pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Musings on "extreme single downloads"  (Read 6130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 16, 2013, 11:22 »
0
OK possibly adding 2 + 2 and getting 5 but..

I know there has been lots of discussion and explanations around the extreme SODs ($120 - $300 commission range) and it still doesnt seem to make sense I mean why so much more than an EL?  Sensitive use really doesnt fly as lots of the images sold in this range have zero potential for sensitive use.  However, if it represented individual deals along the lines of what is happening with IS and Google it would make perfect sense.  Of course some basic differences e.g. decent commission and the possibility to opt out.


« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2013, 11:27 »
+1
the deal at SS is giving the buyer the permission to use the pictures as sensitive use, lets say in areas like politics and health, the license also allow manipulation of the picture

SS is not giving away our pictures for free after a ridiculous 12$ commission (60$ paid by Google)

« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2013, 11:32 »
0
the deal at SS is giving the buyer the permission to use the pictures as sensitive use, lets say in areas like politics and health, the license also allow manipulation of the picture

SS is not giving away our pictures for free after a ridiculous 12$ commission (60$ paid by Google)

This is my point - if it involves something like I'm suggesting, the contributor gets a decent return (I'd sell the rights on most images for that) and you can opt out.  There is nothing even remotely "sensitive" about a lot of the sales, photos of pet cat, vector images etc - gotta be something more to be worth than kind of price.

« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2013, 11:45 »
0
I fussed about the fact that SS would not detail what the license details were when they started the single and "other" downloads in May 2012

Even though I think someone would have found a crazy use like Google Drive if SS had gone into Getty mode (e.g. greedy and disregarding contributor issues), we're still in a "trust me" situation with these licenses.

I can probably live with not seeing the contract details, but I believe it would be entirely do-able to come up with some one sentence descriptions of these deals and share that info with contributors in their stats. Transparency is important so that we have an opportunity to speak up or ask questions if we see something amiss.

Right now, I think many of us are so happy to see an agency that's bringing in the monthly returns that we're too willing to look the other way when SS fails to be suitably transparent with contributors.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2013, 11:48 »
0
I don't know how SS's T&C are worded, but could these sort of images still be used as components in 'sensitive use', or does their 'sensitive use' only relate to model-released images?

I've had seen (correction, we don't get any share in that money, though they would come after us with their lawyers if the legal protection were activated) extended legal protection ELs on my istock photos of a flower and another of a random landscape. I think in both of these cases, they were newbies on iStock, frightened into buying one when they were really pushing them, as the cost price of the original licence sale was the 'smallest bundle' price. I bet they never came back

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2013, 11:49 »
0
PS: do SS models have to sign a separate clause allowing their images to be used in 'sensitive' contexts?

« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2013, 11:49 »
0
the deal at SS is giving the buyer the permission to use the pictures as sensitive use, lets say in areas like politics and health, the license also allow manipulation of the picture

SS is not giving away our pictures for free after a ridiculous 12$ commission (60$ paid by Google)

This is my point - if it involves something like I'm suggesting, the contributor gets a decent return (I'd sell the rights on most images for that) and you can opt out.  There is nothing even remotely "sensitive" about a lot of the sales, photos of pet cat, vector images etc - gotta be something more to be worth than kind of price.

indeed some pictures really don't make much sense but we actually don't know how they will be used, that said I am not worried so far, when they start giving my files for free then I will see what to do, believe we need to trust SS on this one, so far they haven't let us down beside the latest mess on searches...

« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2013, 11:51 »
0
PS: do SS models have to sign a separate clause allowing their images to be used in 'sensitive' contexts?

my MR doesn't have that but I am working strictly with family, I believe most photographers doesn't have it

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2013, 11:57 »
0
PS: do SS models have to sign a separate clause allowing their images to be used in 'sensitive' contexts?

my MR doesn't have that but I am working strictly with family, I believe most photographers doesn't have it
I believe I read that photos have to be 'opted in' to sensitive use on SS - or am I wrong on that?
So does the general SS MR explain about sensitive use to the model? Or is it only up to the photographer to decide if they want to earn more this way without the model knowing?

« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2013, 11:59 »
0
PS: do SS models have to sign a separate clause allowing their images to be used in 'sensitive' contexts?

my MR doesn't have that but I am working strictly with family, I believe most photographers doesn't have it
I believe I read that photos have to be 'opted in' to sensitive use on SS - or am I wrong on that?
So does the general SS MR explain about sensitive use to the model? Or is it only up to the photographer to decide if they want to earn more this way without the model knowing?

I don't use SS release, believe I have never opened it, I would go with the second option but most of the serious and cautious photographers are opting out, opting out is for all portfolio, no way to have a few in and other out

« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2013, 12:07 »
0
I recently had a 112$ commission on SS for an isolated object. No chance of it being sensitive in any way.

« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2013, 12:12 »
0
I recently had a 112$ commission on SS for an isolated object. No chance of it being sensitive in any way.

I had a 120$ one too a few months ago, again we never know how it will be used, you can be embarrassed after seeing it ;D

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2013, 12:33 »
0
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/individual-image-licenses-update   

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112354&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124431&highlight=single

Quote
Hello All,

These licenses are sometimes part of custom or volume licenses that do not include a sensitive use option. We apologize for any confusion. Were putting together a more detailed explanation of the different license types which we will communicate on our blog next week.

Best Regards,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock


There is also a thread on here somewhere as well.

RacePhoto

« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2013, 14:55 »
0
And the really simple answer. It's not sensitive use, has nothing to do with sensitive use.

It's a single use download.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
5721 Views
Last post November 04, 2009, 21:10
by pdesign
3 Replies
6144 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 05:11
by anc
15 Replies
5305 Views
Last post July 19, 2017, 07:31
by Mantis
16 Replies
4190 Views
Last post June 30, 2018, 01:54
by PinHead
86 Replies
8028 Views
Last post June 07, 2020, 14:42
by Snow

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle