Author Topic: Changes to the TOS at Shutterstock (Read 46343 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #75 on:** September 17, 2013, 20:59 »

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?

stockastic · « **Reply #76 on:** September 17, 2013, 21:14 »

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.

michaeldb · « **Reply #77 on:** September 17, 2013, 21:51 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 17, 2013, 20:59

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? $:-\$

cthoman · « **Reply #78 on:** September 18, 2013, 00:17 »

Quote from: stockastic on September 17, 2013, 20:43

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?

Anyka · « **Reply #79 on:** September 18, 2013, 01:20 »

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #80 on:** September 18, 2013, 02:17 »

Quote from: Anyka on September 18, 2013, 01:20

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.

Anyka · « **Reply #81 on:** September 18, 2013, 02:25 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 18, 2013, 02:17

Quote from: Anyka on September 18, 2013, 01:20
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.

Maui · « **Reply #82 on:** September 18, 2013, 03:31 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 17, 2013, 18:19

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...

ferdinand · « **Reply #83 on:** September 18, 2013, 04:07 »

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

ShadySue · « **Reply #84 on:** September 18, 2013, 05:33 »

Quote from: michaeldb on September 17, 2013, 21:51

Quote from: jsnover on September 17, 2013, 20:59
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'.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #85 on:** September 18, 2013, 06:24 »

Quote from: cthoman on September 18, 2013, 00:17

Quote from: stockastic on September 17, 2013, 20:43
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.

dirkr · « **Reply #86 on:** September 18, 2013, 06:44 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #87 on:** September 18, 2013, 06:59 »

Quote from: dirkr on September 18, 2013, 06:44

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #88 on:** September 18, 2013, 07:22 »

Quote from: focus40 on September 17, 2013, 18:53

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.

dirkr · « **Reply #89 on:** September 18, 2013, 07:31 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 18, 2013, 06:59

Quote from: dirkr on September 18, 2013, 06:44
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.

tickstock · « **Reply #90 on:** September 18, 2013, 08:01 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 18, 2013, 05:33

Quote from: michaeldb on September 17, 2013, 21:51
Quote from: jsnover on September 17, 2013, 20:59
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.

tickstock · « **Reply #91 on:** September 18, 2013, 08:03 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 18, 2013, 07:22

Quote from: focus40 on September 17, 2013, 18:53
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.

Mantis · « **Reply #92 on:** September 18, 2013, 09:07 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 18, 2013, 08:03

Quote from: Mantis on September 18, 2013, 07:22
Quote from: focus40 on September 17, 2013, 18:53
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.

Ron · « **Reply #93 on:** September 18, 2013, 09:17 »

You can still delete them one by one yourself

tickstock · « **Reply #94 on:** September 18, 2013, 09:19 »

Quote from: Ron on September 18, 2013, 09:17

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #95 on:** September 18, 2013, 09:26 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 18, 2013, 09:07

Quote from: tickstock on September 18, 2013, 08:03
Quote from: Mantis on September 18, 2013, 07:22
Quote from: focus40 on September 17, 2013, 18:53
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.

Ron · « **Reply #96 on:** September 18, 2013, 10:07 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 18, 2013, 09:19

Quote from: Ron on September 18, 2013, 09:17
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.

tickstock · « **Reply #97 on:** September 18, 2013, 10:15 »

Quote from: Ron on September 18, 2013, 10:07

Quote from: tickstock on September 18, 2013, 09:19
Quote from: Ron on September 18, 2013, 09:17
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. "

tickstock · « **Reply #98 on:** September 18, 2013, 10:24 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #99 on:** September 18, 2013, 10:29 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 18, 2013, 10:24

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?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Changes to the TOS at Shutterstock (Read 46343 times)

Jo Ann Snover

stockastic

michaeldb

cthoman

Anyka

BaldricksTrousers

Anyka

Maui

ferdinand

ShadySue

Shelma1

dirkr

ShadySue

Mantis

dirkr

tickstock

tickstock

Mantis

Ron

tickstock

tickstock

Ron

tickstock

tickstock

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors