Author Topic: Changes to the TOS at Shutterstock (Read 54707 times)

tickstock · « **Reply #175 on:** September 26, 2013, 00:11 »

Can you say what the royalties are for 'team subscriptions'?
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/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.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.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

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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #176 on:** September 26, 2013, 14:27 »

if you are in a hurry why don't you email SS?

ShadySue · « **Reply #177 on:** September 26, 2013, 15:50 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #178 on:** September 26, 2013, 18:36 »

Quote from: scottbraut on September 25, 2013, 21:24

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!

leaf · « **Reply #179 on:** September 26, 2013, 23:09 »

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #180 on:** October 01, 2013, 14:02 »

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

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

scottbraut · « **Reply #181 on:** October 01, 2013, 16:37 »

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

tickstock · « **Reply #182 on:** October 01, 2013, 17:46 »

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?

gostwyck · « **Reply #183 on:** October 01, 2013, 18:59 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 17:46

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?

tickstock · « **Reply #184 on:** October 01, 2013, 19:02 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 01, 2013, 18:59

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 17:46
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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #185 on:** October 01, 2013, 19:15 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 19:02

Quote from: gostwyck on October 01, 2013, 18:59
Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 17:46
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?

tickstock · « **Reply #186 on:** October 01, 2013, 19:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 01, 2013, 19:15

Oh sorry!

It's cool but maybe you need to go to anger management classes?

gostwyck · « **Reply #187 on:** October 01, 2013, 20:20 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 19:21

Quote from: gostwyck on October 01, 2013, 19:15
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.

tickstock · « **Reply #188 on:** October 01, 2013, 20:28 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #189 on:** October 01, 2013, 20:40 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 20:28

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #190 on:** October 01, 2013, 21:02 »

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.

Ron · « **Reply #191 on:** October 02, 2013, 03:10 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 21:02

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #192 on:** October 02, 2013, 08:22 »

Quote from: Ron on October 02, 2013, 03:10

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 21:02
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.

stockastic · « **Reply #193 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:01 »

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

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

cthoman · « **Reply #194 on:** October 02, 2013, 10:04 »

Get a room you two.

scottbraut · « **Reply #195 on:** October 02, 2013, 18:01 »

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

ShadySue · « **Reply #196 on:** October 02, 2013, 18:08 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 20:28

So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free?

Just like iStock has given themselves the right to do with promotional files.

gostwyck · « **Reply #197 on:** October 02, 2013, 19:27 »

Quote from: scottbraut on October 02, 2013, 18:01

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #198 on:** October 02, 2013, 19:34 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #199 on:** October 02, 2013, 20:47 »

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

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?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Changes to the TOS at Shutterstock (Read 54707 times)

tickstock

luissantos84

ShadySue

gostwyck

leaf

tickstock

scottbraut

tickstock

gostwyck

tickstock

gostwyck

tickstock

gostwyck

tickstock

gostwyck

tickstock

Ron

tickstock

stockastic

cthoman

scottbraut

ShadySue

gostwyck

tickstock

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors