we re-open the debate about why anyone would ever want to be anonymous here on MSG?
-
It is important for artists to share information to see which sites are worth contributing to. If I hadn't read how successful people are at SS I would not have even considered working with a subscription site.
If they really start policing us on external forums or people get their accounts closed because they decided to share what they earn, if they reached a new royalty level etc...then it will probably be necessary to use an alias for the sales threads.
But maybe this is also related to people like Yuri who have huge volumes of sales and can actually track how SS is doing overall. Nobody can gain any insight into how SS is doing from my data.
But I really can't believe they are suddenly worried by the sales threads on msg, blogs or facebook groups.
-
It is important for artists to share information to see which sites are worth contributing to. If I hadn't read how successful people are at SS I would not have even considered working with a subscription site.
If they really start policing us on external forums or people get their accounts closed because they decided to share what they earn, if they reached a new royalty level etc...then it will probably be necessary to use an alias for the sales threads.
But maybe this is also related to people like Yuri who have huge volumes of sales and can actually track how SS is doing overall. Nobody can gain any insight into how SS is doing from my data.
But I really can't believe they are suddenly worried by the sales threads on msg, blogs or facebook groups.
I also find it hard to believe they are worried about that so maybe another explanation is needed? You aren't allowed to post on a forum or tell your husband what royalty rate you get but they have the royalty rates listed on the website. I wonder if some more opaque system of royalties is going to be announced, maybe an RC type system (it's been tested at Bigstock already) where royalty rates are changing constantly?
-
So is contributing to the poll every month now taboo.
-
I don't see a problem with the wait on a portion of your portfolio - we already accepted it with DT years ago (although if you remember they originally proposed 12 months no exceptions and we stopped uploading and fussed and they changed it to 6 months). I don't like it, but I can see that as they're dealing with larger companies as clients they need to accommodate more of these types of requests - grab the comp now and buy in a month or two.
I wish they would be more forthcoming about what exactly happens with these premier customers. What makes a customer premier; how many unwatermarked comps (at what size) can they have for how long without purchasing anything before SS will audit them to see what they're up to; do these higher prices paid for the premier customers who get unwatermarked comps show up in higher royalties for contributors when they do buy? Does that show up as a single and other download? Do they offer unwatermarked comps on subscriptions (one would think not, but as I had no idea they were even offering such a service, it makes me wonder how this works).
I wasn't comfortable when they introduced the Single and Other Downloads that they wouldn't give us any information about the price the customer paid or what the license terms were. I'm still not happy (but not unhappy enough to walk away from SS) as it may or may not be a good deal for us - the numbers can be high (yesterday I had one for $82.50 which was great, but I have no idea what I sold for that amount) but we can't know if we're being ripped off or fairly compensated. Finding out about these other Premier customers with special rates just adds to this concern that they are not being transparent enough with contributors about what terms they sell our content on.
Our content, not theirs, and we can't see the terms of the sales (other than subscriptions, enhanced licenses and on demand).
As far as not discussing earnings, they post an earnings schedule with royalty rates ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url]) - how can we not discuss publicly what they post on their web site? The full section in the new TOS says:
Confidentiality
By submitting any Content to Shutterstock, you acknowledge that you will acquire certain confidential information, including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data (collectively, "Confidential Information"). Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party other than representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential.
I might also argue that as fellow contributors have a need to know about rising or falling monthly earnings, it'd be fine to keep discussing it. However, that's a stretch and as they can terminate my account at any time for pretty much any reason, I'm a little concerned that this might give them an excuse. Section 3.a. about termination of our accounts for various reasons ends "..., or for convenience."
People are always writing about guesstimates of public companies' earnings and whether they're on the rise or fall. I don't see why writing about how well (or not) SS is doing is suddenly not acceptable.
I don't talk about my monthly totals in $$ in forums, but I don't like being told I can't :)
I'm not thrilled at the Facebook and other social media section not making any mention of steps they would take - such as watermarking our content - to prevent theft when "marketing" our work this way. I hope that they would, but I think they should say so.
Great post Jo Ann. May be the apparent lack of transparency on the prices paid for SOD's, etc is mainly to do with commercial sensitivity (i.e. they don't want their competitors knowing what they're doing)?
Overall though I think SS are by far the most transparent of any agency by virtue of the fact that they publish their financials. At least we do know exactly how much profit they make from us. I wouldn't mind seeing the same from IS, FT and DT.
-
So is contributing to the poll every month now taboo.
It could be for Leaf, he's publishing earnings data. You should be fine though.
-
Great post Jo Ann. May be the apparent lack of transparency on the prices paid for SOD's, etc is mainly to do with commercial sensitivity (i.e. they don't want their competitors knowing what they're doing)?
Any competitor could easily have an employee, friend or relative shooting for SS to find out. But like policing the sort of conditions that say you can't use an image bought on subscription after the subscription has finished, it would be nigh unto impossible to police what someone tells their boss, friend or relative in private.
-
I don't talk about my monthly totals in $$ in forums, but I don't like being told I can't :)
LOL. I was thinking the same thing. I was very tempted to just post my numbers from last month. I'm definitely not going anonymous either. I suppose they'll probably just have to kick me out. ;D
-
I'd be curious to see what the reaction would be if iStock. changed their terms to add things like a 90 day lock in period (exclusives leaving and they want to stop the bleeding), using social media to market (more google drive deals), free (full sized?) comps (giving away our images), secrecy about earnings (the company is about to collapse), no opt out for sensitive use of some images (taking away our choices), etc....
To me those changes look bad for contributors.
You are so predictable
I don't like giving away full sized non watermarked comps for free (are they full sized comps).
Just FYI, being able to access non-watermarked comp images is a big reason the large ad agencies (which buy the biggest licenses) prefer NOT to use microstock. If they have a legitimate account through their job (they're required to register with their current work email, which proves they're employed by a large ad agency), they can download large unwatermarked images from sites like Getty and Corbis, which they far prefer to use in comp ads and storyboards, because small watermarked images look terrible in layout, especially when blown up for presentation, when they get very pixelated.
Because all of our work is vetted by the clients' legal departments, and because we're fellow "creatives," the chances of someone "stealing" your unwatermarked image in that instance is very slim. I don't know of anyone in my 30+ years of experience who's ever done anything like that.
If the client buys the concept, they pay for usage depending on the size of their campaign. This is where the biggest commissions come in.
-
I'd be curious to see what the reaction would be if iStock. changed their terms to add things like a 90 day lock in period (exclusives leaving and they want to stop the bleeding), using social media to market (more google drive deals), free (full sized?) comps (giving away our images), secrecy about earnings (the company is about to collapse), no opt out for sensitive use of some images (taking away our choices), etc....
To me those changes look bad for contributors.
You are so predictable
it's his job.
-
The discussion of earnings bit could be resolved simply by banning the dozen or so contributors who bleat about the lack of sales and the imminent demise of SS one week and then can't wait to tell everyone how many SODs and ELs and whatnot they've raked in the next.
-
Great post Jo Ann. May be the apparent lack of transparency on the prices paid for SOD's, etc is mainly to do with commercial sensitivity (i.e. they don't want their competitors knowing what they're doing)?
Any competitor could easily have an employee, friend or relative shooting for SS to find out. But like policing the sort of conditions that say you can't use an image bought on subscription after the subscription has finished, it would be nigh unto impossible to police what someone tells their boss, friend or relative in private.
SS publishes their own earnings in incredible detail. It makes absolutely no sense to forbid their contributors to talk about their results if they publish everything themselves.
I also don´t see how a competitor can deduct anything from me posting that I have earned 350 dollars, or when I celebrate that I have moved up to 33 cents instead of 25 cents. On the contrary, it is the very detailed information shared by contributors that got me interested in working with SS in the first place. This is how online communities work. People share results.
I really can´t see the logic in this decision and the idea that SS is paying admins to scout the internet to check if we talk about our results is...creepy?
This sounds like a very negative move. What on earth is coming next?? Why do we need to start hiding our results?
-
I'd be curious to see what the reaction would be if iStock. changed their terms to add things like a 90 day lock in period (exclusives leaving and they want to stop the bleeding), using social media to market (more google drive deals), free (full sized?) comps (giving away our images), secrecy about earnings (the company is about to collapse), no opt out for sensitive use of some images (taking away our choices), etc....
To me those changes look bad for contributors.
You are so predictable
it's his job.
I wish, then I'd be getting the big bucks.
-
Great post Jo Ann. May be the apparent lack of transparency on the prices paid for SOD's, etc is mainly to do with commercial sensitivity (i.e. they don't want their competitors knowing what they're doing)?
Any competitor could easily have an employee, friend or relative shooting for SS to find out. But like policing the sort of conditions that say you can't use an image bought on subscription after the subscription has finished, it would be nigh unto impossible to police what someone tells their boss, friend or relative in private.
SS publishes their own earnings in incredible detail. It makes absolutely no sense to forbid their contributors to talk about their results if they publish everything themselves.
I also don´t see how a competitor can deduct anything from me posting that I have earned 350 dollars, or when I celebrate that I have moved up to 33 cents instead of 25 cents. On the contrary, it is the very detailed information shared by contributors that got me interested in working with SS in the first place. This is how online communities work. People share results.
I really can´t see the logic in this decision and the idea that SS is paying admins to scout the internet to check if we talk about our results is...creepy?
This sounds like a very negative move. What on earth is coming next?? Why do we need to start hiding our results?
Bigstock RC type system is coming and royalty rates change monthly? Maybe certain contributors will be given special rates? Who knows? But I can be pretty sure it's not to stop people from reporting good news.
-
Great post Jo Ann. May be the apparent lack of transparency on the prices paid for SOD's, etc is mainly to do with commercial sensitivity (i.e. they don't want their competitors knowing what they're doing)?
Any competitor could easily have an employee, friend or relative shooting for SS to find out. But like policing the sort of conditions that say you can't use an image bought on subscription after the subscription has finished, it would be nigh unto impossible to police what someone tells their boss, friend or relative in private.
SS publishes their own earnings in incredible detail. It makes absolutely no sense to forbid their contributors to talk about their results if they publish everything themselves.
I also don´t see how a competitor can deduct anything from me posting that I have earned 350 dollars, or when I celebrate that I have moved up to 33 cents instead of 25 cents. On the contrary, it is the very detailed information shared by contributors that got me interested in working with SS in the first place. This is how online communities work. People share results.
I really can´t see the logic in this decision and the idea that SS is paying admins to scout the internet to check if we talk about our results is...creepy?
This sounds like a very negative move. What on earth is coming next??
My thoughts exactly!
They must be worried about our reaction to upcoming changes. They could also be worried about the increasing numbers of contributors posting negative sales information and that could potentially affect market value as well as the ongoing acquisition of new contributors.
Notice they specifically mentioned royalties.
-
It's a growing, newly public company that sees itself acquiring a dominant position. Obviously they feel like they can start throwing their weight around and dictating new terms to contributors. There will no doubt be more.
-
They could also be worried about the increasing numbers of contributors posting negative sales information and that could potentially affect market value as well as the ongoing acquisition of new contributors.
If they are ever worried about acquiring new contributors,they could go back to the old referral commission system.
-
To me it sounds more like the influence of people who are not familiar with online communities and social network marketing is getting dominant. I can´t believe that people who have lived online and seen SS grow would recommend such a policy.
It cannot be enforced and creates very negative buzz.
How is that good for an online business?
Anyway, we will see what they do. But it sounds scary.
-
To me it sounds more like the influence of people who are not familiar with online communities and social network marketing is getting dominant. I can´t believe that people who have lived online and seen SS grow would recommend such a policy.
It cannot be enforced and creates very negative buzz.
How is that good for an online business?
Anyway, we will see what they do. But it is scary.
I don't remember Shutterstock being very community oriented at all. They don't do lypses or events to get contributors together, the admins rarely were part of the discussion, the forums were predominantly used for pimping. This action isn't aimed at stopping people posting in their "community" they can already stop that part by locking threads and deleting posts they don't like, this was aimed at outside posting of sales and royalty rate information.
-
The stock community is not limited to the SS forums. It is everything - the blogs, the reports, Facebook,twitter.
People have been blogging their results for years and years. So why is it suddenly a problem??
-
The stock community is not limited to the SS forums. It is everything - the blogs, the reports, Facebook,twitter.
People have been blogging their results for years and years. So why is it suddenly a problem??
You don't seem to want to hear it but my guess is it's not suddenly a problem but there are some changes in the works that will make it a problem.
-
No, I agree it is probably about the future. And to me it sounds like bad news is coming.
-
No, I agree it is probably about the future. And to me it sounds like bad news is coming.
I agree, damage control up front.
-
RC System is my guess.
-
Supposing they were about to implement the insane royalty chart from BigStock at Shutterstock? That would get people talking - and perhaps they'd want that not to happen. I used to make $xx and now I make 1/10th of $xx...
-
Wow - bizarre turn of events for SS. They must be expecting some sort of backlash with whatever they have up their sleeves otherwise why bother with a 90-day lock-in. I had the impression they were one of the safer places to upload to, as they don’t actively distribute your work to multiple shady partner programs. I was considering uploading there, but in light of today’s news, I think I’ll hold off a little longer.
-
No, I agree it is probably about the future. And to me it sounds like bad news is coming.
I agree, damage control up front.
Don't panic people! I've been with SS for nearly 9 years now and still have every confidence in them. They are naturally maturing as a publically-quoted business and it is not surprising that they need to make minor adjustments to the TOS to reflect their current status.
I think SS have a history of valuing their contributors and treating them fairly and I think that those fundamentals have been critical to their success. We all know what happened to IS when they lost the confidence of their content providers. Why on earth would SS want to do the same? Oringer still holds the majority of the stock and shareholders cannot 'force' him to do anything against his better judgement.
If Oringer wants to 'rule the world' of stock imagery, which he clearly does, then messing about with contributors for short-term gain now would make no sense. He has a much bigger war to win yet.
-
To be honest I expect something like this and more bad news will come in near future..... and than istock will.....
-
Supposing they were about to implement the insane royalty chart from BigStock at Shutterstock? That would get people talking - and perhaps they'd want that not to happen. I used to make $xx and now I make 1/10th of $xx...
That does seem like a likely candidate. I suppose it could be something we haven't thought of. You don't want those pesky Facebook customers to know how much the poor sad little artists are getting paid versus how much they are charging. I guess the speculation is endless, but it definitely seems like something is coming down the pipe.
-
I am your advisor and you are my advisor, now we need to talk about finances...
What an odd clause. It does make me worry they are planning on porting the horrible RC system from bigstock. That would get me a lot of very non-specific negative press from me.
I always get a little nervouse when they change the terms, as they are NEVER changes in our favor (at least not in my experience).
-
The 90-day lock-in, and that stuff about giving out full-size comp images to 'special' customers, boils down to the same thing Alamy has been doing: lending out our images without paying us anything.
With Alamy, it shows up as sales that are mysteriously cancelled after weeks or months. SS is using different weasel-words but it's the same thing.
A customer gets temporary use of a full-size image for up to 90 days; he might show it, for example, in presentations to clients. Maybe a designer wants to offer several possiblities, and doesn't want to pay for all the different images he'd need, so he "borrows" them. Maybe one deal goes through, another doesn't. Maybe after looking at your photo for while they decide they can just produce something equivalent on their own, but customized.
But note that by using images in this way, the designer is engaged in business and making money. And we're not.
I don't think this is "black helicopter", conspiracy theory stuff. There are lots of temporary uses for imagery and these agencies are now offering it free. Think about it before telling me I'm way off base.
-
For multiple hundreds of dollars per sale I might be ok with the borrow before you buy, but no for 38 cents or a handful of dollars. The micro stock model means you can afford to buy a medium size unwatermarked for a comp
At the very least I want to know more about the terms. Alamy's model has had many contributors finding uses that aren't paid. Why would SS customers be any different?
-
When an image is loaned out, SS profits in the form of the customer's good will - that customer will buy more in the future. So both the customer and SS profited by the use of the image.
Or maybe these special (i.e. big) customers actually do pay some sort of flat fee to SS for the regular use of 'comps', as well as other services. Now we finally have a business model that's totally cut the supplier out of the picture. No 'royalties' at all, because nothing got sold. It's just a service.
-
For multiple hundreds of dollars per sale I might be ok with the borrow before you buy, but no for 38 cents or a handful of dollars.
Yes. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but if a big company wants full-sized comps from a microstock agency, wouldn't they just buy a subscription? :-\
-
Maybe a designer wants to offer several possiblities, and doesn't want to pay for all the different images he'd need, so he "borrows" them.
I thought that was what subs were for? Why would you need comps?
-
I'm OK with most of the changes, but not with this part :
"If you choose to remove your images, but a customer has already signaled the intention to license an image, they can complete the transaction and we’ll make sure that you get paid. This avoids any last-minute changes for customers when layouts have already been approved or a project is close to completion."
It has happened several times already that Dreamstime sold the rights of one of my images. I then get a short period of time to remove the image from all other sites. I can still do this without any problem at SS, but the above clause makes it possible for the big clients to buy and use that image a few weeks AFTER I removed it ??
About the secrecy clause :
I understand that talking about sales going down can worry people/companies who own SS stock. But to be honest I always get MORE worried if people STOP talking about it. If the doctor tells me I have disease X, I won't like it, but if the doctor tells me "you have a disease, but I cannot talk about it", THEN I GET REALLY WORRIED.
-
I'm OK with most of the changes, but not with this part :
"If you choose to remove your images, but a customer has already signaled the intention to license an image, they can complete the transaction and we’ll make sure that you get paid. This avoids any last-minute changes for customers when layouts have already been approved or a project is close to completion."
It has happened several times already that Dreamstime sold the rights of one of my images. I then get a short period of time to remove the image from all other sites. I can still do this without any problem at SS, but the above clause makes it possible for the big clients to buy and use that image a few weeks AFTER I removed it ??
That's not a problem. If you've ever "sold the rights" to an image that has sold RF anywhere in the past, it could pop up in some company's adverts for ever after. I don't see how having started the process of a sale (by supplying the comp) and entered an undertaking to complete that process prior to "selling the rights" is any different from giving someone the rights to repeated use for all time and then subsequently "selling the rights" to someone else. They only buying rights that you haven't already agreed for other people to have.
-
I'm OK with most of the changes, but not with this part :
"If you choose to remove your images, but a customer has already signaled the intention to license an image, they can complete the transaction and we’ll make sure that you get paid. This avoids any last-minute changes for customers when layouts have already been approved or a project is close to completion."
It has happened several times already that Dreamstime sold the rights of one of my images. I then get a short period of time to remove the image from all other sites. I can still do this without any problem at SS, but the above clause makes it possible for the big clients to buy and use that image a few weeks AFTER I removed it ??
That's not a problem. If you've ever "sold the rights" to an image that has sold RF anywhere in the past, it could pop up in some company's adverts for ever after. I don't see how having started the process of a sale (by supplying the comp) and entered an undertaking to complete that process prior to "selling the rights" is any different from giving someone the rights to repeated use for all time and then subsequently "selling the rights" to someone else. They only buying rights that you haven't already agreed for other people to have.
You're right, I didn't realise that, thanks.
-
Supposing they were about to implement the insane royalty chart from BigStock at Shutterstock? That would get people talking - and perhaps they'd want that not to happen. I used to make $xx and now I make 1/10th of $xx...
One more reason to have anonymity on this board... >:(
-
they are fearful of us - we are fearful of them -
...and it should not be like that - but -....
... "fear is my best friend" J.Cale
-
For multiple hundreds of dollars per sale I might be ok with the borrow before you buy, but no for 38 cents or a handful of dollars.
Yes. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but if a big company wants full-sized comps from a microstock agency, wouldn't they just buy a subscription? :-\
I've read that very argument used on this site a few times as a justification for very low value sub sales - 'As they are so cheap, buyers will purchase many files to use as comps, even if they only use one of them in the end'.
-
Maybe a designer wants to offer several possiblities, and doesn't want to pay for all the different images he'd need, so he "borrows" them.
I thought that was what subs were for? Why would you need comps?
My feeling...and I could be wrong...is that they offer this service to large ad agencies in order to compete with Getty and Corbis. Ad agencies won't buy subscriptions because the client pays for images, not the ad agency. The macrostock agencies allow art directors at large ad agencies to "borrow" unwatermarked images to present in comps to clients.
Agencies wouldn't present a photo from SS, for example, and then shoot something similar on their own, because paying a photographer costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and stock art costs much less....usually only hundreds.
Ad agencies are the ones likely to pay the most for an image because they need extended terms for large campaigns.
-
With regards to the unwatermarked comp images this is what Shutterstock says:
"Some of our most trusted large accounts request unwatermarked preview images (also called “comp” images) in exchange for paying higher rates — and as a result of that, royalties – when they purchase a license. "
While there is no detail as to what these higher rates and royalties are, at least it may be that contributors benefit from such a service.
-
With regards to the unwatermarked comp images this is what Shutterstock says:
"Some of our most trusted large accounts request unwatermarked preview images (also called “comp” images) in exchange for paying higher rates — and as a result of that, royalties – when they purchase a license. "
While there is no detail as to what these higher rates and royalties are, at least it may be that contributors benefit from such a service.
It 'may' be; but wouldn't you prefer to be given that information?
It 'may' also be that like iStock's currency hike (etc.), the contributor gets no benefit.
-
Wow - bizarre turn of events for SS. They must be expecting some sort of backlash with whatever they have up their sleeves otherwise why bother with a 90-day lock-in. I had the impression they were one of the safer places to upload to, as they don’t actively distribute your work to multiple shady partner programs. I was considering uploading there, but in light of today’s news, I think I’ll hold off a little longer.
They already had a turn of events when Yuri yanked thousands of images without warning, affecting buyers who light boxed images and, I suspect, the removal process from SS and all their partner programs was a big, time consuming hassle. Maybe SS overreacted, maybe not, but I believe that is why they changed the TOS.
Now to your point, I don't have a crystal ball but it is entirely possible that there is some kind of upcoming "change" for which they expect a mass exodus. Timing wise, prob Jan 1 if anything is going to happen.
-
With regards to the unwatermarked comp images this is what Shutterstock says:
"Some of our most trusted large accounts request unwatermarked preview images (also called “comp” images) in exchange for paying higher rates — and as a result of that, royalties – when they purchase a license. "
While there is no detail as to what these higher rates and royalties are, at least it may be that contributors benefit from such a service.
It 'may' be; but wouldn't you prefer to be given that information?
It 'may' also be that like iStock's currency hike (etc.), the contributor gets no benefit.
Of course I would like to have more information, but even without more details that point sounds worth discussing.
-
For multiple hundreds of dollars per sale I might be ok with the borrow before you buy, but no for 38 cents or a handful of dollars.
Yes. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but if a big company wants full-sized comps from a microstock agency, wouldn't they just buy a subscription? :-\
I've read that very argument used on this site a few times as a justification for very low value sub sales - 'As they are so cheap, buyers will purchase many files to use as comps, even if they only use one of them in the end'.
Yep, we've heard buyers download so many files that never get used. With free comps now it's like they have a subscription plan that gets them 29 million files a day and they only pay for the ones they publish.
-
Wow - bizarre turn of events for SS. They must be expecting some sort of backlash with whatever they have up their sleeves otherwise why bother with a 90-day lock-in. I had the impression they were one of the safer places to upload to, as they don’t actively distribute your work to multiple shady partner programs. I was considering uploading there, but in light of today’s news, I think I’ll hold off a little longer.
They already had a turn of events when Yuri yanked thousands of images without warning, affecting buyers who light boxed images and, I suspect, the removal process from SS and all their partner programs was a big, time consuming hassle. Maybe SS overreacted, maybe not, but I believe that is why they changed the TOS.
Now to your point, I don't have a crystal ball but it is entirely possible that there is some kind of upcoming "change" for which they expect a mass exodus. Timing wise, prob Jan 1 if anything is going to happen.
Removing images should be automatic shouldn't it? I don't think anyone had to go in and do it manually one by one.
-
Wow - bizarre turn of events for SS. They must be expecting some sort of backlash with whatever they have up their sleeves otherwise why bother with a 90-day lock-in. I had the impression they were one of the safer places to upload to, as they don’t actively distribute your work to multiple shady partner programs. I was considering uploading there, but in light of today’s news, I think I’ll hold off a little longer.
They already had a turn of events when Yuri yanked thousands of images without warning, affecting buyers who light boxed images and, I suspect, the removal process from SS and all their partner programs was a big, time consuming hassle. Maybe SS overreacted, maybe not, but I believe that is why they changed the TOS.
Now to your point, I don't have a crystal ball but it is entirely possible that there is some kind of upcoming "change" for which they expect a mass exodus. Timing wise, prob Jan 1 if anything is going to happen.
Removing images should be automatic shouldn't it? I don't think anyone had to go in and do it manually one by one.
I don't know. It should be automatic. I am merely speculation as I have no insider process knowledge of SS. I have read in other forum posts where agencies "claim" it takes time to yank images from their partner sites, so not so automatic for some presumably.
-
You can still delete them one by one yourself
-
You can still delete them one by one yourself
I think you cannot if you want to delete more than 10%, you have to wait up to 90 days for anymore to be removed.
-
Wow - bizarre turn of events for SS. They must be expecting some sort of backlash with whatever they have up their sleeves otherwise why bother with a 90-day lock-in. I had the impression they were one of the safer places to upload to, as they don’t actively distribute your work to multiple shady partner programs. I was considering uploading there, but in light of today’s news, I think I’ll hold off a little longer.
They already had a turn of events when Yuri yanked thousands of images without warning, affecting buyers who light boxed images and, I suspect, the removal process from SS and all their partner programs was a big, time consuming hassle. Maybe SS overreacted, maybe not, but I believe that is why they changed the TOS.
Now to your point, I don't have a crystal ball but it is entirely possible that there is some kind of upcoming "change" for which they expect a mass exodus. Timing wise, prob Jan 1 if anything is going to happen.
Removing images should be automatic shouldn't it? I don't think anyone had to go in and do it manually one by one.
I don't know. It should be automatic. I am merely speculation as I have no insider process knowledge of SS. I have read in other forum posts where agencies "claim" it takes time to yank images from their partner sites, so not so automatic for some presumably.
They aren't changing this policy because they can't remove the images fast enough, remember they just removed Yuri's overnight.
-
You can still delete them one by one yourself
I think you cannot if you want to delete more than 10%, you have to wait up to 90 days for anymore to be removed.
Thats only if you ask Shutterstock to do it. I can still manually delete my images.
-
You can still delete them one by one yourself
I think you cannot if you want to delete more than 10%, you have to wait up to 90 days for anymore to be removed.
Thats only if you ask Shutterstock to do it. I can still manually delete my images.
Read your TOS, this is what it says:
" You may remove Content from your account at any time, provided that in any ninety (90) day period, you remove no more than (i) 100 items of Content and (ii) 10% of your Content, whichever is greater. "
-
Interesting how clear the TOS is but how much confusion there is about the summary of those changes. It's almost like the summary is meant to mislead.
Compare the summary:
"If you decide to remove more than 100 items or 10% of your content, whichever is greater, Shutterstock has up to 90 days to accommodate the request."
to the actual TOS
"You may remove Content from your account at any time, provided that in any ninety (90) day period, you remove no more than (i) 100 items of Content and (ii) 10% of your Content, whichever is greater."
The summary says shutterstock has 90 days to accommodate the request and even adds "we expect this to go faster" while the TOS says you can't remove more than 10% or 100 files.
And then with confidentiality about earnings the summary says:
"we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private"
while the TOS says:
"Confidential ( including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data) Information shall not be disclosed to any third party"
In the summary it appears as though it's a suggestion while in the TOS it's clearly an order.
-
Interesting how clear the TOS is but how much confusion there is about the summary of those changes. It's almost like the summary is meant to mislead.
Compare the summary:
"If you decide to remove more than 100 items or 10% of your content, whichever is greater, Shutterstock has up to 90 days to accommodate the request."
to the actual TOS
"You may remove Content from your account at any time, provided that in any ninety (90) day period, you remove no more than (i) 100 items of Content and (ii) 10% of your Content, whichever is greater."
The summary says shutterstock has 90 days to accommodate the request and even adds "we expect this to go faster" while the TOS says you can't remove more than 10% or 100 files.
What I don't understand is why you are constantly posting on this thread when, being as you are exclusive, you don't have a dog in the race. I've just counted and 21 of the 98 total posts are from you __ way more than anyone else! Why?
-
Interesting how clear the TOS is but how much confusion there is about the summary of those changes. It's almost like the summary is meant to mislead.
Compare the summary:
"If you decide to remove more than 100 items or 10% of your content, whichever is greater, Shutterstock has up to 90 days to accommodate the request."
to the actual TOS
"You may remove Content from your account at any time, provided that in any ninety (90) day period, you remove no more than (i) 100 items of Content and (ii) 10% of your Content, whichever is greater."
The summary says shutterstock has 90 days to accommodate the request and even adds "we expect this to go faster" while the TOS says you can't remove more than 10% or 100 files.
What I don't understand is why you are constantly posting on this thread when, being as you are exclusive, you don't have a dog in the race. I've just counted and 21 of the 98 total posts are from you __ way more than anyone else! Why?
A few of the responses were because people were posting incorrect information but I think we all have a dog in the race. I've said it before but I want to understand what's going on at all the sites especially the biggest competitor to the one I'm exclusive with. It does me no good to keep ignorant about the rest of the industry, things change and one day I may not be with iStock.
-
Interesting how clear the TOS is but how much confusion there is about the summary of those changes. It's almost like the summary is meant to mislead.
Compare the summary:
"If you decide to remove more than 100 items or 10% of your content, whichever is greater, Shutterstock has up to 90 days to accommodate the request."
to the actual TOS
"You may remove Content from your account at any time, provided that in any ninety (90) day period, you remove no more than (i) 100 items of Content and (ii) 10% of your Content, whichever is greater."
The summary says shutterstock has 90 days to accommodate the request and even adds "we expect this to go faster" while the TOS says you can't remove more than 10% or 100 files.
And then with confidentiality about earnings the summary says:
"we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private"
while the TOS says:
"Confidential ( including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data) Information shall not be disclosed to any third party"
In the summary it appears as though it's a suggestion while in the TOS it's clearly an order.
It seems like a case of the iron fist in the velvet glove, doesn't it? I agree the wording is careless and the whole thing seems thrown together in haste, without a lot of review. For example, "any third party" means you can't even tell your accountant. And that 90 day / 10% thing is just one big ball of confusion. Who knows what it really means or what its intent is. It definitely doesn't take 90 days to remove content from a database.
-
You can tell "representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential." I guess an accountant automatically has agreed to keep the terms confidential right? I don't think you would need a NDA first. Spouses, friends, and internet people apparently can't be told though under any circumstances.
The 90 days one seems clear to me (you can't remove more than 10% or 100 files for 90 days) but we won't know exactly how that works until someone tries it.
-
You can tell "representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential." I guess an accountant automatically has agreed to keep the terms confidential right? I don't think you would need a NDA first. Spouses, friends, and internet people apparently can't be told though under any circumstances.
The 90 days one seems clear to me (you can't remove more than 10% or 100 files for 90 days) but we won't know exactly how that works until someone tries it.
Yep that would be the way I see it as well because SS is the first party, you are the second party and anyone else like your spouse, mother or father then becomes the third party and since they are not on the list they dont get to know.
-
"You may remove Content from your account at any time, provided that in any ninety (90) day period, you remove no more than (i) 100 items of Content and (ii) 10% of your Content, whichever is greater."
That's a little disturbing. I assume if you are closing your entire account, then it is still the 90 days it says above that in the TOS. But, that might need some clarification from the powers that be. Also, does anyone know if you can still disable your portfolio or did they kill that feature?
-
"You may remove Content from your account at any time, provided that in any ninety (90) day period, you remove no more than (i) 100 items of Content and (ii) 10% of your Content, whichever is greater."
That's a little disturbing. I assume if you are closing your entire account, then it is still the 90 days it says above that in the TOS. But, that might need some clarification from the powers that be. Also, does anyone know if you can still disable your portfolio or did they kill that feature?
Well, the 'Opt Out of Shutterstock' button is still there ............... for now.
-
What is definition of "big" customer. If I spend few hundred dollars on groceries am I considered big customer or if I weight 500 lbs? Can I go to Safeway and propose them to pay $15 for a bottle of shampoo if they allow me to try all they have under $5 for free?
Wouldn't it be more clear if the state that saying anything bad is "confidential"? I stopped blogging my monthly results last year cause it would not make any difference in my sales. Do they think that Getty and the rest were watching it have big mathematical formula to calculate SS profits from my data? Or maybe they plan to screw contributors in a future and do not want bad press on internet?
-
I just can't wait for their next big announcement. And you know it's coming, and it won't be good.
-
There may be some umbrella protection for TOS change number 7 under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act even though we are not employees.
The US National Labor Relations Act contains a provision, Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157), that gives all employees the right to "engage in concerted activities", including the right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to deny or limit the Section 7 rights of employees.
Based upon those two provisions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position for decades now that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay and benefits, and that any attempts to do so actually violate the NLRA. Courts have uniformly supported that position. These sections of the NLRA apply to both union and non-union employees.
-
But we are not an employee of SS.
There may be some umbrella protection for TOS change number 7 under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act even though we are not employees.
The US National Labor Relations Act contains a provision, Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157), that gives all employees the right to "engage in concerted activities", including the right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to deny or limit the Section 7 rights of employees.
Based upon those two provisions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position for decades now that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay and benefits, and that any attempts to do so actually violate the NLRA. Courts have uniformly supported that position. These sections of the NLRA apply to both union and non-union employees.
-
Barry if SS told you to cut your head off you would blindly do it and then justify SS's position for asking you to do it in the first place.
I try to look at events objectively and at the same time explore my rights and options.
-
Besides this is all about organizing for pay not about discussing what you make from them.
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/29/158.html (http://law.onecle.com/uscode/29/158.html)
Where does it say you can discuss your wages or what a company pays you?
This is for collective bargaining of things such as contracts.
-
em·ploy·ee
noun \im-ˌplȯ(i)-ˈē, (ˌ)em-; im-ˈplȯ(i)-ˌē, em-\
: a person who works for another person or for a company for wages or a salary
We do not work for wages or salary as per Labor Law.
-
Find it if you can and post the link.
I spent many years as an EMPLOYEE and have a good understanding of it here are the sites as I said find it and post it.
http://www.dol.gov/ (http://www.dol.gov/)
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/main.htm (http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/main.htm)
NLRA has nothing to do with an employee the US Dept of Labor and the wage and hour division cover that.
-
"Confidential ( including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data) Information shall not be disclosed to any third party"
Does that include the IRS? ;)
-
"Confidential ( including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data) Information shall not be disclosed to any third party"
Does that include the IRS? ;)
If they don't agree to keep it confidential then I guess so.
-
em·ploy·ee
noun \im-ˌplȯ(i)-ˈē, (ˌ)em-; im-ˈplȯ(i)-ˌē, em-\
: a person who works for another person or for a company for wages or a salary
We do not work for wages or salary as per Labor Law.
I knew better than to open discussion with you
"There may be some umbrella protection for TOS change number 7 under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act even though we are not employees."
-
em·ploy·ee
noun \im-ˌplȯ(i)-ˈē, (ˌ)em-; im-ˈplȯ(i)-ˌē, em-\
: a person who works for another person or for a company for wages or a salary
We do not work for wages or salary as per Labor Law.
I knew better than to open discussion with you
"There may be some umbrella protection for TOS change number 7 under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act even though we are not employees."
The NLRA is only for LABOR RELATIONS and CONTRACTS/DISPUTES.
All else is covered by the USDL and or the WHD
-
Obviously SS has no legal basis for telling us we can't disclose our earnings - to anyone. All they could do is close your account. Remember that a couple of years ago, Oringer publicly threatened to close the accounts of contributors who criticized SS's tax policies.
-
Obviously SS has no legal basis for telling us we can't disclose our earnings - to anyone. All they could do is close your account. Remember that a couple of years ago, Oringer publicly threatened to close the accounts of contributors who criticized SS's tax policies.
Bottom line I agree, however the tax policies were based on US federal law. Understanding our legitimate rights in regard to NDA and MS would help pin down just who and what we are dealing with in regard to the new SS TOS.
-
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231)
changes to the End User Licence
-
How many people have had their accounts closed because of what they said or wrote on the forums or anywhere else on the net?
I thought SS was a contributor friendly site?! All the admins I ever interacted with were great and seemed to really love their jobs.
I sincerly hope this is not the beginning of the path to istock like conformism and "attitude" control.
But to forbid us from sharing information is a pretty aggressive move against the community. I can understand the 90 day rule coming from their bad experience with Yuri. But what prompted clause 7?
-
This is kind of odd.
-
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231[/url])
changes to the End User Licence
Funny how this significant change does not pop up when contrubutors sign in and it has the potential to affect "Our Assets" more than the TOS changes do.
-
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231[/url])
changes to the End User Licence
Funny how this significant change does not pop up when contrubutors sign in and it has the potential to affect "Our Assets" more than the TOS changes do.
Well if Yuri was not the cause of the TOS changes there is something big brewing and SS expects a large exodus. It doesn't sound given all the crap we've taken from other micros over the last few years.
-
The Yuri's of video.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-welcomes-expert-filmmakers-robb-180000954.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-welcomes-expert-filmmakers-robb-180000954.html)
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231[/url])
changes to the End User Licence
Funny how this significant change does not pop up when contrubutors sign in and it has the potential to affect "Our Assets" more than the TOS changes do.
Well if Yuri was not the cause of the TOS changes there is something big brewing and SS expects a large exodus. It doesn't sound given all the crap we've taken from other micros over the last few years.
-
SS is fantastic for selling videos. They even sell my amateur files, these über-artists will make a killing there!
Too bad they can never post their earnings and results to motivate others to join SS...
-
SS is fantastic for selling videos. They even sell my amateur files, these über-artists will make a killing there!
Too bad they can never post their earnings and results to motivate others to join SS...
Or their royalty rates, did they get a special deal?
-
If they made a special deal and didn´t want these individuals to post their results then they can discuss this and put it in writing in their respective individual contracts.
It still doesn´t make any sense to limit information sharing for the whole community while the company itself posts all their earnings online every quarter.
To talk about sales and compare results is essential in making decisions and attracting the best artists.
Why is SS suddenly scared of their success being analysed by the community??
-
If they made a special deal and didn´t want these individuals to post their results than they can discuss this and put it in writing in their respective individual contracts.
It still doesn´t make any sense to limit information sharing for the whole community while the company itself posts all their earnings online every quarter.
To talk about sales and compare results is essential in making decisions and attracting the best artists.
Why is SS suddenly scared of their success being analysed by the community??
Only if the news is good, if it's bad I don't see how it will attract anyone.
-
The Yuri's of video.
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-welcomes-expert-filmmakers-robb-180000954.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-welcomes-expert-filmmakers-robb-180000954.html[/url])
The reel: http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/09/new-footage-contributors/ (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/09/new-footage-contributors/)
I didn't think the work in the demo was anything groundbreaking or wonderful. The CG earth opener was pretty bad, and I laughed at the arab businessman. I liked the kid with the umbrella and the dad on the couch, though.
-
If it is bad it will keep them active to get back onto the road to success. The online communities serve as a great echo chamber that amplify both good and bad results.
It prevents mediocrity and encourages excellence. It can be brutal yes, but business is not for the faint of heart.
-
Even though I am not near as big as these guys I am happy to be joining them on SS in a few more days! Trust me when I say this is a big deal to have this many talented video artist on SS! I am happy they are there as it also helps the rest of us sell more, especially my medical clips!
-
I'm disappointed they haven't featured a single female filmmaker. Certainly they exist.
-
They featured a female film maker on artist of the month this month at SS
-
I'm disappointed they haven't featured a single female filmmaker. Certainly they exist.
... or a black one, or an Asian one, or a Jewish one, or a Muslim one, etc, etc.
Who the bloody hell cares about the gender, race or religion of the artist? What's wrong with them choosing on the value of the product itself?
I'm disappointed that you feel 'female filmmakers' deserve to be singled out for special treatment irrespective of their talent ... just because 'they exist'. What utter nonsense.
-
You can tell "representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential." I guess an accountant automatically has agreed to keep the terms confidential right? I don't think you would need a NDA first. Spouses, friends, and internet people apparently can't be told though under any circumstances.
I can't wait to see the reaction when I tell my wife "Sorry, dear, it's a contravention of my contractual terms to tell you how much I earn, now or ever again".
Or maybe I don't really want to see it......
-
I can't wait to see the reaction when I tell my wife "Sorry, dear, it's a contravention of my contractual terms to tell you how much I earn, now or ever again".
Maybe the classic: "I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you..." would be received better? ;D
-
I can't wait to see the reaction when I tell my wife "Sorry, dear, it's a contravention of my contractual terms to tell you how much I earn, now or ever again".
Maybe the classic: "I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you..." would be received better? ;D
Tongue firmly in cheek, maybe this is more for the contributors they have made special deals with.
-
You can tell "representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential." I guess an accountant automatically has agreed to keep the terms confidential right? I don't think you would need a NDA first. Spouses, friends, and internet people apparently can't be told though under any circumstances.
I can't wait to see the reaction when I tell my wife "Sorry, dear, it's a contravention of my contractual terms to tell you how much I earn, now or ever again".
Or maybe I don't really want to see it......
If you can get her to do your taxes and sign an NDA then I think you might be okay.
-
And what about Shuttertweet?!
Isn’t it now breaking their own rules of confidentiality when it is auto-tweeting about uploads and sales authors are having at ShutterStock?
-
SCENE 1. Daylight
tumbleweed. the toll of a distant bell. no word has issued from the royal court, thus the peasants drift back to their daily toil, none the wiser.
-
SCENE 1. Daylight
tumbleweed. the toll of a distant bell. no word has issued from the royal court, thus the peasants drift back to their daily toil, none the wiser.
I had to give you a +1 just for the lovely, poetic turn of phrase :)
-
No explanation is also an explanation. Unfortunately. :(
-
No explanation is also an explanation. Unfortunately. :(
Yes it tells us a great deal about who we are dealing with when they will not even take the time to clarify important updates to the TOS & END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT.
They changed the NEW END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT without even notifying us that they had made changes.
-
am I allowed to mention that my downloads rhymed with hero for the first time in years and years saturday and the whole weekend only rhymed with chew. Have they also implemented some sort of DT rolling preferences now?
you advisors need to not tell anyone.
-
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 (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/terms-of-service-updates).
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
-
Thanks Scott :)
-
Thanks for the thorough response Scott, I appreciate it and it certainly helps curb the misinformation.
I think there is quite a bit of confusion about what Shutterstock is OK and not OK with in regards to earnings though (I know I'm still a bit unclear). You gave a few good examples and stated you were OK with general information sharing but you also said you were OK with isolated individual transactions which seems more specific. I also understand that you are wanting to keep specific sales info private from your competitors.
Can you weigh in on a few more examples though so we can get a feel about what is OK or not OK with sharing. I tried to pick some examples that were for sure OK and for sure not OK so hopefully we can get an idea where the line is.
Examples:
I had a BME on SS last month
I just got a $100 SOD sale on Shutterstock
I just got an extended license on this image
I get about 100 downloads a month on Shutterstock
I only got 50 sales today
I just passed the $500 mark and am now in the next earning level
I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month
I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month, $500 from subs $300 from OD and $200 from video
Here's a screenshot of all my Shutterstock earnings...
-
Great questions Leaf. Also, are you going to boot us from the site if we don't comply? Are you going to scour the internet for previous violations and punish those as well? It's a huge can of worms, so we need more information.
I also noticed the deleting items wasn't addressed. Can you still close your account in 90 days?
-
Thank you for coming in here Scott. The changes are quite drastic in my opinion, especially in the announcement that we can no longer share our earnings if we want to. I really don´t understand how the contributors can do any damage to SS like this. Earnings have been shared for over 10 years in great detail and look at the success you have had.
SS has earned itself the reputation of being a contributor friendly site that shows growth and stable earnings. You interact positively with the community.
Why would you risk all that and now promote the reputation you are intruding on our very personal sphere and have admins scout the internet looking for "infringers"?
SS posts a total of their earnings, their profits, the number of individual sales, the average revenue of every sale.
What on earth can we contributors do that will give the competition more information??
And what will happen to the people that break your "new rules"?
It looks like the only solution the artists have is to go underground and be anonymous. Already there are artists who have asked to have threads about their SS status removed and closed their msg accounts.
Why do you want us to do that??
Please reconsider this extreme measure and go back to the system that has worked so well all these years.
-
SS posts a total of their earnings, their profits, the number of individual sales, the average revenue of every sale.
What on earth can we contributors do that will give the competition more information??
+1
I wonder if they could object to us publishing stats without revealing who the agency is. My earnings this month was $xx on "unnamed agency", compared to $xx on Dreamstime etc.
Until now broadcasting of stats has been good publicity for ss, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-
I think allowing large ad agencies unwatermarked images is a brilliant move. I was just away for the weekend with a bunch of agency art directos. I explained that SS now also allows these comp usages. I think I'll reiterate that to them.
-
Scott, would you please clarify if we can disclose our earnings to family and friends at all?
Does this new confidential rule mean that my spouse will not be able to know how much I make until we file for divorce or one dies?? What about parents, children and siblings?
-
Thank you for the response Scott.
Could you please respond in full to the question asked in this thread and on the SS boards.
And could you please clarify and detail the new changes made to the END USER LICENSE
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231)
-
Scott, would you please clarify if we can disclose our earnings to family and friends at all?
Does this new confidential rule mean that my spouse will not be able to know how much I make until we file for divorce or one dies?? What about parents, children and siblings?
I can't answer for Scott, but it seemed pretty clear from his response that the issue they are concerned with is disclosing your specific earnings and download numbers to other agencies.
Unless your spouse, children, parents, pets, etc. are administrators at other agencies, I think you should be alright. ;)
-
Hi All,
Gbalex, you’re right about the customer TOS. Most of the changes to the customer ToS were in the category of “cleaning up” -- items that may have been ambiguous for customers or not perfectly aligned with the day-to-day reality of working with them. Therefore, we’re explaining those changes directly to customers, but didn’t wrap that in a larger contributor communication.
The most obvious exception is limitations on Web use and digital sizes. The historical limitation was 800x600 pixels. Given dramatic advancements in display technology, we were overdue to modernize our standards. The new ToS does a better job of meeting customer needs while continuing to prohibit the redistribution of images. To properly license your images on a global scale in an era of Retina displays and a wider array of devices, we need to accommodate modern technology, but we also take copyright violations very seriously.
Earnings
Tyler – to respond to your question about earnings:
As stated, “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.” For that reason, the following examples would not be a violation of our ToS.
- I had a BME on SS last month
- I just got a $100 SOD sale on Shutterstock
- I just got an extended license on this image
- I only got 50 sales today
- I just passed the $500 mark and am now in the next earning level
- I get about 100 downloads a month on Shutterstock
The following examples could be a violation of the ToS, depending on the context. Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month, $500 from subs $300 from OD and $200 from video
- Here's a screenshot of all my Shutterstock earnings...
Participating anonymously in an online poll or speaking with family and friends casually would not be an issue for practical purposes.
With respect to Cobalt’s post, I’ll say that our confidentiality agreement has a very specific purpose that has been outlined above. We continue to strive to be transparent, fair, supportive and open with our contributors. We do want Shutterstock to be a place that contributors hold in high esteem and respect your concerns and feedback.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
-
Scott, I understand removing the 800*600 limitation, but now it says the image cant be posted bigger than the display its intended for. Displays can have more than 4mp resolution, that means full high res images are now just a right click away to be stolen and can be used for everything imaginable.
-
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strikes me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.
Obviously this is backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.
Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.
-
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.
Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.
Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.
Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.
This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.
-
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.
Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.
Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.
Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.
This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.
What information are they trying to keep secret? They say that they pay 20-30% and give royalties up to $120, it's pretty easy to tell how much they charge since it's written in the royalty schedule. They don't say how low the sales go though, is that the secret they're trying to keep?
And why specifically say you can't talk about your royalty rate when they say that it's between 20 and 30% right there on the website? Something doesn't really add up.
And the contributors don't even know what the licenses say, it doesn't do any good to know what Shutterstock is charging if you don't even know what they are selling.
-
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.
Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.
Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.
Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.
This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.
What information are they trying to keep secret? They say that they pay 20-30% and give royalties up to $120, it's pretty easy to tell how much they charge since it's written in the royalty schedule. They don't say how low the sales go though, is that the secret they're trying to keep?
And why specifically say you can't talk about your royalty rate when they say that it's between 20 and 30% right there on the website? Something doesn't really add up.
Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.
-
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.
Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.
Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.
Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.
This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.
What information are they trying to keep secret? They say that they pay 20-30% and give royalties up to $120, it's pretty easy to tell how much they charge since it's written in the royalty schedule. They don't say how low the sales go though, is that the secret they're trying to keep?
And why specifically say you can't talk about your royalty rate when they say that it's between 20 and 30% right there on the website? Something doesn't really add up.
Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.
What does that even mean? If iStock does something you don't like then anything Shutterstock does is great? I think this has nothing to do with keeping secrets from competitors since the important information is already public or kept secret from the contributors, what's left to tell?
-
Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.
What does that even mean? If iStock does something you don't like then anything Shutterstock does is great? I think this has nothing to do with keeping secrets from competitors since the important information is already public or kept secret from the contributors, what's left to tell?
If you don't know, that means we have been doing our jobs keeping this information away from the competition and their apologists. ;D
-
Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.
What does that even mean? If iStock does something you don't like then anything Shutterstock does is great? I think this has nothing to do with keeping secrets from competitors since the important information is already public or kept secret from the contributors, what's left to tell?
If you don't know, that means we have been doing our jobs keeping this information away from the competition and their apologists. ;D
Lol, I don't think you can take credit for keeping the terms of the license or how much each different license goes for a secret but if it makes you happy to have that information hidden from you then great.
-
So perfectly normal contributor interaction that we have been sharing for as long as microstock companies exists now have become "demonized" as "helping the enemy".
And at the same time SS itself posts detailed earnings information, royalty rates etc...on their own website. But for us to post the same results is unacceptable.
Some things we write "may be" acceptable, some not, depending on context and to be determined by SS alone. And if what we write is deemed as "helping the enemy" we might face undisclosed consequences.
I am sorry, this is too complicated for me. And how about all the contributors whose first language is not English?
-
Obviously, any sizable competitor can easily find out what SS earnings look like - they could just have someone open an account and submit photos.
I think the larger issue is SS deciding that contributors are doing something they don't like, then just unilaterally modifying the TOS to forbid that behavior, under threat of closing offenders' accounts. They could, for example, simply tell us we can't say anything derogatory about SS, period. Or that we can't discuss specific rejections. Or the effectiveness of keywording strategies.
This might be somewhat defensible if applied only to posts on their own, in-house forum. But clearly they're prepared to monitor our speech - in fact, our behavior - in the outside world as well.
Yes, they can probably do any or all of this without breaking any laws. But don't try to tell me I'm supposed to like it - or even respect it.
-
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.
Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.
Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.
Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.
This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.
I haven't seen anything that in any way, shape or form has answered my questions about it all. So, I remain concerned.
-
Hi All,
Gbalex, you’re right about the customer TOS. Most of the changes to the customer ToS were in the category of “cleaning up” -- items that may have been ambiguous for customers or not perfectly aligned with the day-to-day reality of working with them. Therefore, we’re explaining those changes directly to customers, but didn’t wrap that in a larger contributor communication.
The most obvious exception is limitations on Web use and digital sizes. The historical limitation was 800x600 pixels. Given dramatic advancements in display technology, we were overdue to modernize our standards. The new ToS does a better job of meeting customer needs while continuing to prohibit the redistribution of images. To properly license your images on a global scale in an era of Retina displays and a wider array of devices, we need to accommodate modern technology, but we also take copyright violations very seriously.
Earnings
Tyler – to respond to your question about earnings:
As stated, “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.” For that reason, the following examples would not be a violation of our ToS.
- I had a BME on SS last month
- I just got a $100 SOD sale on Shutterstock
- I just got an extended license on this image
- I only got 50 sales today
- I just passed the $500 mark and am now in the next earning level
- I get about 100 downloads a month on Shutterstock
The following examples could be a violation of the ToS, depending on the context. Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month, $500 from subs $300 from OD and $200 from video
- Here's a screenshot of all my Shutterstock earnings...
Participating anonymously in an online poll or speaking with family and friends casually would not be an issue for practical purposes.
With respect to Cobalt’s post, I’ll say that our confidentiality agreement has a very specific purpose that has been outlined above. We continue to strive to be transparent, fair, supportive and open with our contributors. We do want Shutterstock to be a place that contributors hold in high esteem and respect your concerns and feedback.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Thanks for the response Scott
-
...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....
Scott, I appreciate you making an effort to address the concerns we have about the recent TOS changes.
No one has asked you to treat MSG as a support channel. I assume you come here to "talk" to us where we hang out because it's in your interests to do so. Pointing out that you don't have to come here may be factual, but comes across to me as a bit condescending.
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 ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/terms-of-service-updates[/url]).
The information may be that, but it is far from complete. I think the reason there has been so much discussion here was not because people didn't believe you, but because it seemed there had to be more to it. Repeating talking points doesn't help address that issue.
...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).
This is one of the issues involving unknown licenses for unknown amounts of money and our content. Shutterstock has been doing this for a while now and I think it has all the elements of the much discussed Google-Getty deal - the contributor who owns the work being licensed has absolutely no information about the deal being done. The difference is that so far, Shutterstock appears to be doing "better" deals that Getty did. That doesn't alter the fact that Shutterstock has effectively given contributors no way to control how their work is licensed beyond leaving the agency.
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...High royalties are often the result of a negotiated agreement with volume buyers such as large advertising agencies... 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.
You haven't explained anything about the rights in the past - you've just stated each time that you can't explain because it's confidential.
We own the content you license, and yet you're saying you can't tell us anything about the terms on which you license it? I have assumed thus far - because nothing bad has come to light - that these terms are pretty reasonable, but I am not happy about there being no way for contributors to get details on these transactions. We don't need the names of the buyers - we don't get those for any other sales - so I don't see where confidentiality has any bearing on giving us more information.
We (contributors) have no rights to an audit in the current TOS, so we have no way to check up on what's going on inside this "black box" that Shutterstock is operating with the high end clients. This is a very different situation from the transparent setup that existed at the beginning when I first signed up. We knew what the prices were and what the licenses were - now we don't.
...The intent of this new requirement is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock. ... 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.
But that's not what the clause in the TOS says - it's much more broadly written than your explanation above. It says "Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any third party other than representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential."
Given that these forums are public and anyone can read the posts here, including staff at competitor agencies, effectively we can't discuss specifics here without "disclosing" to competitors. As another contributor pointed out, you don't spell out who gets to decide who needs to know what and what would you do if a contributor disclosed something you were unhappy with. I assume close the contributor's account?
If your intent is narrower than what's in the revised TOS, then you should change the TOS. As it is, it's vague, overly restrictive and seems in conflict with all the public disclosures you do as a company about your earnings. If this is all an overreaction to Yuri Arcurs leaving and the information he was able to give to Getty, then it's really shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. Most of us are much smaller fry who don't have the volume to be of much interest to your competitors.
You have the big stick in your hand - that you reserve the right to close our accounts at any time for any or no reason "...for convenience." You revise the TOS with several new restrictions - including a hold on our content in the event we decide to walk because we don't like those restrictions. You sell a lot of licenses for most of us and that has bought you a lot of contributor goodwill. Taking away our control of our content - our content, not yours - erodes some of that goodwill.
You say you strive to be transparent and open with contributors - this isn't it. It may be that you are being fair in the deals we don't get to know anything about, but it would feel fair and supportive if you'd be transparent enough to let us see that versus just saying "trust us".
-
Thank you Jo Ann, you have explained all that worries me deeply much better than I have.
If the change in TOS is is a reaction to Yuri, they have definetly decided on a very extreme path and are now treating all contributors and public community forums as a potential "enemy agent".
-
Excellent post Jo Ann, really touching the important stuff.
I find it hard to believe that SS is going to make the same mistakes IS did, after the back lash they have seen from its contributor base. Learn from the mistakes your competition has made, dont be like them. Its what differentiate SS from the rest of the pack. SS has all the cards in their own hand, please dont fold.
-
Hi All,
Gbalex, you’re right about the customer TOS. Most of the changes to the customer ToS were in the category of “cleaning up” -- items that may have been ambiguous for customers or not perfectly aligned with the day-to-day reality of working with them. Therefore, we’re explaining those changes directly to customers, but didn’t wrap that in a larger contributor communication.
The most obvious exception is limitations on Web use and digital sizes. The historical limitation was 800x600 pixels. Given dramatic advancements in display technology, we were overdue to modernize our standards. The new ToS does a better job of meeting customer needs while continuing to prohibit the redistribution of images. To properly license your images on a global scale in an era of Retina displays and a wider array of devices, we need to accommodate modern technology, but we also take copyright violations very seriously.
Earnings
Tyler – to respond to your question about earnings:
As stated, “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.” For that reason, the following examples would not be a violation of our ToS.
- I had a BME on SS last month
- I just got a $100 SOD sale on Shutterstock
- I just got an extended license on this image
- I only got 50 sales today
- I just passed the $500 mark and am now in the next earning level
- I get about 100 downloads a month on Shutterstock
The following examples could be a violation of the ToS, depending on the context. Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month, $500 from subs $300 from OD and $200 from video
- Here's a screenshot of all my Shutterstock earnings...
Participating anonymously in an online poll or speaking with family and friends casually would not be an issue for practical purposes.
With respect to Cobalt’s post, I’ll say that our confidentiality agreement has a very specific purpose that has been outlined above. We continue to strive to be transparent, fair, supportive and open with our contributors. We do want Shutterstock to be a place that contributors hold in high esteem and respect your concerns and feedback.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Thank you for your reply Scott.
Re: Changes made to the END USER LICENSE
Does this mean that you have effectively done away with display size limitations altogether? To date the micros do not have a great track record of protecting our assets from theft and increasing viewable size limitations will compound the problem 100 fold.
Could you please detail the specific display specifications for each media device that our content will be displayed on as well as the specs for each social media outlet. As submitters it is important for us to understand SS's & BS's encompassing display, usage & royalty terms in regard to Facebook, Creativemornings, Skyward and any other companies we are not aware of at this time.
Will we be receiving standard royalties for our assets which are licensed to these new SS & BS accounts? If not what royalty terms can we expect to receive for our files?
http://www.skyword.com/skyword-press-release/skyword-taps-bigstock-image-database/ (http://www.skyword.com/skyword-press-release/skyword-taps-bigstock-image-database/)
Snip
The collaboration with Bigstock further strengthens Skyword’s content offerings for increasing a brand’s presence on search and social media. Skyword works with big brands, agencies and media companies to streamline and automate the critical steps in the content creation process. Leveraging Skyword’s award-winning Content Marketing and Publishing Solutions,
http://www.skyword.com/#fancyboxID-1 (http://www.skyword.com/#fancyboxID-1)
-
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
-
Hi gbalex,
Thanks for your question as well.
In our license, we have both approved uses and restrictions. The context of how the image is used is subject to a common sense understanding of what's reasonable for a particular use. We prohibit displaying an image as a standalone file on the Web and require either technical or written restrictions on the part of the user intended to prevent the use of the image by third parties. Usage is not allowed without a license and we aggressively pursue copyright infringements. It is important to note that some of our competitors do not put a restriction on file sizes (this varies) and that the 800x600 pixel limitation was a legacy restriction that was inhibiting sales and overdue for a revision.
With respect to Facebook, Skyword and CreativeMornings, these are different opportunities being offered through different brands.
In the Facebook relationship, Shutterstock contributors are getting paid subscription rates (or greater) for a license that is limited to use on Facebook at digital sizes. That license is more limited in scope than what is offered through our normal subscription model. The audience is 1 million local businesses who are advertising on the Facebook platform, with potential to reach 18 million businesses who have pages on the platform. This relationship greatly expands the market for your images. The original FAQ regarding our Facebook collaboration is here (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/shutterstock-facebook).
In the case of Skyword, royalties are paid at standard partner rates: 30% of the amount received by Bigstock. The license is limited to use in one article created on the Skyword platform for one client. Contributors are in control of their content and can opt-out of the Bigstock partner program, but as I've stated, this is generally not in a contributor's interest, since these relationships drive royalties and overall earnings. By participating in the partner program, contributors get access to all sales made through partners.
CreativeMornings is unlike the other relationships, in the sense that it's a brand partnership that greatly expands the audience for Shutterstock images. CreativeMornings provides free monthly events for artists (including designers, art directors, and other image buyers) in 57 cities. If an event host uses Shutterstock images, they license the images through a subscription and standard royalty rates apply.
In all three of these circumstances, contributors are getting paid royalties and the overall audience of potential buyers for your images is expanding.
Best Regards,
Scott
-
Can you say what the royalties are for 'team subscriptions'?
http://www.shutterstock.com/business-solutions.mhtml (http://www.shutterstock.com/business-solutions.mhtml)
Also why is this account still open?
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1642544p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1642544p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-139106540/stock-photo-cow-on-meadow.html?src=Lis-DlOcxeMMREtcaRV00g-1-52 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-139106540/stock-photo-cow-on-meadow.html?src=Lis-DlOcxeMMREtcaRV00g-1-52)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5451288-group-of-cows.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5451288-group-of-cows.php)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-143230351/stock-photo-red-apples-isolated-on-a-white-background.html?src=Lis-DlOcxeMMREtcaRV00g-1-20 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-143230351/stock-photo-red-apples-isolated-on-a-white-background.html?src=Lis-DlOcxeMMREtcaRV00g-1-20)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3308141-red-apple.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3308141-red-apple.php)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-142135282/stock-photo-three-footprints-in-the-sand.html?src=Lis-DlOcxeMMREtcaRV00g-1-50 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-142135282/stock-photo-three-footprints-in-the-sand.html?src=Lis-DlOcxeMMREtcaRV00g-1-50)
www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2158056-footprints.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2158056-footprints.php)
ETA: I see there is a negative here. I hope that doesn't mean someone is supporting the contributor who appears to have stolen images and is selling them on Shutterstock (even though it was pointed out days ago). Maybe it's because you don't want to know what royalties you are receiving from the multi user subscription plan, it's a subscription plan that charges double (or more) and includes a multi user EL with each DL. I would hope that gets a higher royalty than regular subs.
-
if you are in a hurry why don't you email SS?
-
Has the tog whose images were stolen contacted SS? I just ask because I found an exclusive's pics being used elsewhere years back and contacted CR at iStock and they said the tog himself had to initiate the investigation.
-
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
Cracking responses Scott. You are rapidly becoming a legend of the microstock world with your fulsome and honest replies. Cheers!
-
I removed a few posts that were getting terribly off subject and onto subjects that always end in a locked thread. We are having a good conversation here on an important subject - I'm hoping it can continue.
-
I guess Scott isn't going to answer this so does anyone know what the royalty rate is for the 'team subscriptions'? http://www.shutterstock.com/team/subscribe.mhtml (http://www.shutterstock.com/team/subscribe.mhtml)
The earnings schedule doesn't have this license listed (they do have 'Per-Day Subscription' listed, the normal subscription rate) so is it safe to assume that regular subscription royalties are paid even though more rights are given and Shutterstock is collecting more revenue from the sale?
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
-
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
-
Thanks for the answer. I would think if you are charging more for letting more people use the image (along with increased reproductions which used to get the contributor an EL) the contributor would be paid more as well.
About the free images you said it is your "general practice", does that mean there are cases when images are given away without compensation for contributors?
-
Thanks for the answer. I would think if you are charging more for letting more people use the image (along with increased reproductions which used to get the contributor an EL) the contributor would be paid more as well.
About the free images you said it is your "general practice", does that mean there are cases when images are given away without compensation for contributors?
* *insult removed* __ as an Istock's exclusive you're not even a contributor to SS! Why should Scott spend his time answering your inane, nonsensical questions forever?
-
Thanks for the answer. I would think if you are charging more for letting more people use the image (along with increased reproductions which used to get the contributor an EL) the contributor would be paid more as well.
About the free images you said it is your "general practice", does that mean there are cases when images are given away without compensation for contributors?
* *insult removed* __ as an Istock's exclusive you're not even a contributor to SS! Why should Scott spend his time answering your inane, nonsensical questions forever?
*insult removed*, you're as clever as 3rd grader aren't you. Well I guess I'll tell you again why I'm asking questions:
1. I have thousands of images disabled on Shutterstock.
2. I have referred friends, family, and others to submit at Shutterstock and they don't pay too much attention to what's going on.
3. I may contribute to Shutterstock again in the future.
4. I think some people might be interested in knowing what they are getting paid, obviously you don't care but others might.
I don't know why I bother responding to you, you've shown over and over again that you are nothing but a pathetic, sad, loser. Oh well if this is what makes you happy, carry on.
ETA: I can't believe you think it's nonsensical to ask what you are getting paid or question why Shutterstock has doubled prices and continued to pay you the same amount.
-
Thanks for the answer. I would think if you are charging more for letting more people use the image (along with increased reproductions which used to get the contributor an EL) the contributor would be paid more as well.
About the free images you said it is your "general practice", does that mean there are cases when images are given away without compensation for contributors?
* *insult removed* __ as an Istock's exclusive you're not even a contributor to SS! Why should Scott spend his time answering your inane, nonsensical questions forever?
*insult removed*, you're as clever as 3rd grader aren't you. Well I guess I'll tell you again why I'm asking questions:
1. I have thousands of images disabled on Shutterstock.
2. I have referred friends, family, and others to submit at Shutterstock and don't pay too much attention to what's going on.
3. I may contribute to Shutterstock again in the future.
4. I think some people might be interested in knowing what they are getting paid, obviously you don't care but others might.
I don't know why I bother responding to you, you've shown over and over again that you are nothing but a pathetic, sad, loser. Oh well if this is what makes you happy, carry on.
ETA: I can't believe you think it's nonsensical to ask what you are getting paid or question why Shutterstock has doubled prices and continued to pay you the same amount.
Oh sorry! I just thought, from your posts, that you were always happy to support whatever changes IS/Getty made against it's contributors without any questions at all. Strange that you need so much detail about any other agency in which you have no stake at all. Maybe it's because you know that IS/Getty would just ignore your questions and your concerns?
-
Oh sorry!
It's cool but maybe you need to go to anger management classes?
-
Oh sorry!
It's cool but maybe you need to go to anger management classes?
I'm not angry, just a little tired of your incessant demands of SS employees when, unlike me, you are not paying their wages.
Maybe you should take some 'business focus' classes? You seem to spend most of your time focusing on every issue ... apart from those that actually affect you.
-
I pay attention to issues at iStock. too, this happens to be a Shutterstock thread though. So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free? You don't mind that they are charging 2 or 3 times more and paying you the regular subscription royalty? Do you really believe these questions shouldn't be answered or even asked? You would rather not know what you are getting paid? Fighting this hard to keep yourself ignorant is mind boggling to me.
-
I pay attention to issues at iStock. too, this happens to be a Shutterstock thread though. So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free? You don't mind that they are charging 2 or 3 times more and paying you the regular subscription royalty? Do you really believe these questions shouldn't be answered? You would rather not know what you are getting paid? Fighting this hard to keep yourself ignorant is mind boggling to me.
So let's see you 'fighting this hard' against IS/Getty ... the only fight you actually have a dog in. Funny how you are so silent when it comes to them. Get off this thread and leave it to those that have an actual interest in it.
-
Get someone from iStock. in here and I'll ask questions of them too. I would hope anyone who cares would ask questions, nothing I said was rude or insulting so what's the problem with asking? I know a lot of people from this site aren't active there but I certainly wouldn't stop anyone from asking questions.
-
Get someone from iStock. in here and I'll ask questions of them too. I would hope anyone who cares would ask questions, nothing I said was rude or insulting so what's the problem with asking? I know a lot of people from this site aren't active there but I certainly wouldn't stop anyone from asking questions.
You have a forum at IS and you always let other people ask questions for you in there. You NEVER EVER go there yourself to criticize their actions. And you are anonymous here. Gostwyck has definitely a point, its just the way he says it that needs some work.
-
Get someone from iStock. in here and I'll ask questions of them too. I would hope anyone who cares would ask questions, nothing I said was rude or insulting so what's the problem with asking? I know a lot of people from this site aren't active there but I certainly wouldn't stop anyone from asking questions.
You have a forum at IS and you always let other people ask questions for you in there. You NEVER EVER go there yourself to criticize their actions. And you are anonymous here. Gostwyck has definitely a point, its just the way he says it that needs some work.
Would me going on the istock forums just to 'criticize' them make Shutterstock's policies different, would it make my questions more acceptable? He doesn't have a point, he's just trying to distract away from legitimate questions about Shutterstock by personally attacking me. Whatever I do in the Istock forums doesn't change the fact that Shutterstock started 'team subscriptions' and is charging more for them than regular subscriptions and not paying contributors any more for them. Please tell me how anything I do relating to Istock changes this. I'm glad I asked the question and I'm glad Scott answered it.
-
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.
-
Get a room you two. ;)
-
Hello Tickstock,
There’s a more accurate perspective on our team subscriptions. Our “multi-user” products are often used by small businesses who represent a few individuals. Take the example of one small business with (3) users. They get a discounted rate and pay less to Shutterstock if they purchase a 3-person “team” subscription than if they had (3) users purchasing (3) individual standard subscriptions. However, Shutterstock still pays out the same amount on every download. In both our standard subscriptions and in our team subscriptions, the images are being used by a single entity.
The licenses themselves allow very similar rights, with the exception of the 500k reproduction limit. Our competitors offer the same (or more) reproductions with their standard licenses. Lastly, we’re offering additional legal indemnification to the customer, which is a cost carried by Shutterstock.
In terms of free images…as stated, it’s the practice of our marketing team to pay royalties for images used for marketing and promotion, even though we’re not obligated to do so. When images are offered for free through our “Free Photo of the Week” program, we only do so with the permission of the contributor. Customer and partner downloads generate paid licenses.
I’ve explained our Premier products separately. We provide unwatermarked comps to trusted, high-value customers such as large ad agencies, but those comps do not include usage licenses. Unwatermarked comps are very common in the stock image industry. When a usage license is issued, contributors receive up to $120 or more in royalties.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
-
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.
-
Hello Tickstock,
There’s a more accurate perspective on our team subscriptions. Our “multi-user” products are often used by small businesses who represent a few individuals. Take the example of one small business with (3) users. They get a discounted rate and pay less to Shutterstock if they purchase a 3-person “team” subscription than if they had (3) users purchasing (3) individual standard subscriptions. However, Shutterstock still pays out the same amount on every download. In both our standard subscriptions and in our team subscriptions, the images are being used by a single entity.
The licenses themselves allow very similar rights, with the exception of the 500k reproduction limit. Our competitors offer the same (or more) reproductions with their standard licenses. Lastly, we’re offering additional legal indemnification to the customer, which is a cost carried by Shutterstock.
In terms of free images…as stated, it’s the practice of our marketing team to pay royalties for images used for marketing and promotion, even though we’re not obligated to do so. When images are offered for free through our “Free Photo of the Week” program, we only do so with the permission of the contributor. Customer and partner downloads generate paid licenses.
I’ve explained our Premier products separately. We provide unwatermarked comps to trusted, high-value customers such as large ad agencies, but those comps do not include usage licenses. Unwatermarked comps are very common in the stock image industry. When a usage license is issued, contributors receive up to $120 or more in royalties.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
C'mon *ickstock. As an Istock exclusive, surely you can find yet another angle to waste more of Scott's time with inane questions about issues that don't actually affect you?
You know the sort of questions ... they'll be the ones you wouldn't even dream of asking on Istock's own forum regarding their much murkier and less generous TOS.
-
Scott,
Thanks for the answers, it's good of you to explain it a little more even though it still looks like it's a good deal for Shutterstock and buyers at the expense of contributors. Good to hear that you do pay contributors for all free images.
If you compare a two user plan to two separate single accounts:
Shutterstock makes $399 compared to $398 (2x$199) so Shutterstock stays even in revenue collected
Shutterstock pays out a max of 35 subs per day compared to 50 or 30% less cost.
Buyers pay $399 as opposed to $398 but get 35 unique images compared to 25 (2x25 since both parties would need to license the images)
Contributors get paid for 35 images as opposed to 50 images or 30% less.
So buyers get more images, shutterstock pays out less, and contributors get paid less.
-
Scott,
Thanks for the answers, it's good of you to explain it a little more even though it still looks like it's a good deal for Shutterstock and buyers at the expense of contributors. Good to hear that you do pay contributors for all free images.
If you compare a two user plan to two separate single accounts:
Shutterstock makes $399 compared to $398 (2x$199) so Shutterstock stays even in revenue collected
Shutterstock pays out a max of 35 subs per day compared to 50 or 30% less cost.
Buyers pay $399 as opposed to $398 but get 35 unique images compared to 25 (2x25 since both parties would need to license the images)
Contributors get paid for 35 images as opposed to 50 images or 30% less.
So buyers get more images, shutterstock pays out less, and contributors get paid less.
... and Istock pays out as little as 15% ... quite possibly somewhat less after their currency exchange and discount shenanigans ... and that's only if we can actually believe their forever broken and slow shambles of a website.
What I don't understand *icstock, is why you are 'fighting the good fight' about things that don't actually affect you, whilst ignoring the much greater injustices that do affect you.
If you have a problem with how SS conducts it's business then how do you reconcile your support of IS without question to theirs? Indeed the opposite; you actually glorify IS/GI in your posts. Do they send you the Koolaid for free or what?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 ;D
There hasn't been a group effort to make things change yet.
-
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 ;D
There hasn't been a group effort to make things change yet.
glad I own a couch and a few chairs ;D
-
glad I own a couch and a few chairs ;D
I wouldn't expect anything more from you Luis.
-
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.
-
glad I own a couch and a few chairs ;D
I wouldn't expect anything more from you Luis.
got a table as well ;D
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :P
-
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.
-
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...
-
... 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?
-
Whatever you think *ickstock is fine by me.
Good to hear.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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".
-
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".
Ok so you want to talk about the Getty/Google deal. Ok then tell me how it relates to anything being discussed in this thread. The whole point of my one question to Scott which was "About the free images you said it is your "general practice", does that mean there are cases when images are given away without compensation for contributors?" was to learn more about what Shutterstock's policy is on free images. And in light of the Getty/Google deal I thought people would want to have some answers from Shutterstock on their policy. Asking questions (I don't think you can say this was rude or an unjustified question) about free images is not ok to you?
-
And in light of the Getty/Google deal I thought people would want to have some answers from Shutterstock on their policy. Asking questions (I don't think you can say this was rude or an unjustified question) about free images is not ok to you?
Are you suggesting iStock didn't get paid for the Google/Getty deal and it was simply a promotional deal?
I'll leave that as a rhetorical question and lock this thread. I think we've all asked our questions, discussed the new TOS of Shutterstock and gotten many good responses from Scott.