pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Improved content and model release standards - SS  (Read 2823 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 14, 2023, 09:44 »
0
Shutterstock is simplifying content standards as per a mail that came in today. Sharing info from the link on the mail

Content Publishing Standards and Policy Updates

Shutterstock is introducing a simplified approach to the standards for content review.

Shutterstock is committed to continuously improving the contributor experience. Last year we focused on rolling out improvements to the contributor platform, which continue into 2023. This year we are turning our attention to simplifying our content review standards and the requirements for getting your submissions approved on our marketplace.

We are starting off with the following changes, which will become effective on April 1, 2023.

No longer required:

Witness information for Model or Property releases will no longer be required.

Reference images for the following content will no longer be required:*

Silhouettes, including photographs with composited silhouettes

Auto-traced vectors

Gradient meshes (non-abstract)

Photos filtered to look like illustrations or used as the basis of an illustration

Low-poly (non-abstract)

Pixel/mosaic art (non-abstract)

Software and license information for 3D renderings of interior spaces will no longer be required (i.e., 3D Interior Property Releases).*

Vintage content (content shot between 1930-1990) will no longer have special release requirements:

Content featuring recognizable models will no longer require an explanation of the contributor's relationship to the model on the Model Release form.

Creative (non-editorial) vintage content will require a standard property release proving you are the owner of the content, but additional information with an explanation of how the contributor became the owner of the content will no longer be required.

Thumbnail previews of the vintage content will no longer be required to be attached to the property release, but are still recommended.

Editorial vintage content will no longer be subject to a property release at all.

*Content submitted with releases that are no longer required after April 1, 2023 will be rejected.

New requirements:

All Model Release forms must include the models date of birth.

The age requirement for models depicted in mature content will be changed from 21 to 18 years of age, to align with industry standards.

All Minor Model Release forms are required to include a parent or legal guardian name.

Note: Any releases submitted after April 1, 2023 and missing the above information will be rejected.

We have published new support articles on Legal Documentation, Intellectual Property, and Contextual Metadata standards to familiarize our contributor community with Shutterstocks streamlined approach to content review. Existing articles on content review will also be updated to reflect the new standards and requirements.

Change is never easy, but we hope that these improvements designed to simplify and streamline your content submission workflows will be a welcome one. We will continue to update this article as new resources become available. In the meantime, if you have any questions or feedback, be sure to contact us!



« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2023, 11:33 »
+6
The only reason I can think of for relaxing the requirements:
- More approved submissions > increased assets
- Fewer guidelines for content reviewers > keep the cost for training and paying reviewers as low as possible, perhaps even downsizing the number of reviewers

Of course this means lower quality control and more copyright infringement, especially with auto-traced work and filtered photos. This was already difficult to check, if at all, now they simply absolve themselves of any possible infringement. Not a good sign.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2023, 13:36 »
+1
The only reason I can think of for relaxing the requirements:
- More approved submissions > increased assets
- Fewer guidelines for content reviewers > keep the cost for training and paying reviewers as low as possible, perhaps even downsizing the number of reviewers

Of course this means lower quality control and more copyright infringement, especially with auto-traced work and filtered photos. This was already difficult to check, if at all, now they simply absolve themselves of any possible infringement. Not a good sign.

What reviewers, this is just more for AI to do and avoid human review expenses?  :)

Yes I'm surprised by parts of this, the two you mention plus some of the copyright freedom for "Vintage content (content shot between 1930-1990) will no longer have special release requirements:" because public domain in the US starts at Before 1928! And even at that, 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first

Maybe I missed something about vintage images being from before 1990 but it doesn't sound right.

I guess they got a new team of lawyers who want to play looser with the laws?

wds

« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2023, 13:39 »
0
Was Adobe the other agency to no longer require a Witness on the Model Release or was it iStock?

« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2023, 13:59 »
0
The only reason I can think of for relaxing the requirements:
- More approved submissions > increased assets
- Fewer guidelines for content reviewers > keep the cost for training and paying reviewers as low as possible, perhaps even downsizing the number of reviewers

Of course this means lower quality control and more copyright infringement, especially with auto-traced work and filtered photos. This was already difficult to check, if at all, now they simply absolve themselves of any possible infringement. Not a good sign.

I guess youve git a point there. I had very similar thoughts.

« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2023, 14:07 »
0
...
Yes I'm surprised by parts of this, the two you mention plus some of the copyright freedom for "Vintage content (content shot between 1930-1990) will no longer have special release requirements:...
Maybe I missed something about vintage images being from before 1990 but it doesn't sound right.
...

previously we couldn't submit OUR OWN  vintage images (scanned slides) as editorial with the actual date

« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2023, 21:22 »
0
Guess SS just wants more content ingested for their AI to learn

« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2023, 22:30 »
+2
lol, if they want more submissions, stop screwing over their contributors.

of course, getting people to work for free (contributors) while you just sit back and reap the rewards is addictive.

wds

« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2023, 08:07 »
0
I lost track. Is SS the only agency that doesn't require "Witness" signatures on model releases?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2023, 13:21 »
0
I lost track. Is SS the only agency that doesn't require "Witness" signatures on model releases?

Nope, it started with Getty and then others followed. At least that's the way I remember it?

What cracks me up is how SSTK started that BS about all the dates matching because someone would have had to be there to witness the signature. Which is of course logical, but now no witness needed?

And the warning that if you include a release for an item that doesn't need one, it will be rejected. I suppose that if you have a release with a witness, you'll have to remove that data or risk a rejection. The option is go hunt down the subjects and have them sign all over again? My opinion is, altering a document that isn't faked or fraud, isn't illegal or wrong. I mean, removing the witness date and signature, isn't illegal.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge... just looking at things realistically.
 


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors