MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Changes to the TOS at Shutterstock  (Read 46240 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: September 18, 2013, 10:33 »
+2
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.


« Reply #101 on: September 18, 2013, 10:40 »
+2
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. 

« Reply #102 on: September 18, 2013, 10:46 »
+4
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.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #103 on: September 18, 2013, 11:04 »
0
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.

« Reply #104 on: September 18, 2013, 11:06 »
+1
"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?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 11:09 by cthoman »

Tone

« Reply #105 on: September 18, 2013, 11:27 »
0
"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.

« Reply #106 on: September 18, 2013, 11:29 »
0
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?

« Reply #107 on: September 18, 2013, 11:45 »
+10
I just can't wait for their next big announcement.  And you know it's coming, and it won't be good.


« Reply #108 on: September 18, 2013, 12:08 »
+5
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.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #109 on: September 18, 2013, 12:38 »
-3
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.

« Reply #110 on: September 18, 2013, 12:47 »
+3
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.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #111 on: September 18, 2013, 12:48 »
-3
Besides this is all about organizing for pay not about discussing what you make from them.

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.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #112 on: September 18, 2013, 12:51 »
-3
employee
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.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #113 on: September 18, 2013, 12:57 »
-4
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/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.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #114 on: September 18, 2013, 13:07 »
+1
Quote from: tickstock
"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?  ;)

« Reply #115 on: September 18, 2013, 13:11 »
0
Quote from: tickstock
"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.

« Reply #116 on: September 18, 2013, 13:26 »
+1
employee
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."


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #117 on: September 18, 2013, 13:29 »
-4
employee
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

« Reply #118 on: September 18, 2013, 13:35 »
+9
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. 

« Reply #119 on: September 18, 2013, 13:54 »
0
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.

Ron

« Reply #120 on: September 18, 2013, 14:17 »
+1

« Reply #121 on: September 18, 2013, 14:34 »
+10
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?


« Reply #122 on: September 18, 2013, 14:48 »
+1
This is kind of odd.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 16:10 by MisterElements »

« Reply #123 on: September 18, 2013, 15:40 »
0
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231

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.

« Reply #124 on: September 18, 2013, 15:44 »
+1
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132231

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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Shutterstock down

Started by Greg Boiarsky Shutterstock.com

2 Replies
5804 Views
Last post March 24, 2006, 12:13
by leaf
11 Replies
10530 Views
Last post October 18, 2006, 15:32
by a.k.a.-tom
7 Replies
5942 Views
Last post January 21, 2007, 23:02
by ChrisRabior
4 Replies
4558 Views
Last post February 27, 2007, 19:48
by Kngkyle
12 Replies
3768 Views
Last post October 06, 2012, 13:13
by Poncke

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors