Author Topic: New Contributor TOS at Shutterstock (Read 31237 times)

Me · « **on:** June 29, 2015, 15:52 »

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2015-contributor-terms-of-service-updates

Mmmm.......

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** June 29, 2015, 16:23 »

As I see the site, the full terms of service are still the Sept 17 2013 version (and I cleared Chrome's browser data to be sure). So the "see the full terms of service" from the blog doesn't really mean much yet.

I don't see anything bad there with two possible exceptions.

1. If the lowered payout is indicating that some big change in earnings (i.e. the BigStock royalty schedule) is coming soon. I think that's unlikely and that it's more likely that new contributors are discouraged and walk away and they're clearly looking to boost their contributor base. I suspect that's an insurance policy for them if they p*ss off existing contributors.

2. Using editorial as commercial with no additional liability to the photographer. If they promise to defend any lawsuit filed against us, then it's good, but saying we're not incurring any new liability doesn't stop someone from suing us and then we have to defend ourselves if SS doesn't step in (the way an insurer would). I would look at the details of the Terms of Service except that they haven't posted them.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #2 on:** June 29, 2015, 21:27 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 29, 2015, 16:23

As I see the site, the full terms of service are still the Sept 17 2013 version (and I cleared Chrome's browser data to be sure). So the "see the full terms of service" from the blog doesn't really mean much yet.

I don't see anything bad there with two possible exceptions.

1. If the lowered payout is indicating that some big change in earnings (i.e. the BigStock royalty schedule) is coming soon. I think that's unlikely and that it's more likely that new contributors are discouraged and walk away and they're clearly looking to boost their contributor base. I suspect that's an insurance policy for them if they p*ss off existing contributors.

2. Using editorial as commercial with no additional liability to the photographer. If they promise to defend any lawsuit filed against us, then it's good, but saying we're not incurring any new liability doesn't stop someone from suing us and then we have to defend ourselves if SS doesn't step in (the way an insurer would). I would look at the details of the Terms of Service except that they haven't posted them.

Thank you for the reasonable interpretation. This legal mumbo jumbo is such a pain to sort thru.

tickstock · « **Reply #3 on:** June 29, 2015, 21:53 »

Looks like the page disappeared...

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #4 on:** June 29, 2015, 22:34 »

"Sorry, but the page you were trying to view does not exist."

My feeling is they're going to add a part about increased royalties and then relaunch the page. $:-\$

PixelBytes · « **Reply #5 on:** June 29, 2015, 23:36 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on June 29, 2015, 22:34

"Sorry, but the page you were trying to view does not exist."

My feeling is they're going to add a part about increased royalties and then relaunch the page. $:-\$

Thanks for the good laugh!

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2015, 00:08 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 29, 2015, 23:36

Quote from: Microstock Posts on June 29, 2015, 22:34
"Sorry, but the page you were trying to view does not exist."

My feeling is they're going to add a part about increased royalties and then relaunch the page. $:-\$

Thanks for the good laugh!

Humour was the intent.

Dodie · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2015, 02:24 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 29, 2015, 16:23

2. Using editorial as commercial with no additional liability to the photographer. If they promise to defend any lawsuit filed against us, then it's good, but saying we're not incurring any new liability doesn't stop someone from suing us and then we have to defend ourselves if SS doesn't step in (the way an insurer would). I would look at the details of the Terms of Service except that they haven't posted them.

You are right but I don't think they will promise to defend us. Can't wait to see the changes when the page comes back.

Dodie · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2015, 03:04 »

Has this anything to do with Rex Features?

Quote

Shutterstock’s customers have been asking for an end to end solution including both commercial and editorial content. The acquisition of Rex is a decisive move into the editorial category and underscores our mission to provide the world’s storytellers with all of the content and tools they need to bring their ideas to life. By adding a more robust editorial offering, including entertainment, news and sports imagery, Shutterstock is expanding to serve the full breadth of imagery needed by media companies and advertisers around the world.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt144581.html

Painter · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2015, 10:57 »

The new Terms of service are here:

http://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2015, 11:10 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 29, 2015, 16:23

1. If the lowered payout is indicating that some big change in earnings (i.e. the BigStock royalty schedule) is coming soon. I think that's unlikely and that it's more likely that new contributors are discouraged and walk away and they're clearly looking to boost their contributor base. I suspect that's an insurance policy for them if they p*ss off existing contributors.

I sure hope you're right about that! Taking it to $35 is a big drop but it makes me a little nervous. If SS goes to an RC system then it is game over for most microstock contributors (certainly for me at least).

PhotoBomb · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2015, 11:12 »

The link to the summary of changes is still broken. It's in a pop up that prevents you from getting into your account until you accept the terms.

edit:

How can the terms be "Effective as of Friday, May 29, 2015."

Painter · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2015, 11:52 »

Quote from: PhotoBomb on June 30, 2015, 11:12

The link to the summary of changes is still broken. It's in a pop up that prevents you from getting into your account until you accept the terms.

The link works now:

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2015-contributor-terms-of-service-updates

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #13 on:** June 30, 2015, 12:06 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 29, 2015, 21:27

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 29, 2015, 16:23
As I see the site, the full terms of service are still the Sept 17 2013 version (and I cleared Chrome's browser data to be sure). So the "see the full terms of service" from the blog doesn't really mean much yet.

I don't see anything bad there with two possible exceptions.

1. If the lowered payout is indicating that some big change in earnings (i.e. the BigStock royalty schedule) is coming soon. I think that's unlikely and that it's more likely that new contributors are discouraged and walk away and they're clearly looking to boost their contributor base. I suspect that's an insurance policy for them if they p*ss off existing contributors.

2. Using editorial as commercial with no additional liability to the photographer. If they promise to defend any lawsuit filed against us, then it's good, but saying we're not incurring any new liability doesn't stop someone from suing us and then we have to defend ourselves if SS doesn't step in (the way an insurer would). I would look at the details of the Terms of Service except that they haven't posted them.

Thank you for the reasonable interpretation. This legal mumbo jumbo is such a pain to sort thru.

Yeah, we can always count on Jo Ann to do a reliable smell check for us. I vote her for president of the Microstock Artist Union.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2015, 12:12 »

This is a change to forum guidelines - they don't talk about banning you from the forums, just closing your account if you don't follow the forum guidelines - and I assume that means you contributor account.

"Forum Guidelines

You agree to follow Shutterstock's Forum Guidelines. Any activity by you on Shutterstock's forum (please see "Forum for Contributors") which does not adhere to Shutterstock's Forum Guidelines may result in the termination of your Shutterstock account. The terms of Shutterstock's Forum Guidelines are deemed incorporated into and made a part of the TOS by this reference."

It used to say something that talked about forum bans with a possibility of losing your account - which seemed less heavy handed:

"15. b. You agree not to post any material that is abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or that may violate any applicable laws. Violating these terms of use shall be deemed a material breach of the TOS and may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned from the forums and your service provider being informed. Shutterstock may also terminate your Contributor Account.?

On the copyright infringement claims clause, I'm not thrilled with the idea that if Shutterstock decides to do nothing, we would have to get their permission do pursue the case on our own. And as independents, we might have to contact a potential infringer up front to find out where the downloaded the content from - in the past, SS is always quick to point out that the license might not have come from them.

It seems to me that if SS chooses to do nothing, we should be able to go ahead on our own. If a very large customer of theirs were involved in something inappropriate, I can imagine they'd rather keep the customer happy and leave us out of the picture. Seems a bit dog in the manger to me if they aren't interested in taking action that we're unable to do so without risking our account getting closed by them.

"13. Copyright Infringement Claims

You hereby grant Shutterstock the right and authority to take such steps as Shutterstock deems commercially reasonable to protect Shutterstock's rights in the Content.

In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action.
While Shutterstock takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure that the rights of its Contributors are not violated by customers or other parties, Shutterstock has no obligation to pursue legal action against any alleged infringer of any of your rights in and to any Content."

In section 17, Miscellaneous, there is a new clause that talks about violating this "or any other" agreement with SS - and your account can be terminated. What other agreement?

"e. In the event that you breach any of the terms of this or any other agreement with Shutterstock, Shutterstock shall have the right to terminate your account without further notice, in addition to Shutterstock's other rights at law and/or equity."

And the May 29 date suggests they delayed putting this out but forgot to edit their draft. The document says an announcement on our login page is how we get notice of changes. And I don't think we get prior notice at SS.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #15 on:** June 30, 2015, 12:14 »

I just logged in - it's July 29th that the terms will change

"Terms of Service Change
On July 29, 2015, our Contributor Terms of Service will be updated. By clicking the "I Understand" button on the bottom of this document, you accept these Terms of Service.

You can read a summary of the significant changes, and see the full terms here."

panicAttack · « **Reply #16 on:** June 30, 2015, 13:07 »

Interesting, even if I press "I understand" nothing happens, pop up is still open and I cant go to my page.

I'm using google chrome Version 43.0.2357.130

Dodie · « **Reply #17 on:** June 30, 2015, 13:18 »

What does clearance mean in this case? Clearance from who?

noodle · « **Reply #18 on:** June 30, 2015, 13:23 »

Quote from: Dodie on June 30, 2015, 13:18

What does clearance mean in this case? Clearance from who?

For editorial images to be used as commercial it means the client would have access to all releases necessary to do that

I.e. Illustrative editorial featuring "Coca Cola" , the Customer wanting to use this image as commercial instead of editorial, would have to be in a position to obtain the clearance or releases to make that happen.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #19 on:** June 30, 2015, 13:48 »

Quote from: panicAttack on June 30, 2015, 13:07

Interesting, even if I press "I understand" nothing happens, pop up is still open and I cant go to my page.

I'm using google chrome Version 43.0.2357.130

It worked OK for me - same version 43.0.2357.130 (64-bit) on a Mac

Dodie · « **Reply #20 on:** June 30, 2015, 13:50 »

Thank you Noodle.
So, it doesn't refer to images with people? I have some editorials taken on sport events and I don't want trouble.

ibogdan · « **Reply #21 on:** June 30, 2015, 14:05 »

My "I understand" button doesn't work either.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #22 on:** June 30, 2015, 14:20 »

Quote from: ibogdan on June 30, 2015, 14:05

My "I understand" button doesn't work either.

I wonder if you have to click on the links first, before they allow you to understand. Some sites actually make you read the terms (or at least scroll down) before you can accept the terms. Or just try a different browser.

noodle · « **Reply #23 on:** June 30, 2015, 14:26 »

Quote from: Dodie on June 30, 2015, 13:50

Thank you Noodle.
So, it doesn't refer to images with people? I have some editorials taken on sport events and I don't want trouble.

well editorial license is very limited
it is up to the customer to use whatever image they purchase within the scope of said license
can customers screw up or just plain misuse / abuse a license? nothing is impossible and this is where the agency selling the license has to step in

gbalex · « **Reply #24 on:** June 30, 2015, 14:38 »

I won't be clicking the I understand buttons until the page is fully functional and up to date on July 29th.

Looks to me like they are still working on getting the final version ready.

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** June 30, 2015, 14:41 »

Quote from: Dodie on June 30, 2015, 13:50

Thank you Noodle.
So, it doesn't refer to images with people? I have some editorials taken on sport events and I don't want trouble.

Getty has a system whereby they offer to 'work with the buyer' to obtain any necessary releases (presumably for a fee [?]).
Maybe if it was a well-known person, they'd be contactable by the buyer to ask if they'd be willing (for a fee [?]) to sign a release for a specific purpose; more difficult tracking down random people in secondary editorial.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #26 on:** June 30, 2015, 15:35 »

Did I understand correct that if I find misuse then I have to write SS and get their permission to pursue it on my own?! I sell thru 12 sites. How do I even confirm if a misuse was DL thru SS?

Eff them! If my IP is misused I'm gonna pursue it how I see fit.

This reminds me when Facebook was trying to claim ownership of all pictures posted to it. Ain't gonna fly.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #27 on:** June 30, 2015, 15:42 »

editiorial---the way i read it is that when a customer wants to use an editorial image for commercial usage, they go to the organization eg. porsche, chase manhattan , etc whatever that is shown in the image to get permission to use it as commercial.
i think the ones who should worry are the big earners. cannot see someone earning 35 bucks each month being sued.
imagine that person will say, "hey, take what i have, i only earn no more than 480 bucks annually."
but if you are making 44K or even 12K p.a...
chances are you are going to find a lawyer to retain ... just in case you get sue for allowing an editorial to be used.

the point being , as many years ago at a musicians forum, some legalese said that if you're mick jagger or tom waits or... led zeppelin,.. as the case was, the estate of willie dixon will go after you "because you make big bucks". but if you're a band who gets paid a 6-packs each performance, it is unlikely anyone is going to come after you.

i suppose we can all say, "hey, i made 38 cents on this image, so 38 cts is all you get from me

Dodie · « **Reply #28 on:** June 30, 2015, 16:05 »

Quote from: noodle on June 30, 2015, 14:26

well editorial license is very limited
it is up to the customer to use whatever image they purchase within the scope of said license
can customers screw up or just plain misuse / abuse a license? nothing is impossible and this is where the agency selling the license has to step in

You are right, nothing is impossible and I don't trust that any agency will step in if we screw up.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 30, 2015, 14:41

Getty has a system whereby they offer to 'work with the buyer' to obtain any necessary releases (presumably for a fee [?]).
Maybe if it was a well-known person, they'd be contactable by the buyer to ask if they'd be willing (for a fee [?]) to sign a release for a specific purpose; more difficult tracking down random people in secondary editorial.

Now, you two, really scare the pants off of me.
The images were shot on public events e.g. "The Color Run". Thousands of people run on the main streets of the town in all funny costumes and hundreds of others take pictures.

No well-known person to my knowledge but than again, I have no idea who they were.
On such an event participants want to show off and it is not so hard to make them sign a release but I didn't want to complicate things. Not one image was sold so far but if someone dressed in tutu will see his/her image in some ad, it could get nasty.

What now? There is no opt in/out button. Shall I start deleting images?

Dodie · « **Reply #29 on:** June 30, 2015, 16:11 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 30, 2015, 15:35

I sell thru 12 sites. How do I even confirm if a misuse was DL thru SS?

Do other agencies sell editorials as commercial, as well?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 30, 2015, 16:27 »

Quote from: Dodie on June 30, 2015, 16:05

Quote from: noodle on June 30, 2015, 14:26
well editorial license is very limited
it is up to the customer to use whatever image they purchase within the scope of said license
can customers screw up or just plain misuse / abuse a license? nothing is impossible and this is where the agency selling the license has to step in

You are right, nothing is impossible and I don't trust that any agency will step in if we screw up.
Quote from: ShadySue on June 30, 2015, 14:41

Getty has a system whereby they offer to 'work with the buyer' to obtain any necessary releases (presumably for a fee [?]).
Maybe if it was a well-known person, they'd be contactable by the buyer to ask if they'd be willing (for a fee [?]) to sign a release for a specific purpose; more difficult tracking down random people in secondary editorial.

Now, you two, really scare the pants off of me.
The images were shot on public events e.g. "The Color Run". Thousands of people run on the main streets of the town in all funny costumes and hundreds of others take pictures.

No well-known person to my knowledge but than again, I have no idea who they were.
On such an event participants want to show off and it is not so hard to make them sign a release but I didn't want to complicate things. Not one image was sold so far but if someone dressed in tutu will see his/her image in some ad, it could get nasty.

What now? There is no opt in/out button. Shall I start deleting images?

In that specific case I would think the customer would have to find out if all participants in the event signed releases allowing their images to be used for promotional purposes (which is not unusual, at least with well-established organizations). If they can't get those releases they can't license the images as commercial.

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** June 30, 2015, 16:42 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 30, 2015, 16:27

Quote from: Dodie on June 30, 2015, 16:05
Quote from: noodle on June 30, 2015, 14:26
well editorial license is very limited
it is up to the customer to use whatever image they purchase within the scope of said license
can customers screw up or just plain misuse / abuse a license? nothing is impossible and this is where the agency selling the license has to step in

You are right, nothing is impossible and I don't trust that any agency will step in if we screw up.
Quote from: ShadySue on June 30, 2015, 14:41

Getty has a system whereby they offer to 'work with the buyer' to obtain any necessary releases (presumably for a fee [?]).
Maybe if it was a well-known person, they'd be contactable by the buyer to ask if they'd be willing (for a fee [?]) to sign a release for a specific purpose; more difficult tracking down random people in secondary editorial.

Now, you two, really scare the pants off of me.
The images were shot on public events e.g. "The Color Run". Thousands of people run on the main streets of the town in all funny costumes and hundreds of others take pictures.

No well-known person to my knowledge but than again, I have no idea who they were.
On such an event participants want to show off and it is not so hard to make them sign a release but I didn't want to complicate things. Not one image was sold so far but if someone dressed in tutu will see his/her image in some ad, it could get nasty.

What now? There is no opt in/out button. Shall I start deleting images?

In that specific case I would think the customer would have to find out if all participants in the event signed releases allowing their images to be used for promotional purposes (which is not unusual, at least with well-established organizations). If they can't get those releases they can't license the images as commercial.

Surely that would only be for the organisers promoting the event, e.g. for their website or for promoting the next event, not for 'any commercial use'. It might also cover the sponsors using the images, but I've never actually seen that. It would depend on the wording.
Also, normally there would be other people in the images - spectators, stewards etc, who haven't signed anything.

It looks like in the SS case, buyers would have to state that they have all necessary releases, it's unlikely with big groups of people, and probably only brands or celebs could be tracked down.
Remember that because people don't always read terms of use, or just hope they might get off with it, you may find editorial files used as commercial. Also if bought and used legitimately on the web, they could be stolen and used by anyone. I've found examples of both. iStock assure me that in these cases I'd have no legal liability, though I'd prefer not to find out first hand.

Dodie · « **Reply #32 on:** June 30, 2015, 17:11 »

Thank you all for the input. Hopefully we will find out more details in the upcoming day, from the horse's mouth.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #33 on:** June 30, 2015, 17:36 »

YES other agencies do. But it seems that some here are missing the important condition of this new license option. Let me quote and bold the part that's important - the way I read it.

2. You agree that Shutterstock can permit customers to use editorial content for commercial purposes in limited circumstances (for example, when the customer obtains the necessary rights and clearances).

On occasion, customers may ask to use editorial content for commercial purposes because they are able to obtain the appropriate rights and clearances. This update allows us to permit these customers to use your editorial content for commercial purposes. Please note that this change does not create any additional liabilities or obligations for you.

OK does that explain it? If the customer goes to the trouble of getting the appropriate rights and clearances, they will be able to use the Editorial image as commercial.

And PixelBytes if you are with 12 agencies now, and I'm sure some have invisible and unknown partners, how do you know who misuse was through? That's why I'm limited to two agencies (SS and IS) who don't have secret partners and API terms that give away all my rights, without even telling me who has those rights?

Meanwhile this only changes the fact that a customer can go get the appropriate rights and then use the image commercially. It doesn't mean that anyone who downloads it can just say, "I'll use this commercially even thought it's Editorial only".

Quote from: Dodie on June 30, 2015, 16:11

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 30, 2015, 15:35
I sell thru 12 sites. How do I even confirm if a misuse was DL thru SS?

Do other agencies sell editorials as commercial, as well?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #34 on:** June 30, 2015, 19:18 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 30, 2015, 17:36

YES other agencies do. But it seems that some here are missing the important condition of this new license option. ...when the customer obtains the necessary rights and clearances...

I think the issue is that just because some customer tells SS that they've obtained the rights doesn't mean that they actually did that (possibly just because they don't really understand what they need).

If someone licenses editorial, misuses it in a way that the license doesn't cover, the foolish customer is on their own - they have no permission from anyone to do what they did.

If an ignorant customer gets an OK from the agency (and I'm assuming SS will not spend the money to actually verify what the customer tells them; they're about volume and profit not bespoke service) - perhaps they cover the brand names but not realize they need model releases from visible people - it seems to me it increases the likelihood of lawsuits (remember that Virgin ad with unlicensed people? I know the facts of this case are a bit different, but it's the idea that people don't like seeing themselves on a billboard)

Perhaps the bottom line is that if I trusted the agency to make sure the legalities were thoroughly taken care of it would be fine, but for a subscription download royalty, the risk/reward ratio seems all wrong. I haven't seen anything even hinting at additional royalties to the photographer.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #35 on:** June 30, 2015, 20:14 »

I don't know....it seems this might only apply to large enterprises, in which case they could handle personally checking on a few requests for commercial use. But it doesn't specify that anywhere.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #36 on:** June 30, 2015, 21:16 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 30, 2015, 17:36

And PixelBytes if you are with 12 agencies now, and I'm sure some have invisible and unknown partners, how do you know who misuse was through? That's why I'm limited to two agencies (SS and IS) who don't have secret partners and API terms that give away all my rights, without even telling me who has those rights?

Pete, reread my post. That's exactly my point. There's no way to know where the misuser got the image. That's why its ridiculous for SS to demand we get their permission to pursue misuse. If I find my photos misused I have sent DMCA notices and if that doesn't work I got a lawyer to handle it. Now SS says I can't protect MY IP without their okay?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #37 on:** June 30, 2015, 22:30 »

I thought you were writing about misuse of the Editorial image as commercial. Sorry if I missed the topic. I was writing about the #2 condition. I got the impression it was about Editorial Commercial, just as Dodie did.

On the other point, yes, anyone who has gone past the top two on the poll, doesn't know who in the world has their images, who's licensing them or where the misuse came from. I'd agree with you.

Not you, but the whole attitude that going for more agencies, makes more money, is missing that with more agencies, people lose the control and rights to their images, because we don't know who's got them, what license or anything. It's sad to watch.

Agencies make more and more money, we lose all control and rights.

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 30, 2015, 21:16

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 30, 2015, 17:36

And PixelBytes if you are with 12 agencies now, and I'm sure some have invisible and unknown partners, how do you know who misuse was through? That's why I'm limited to two agencies (SS and IS) who don't have secret partners and API terms that give away all my rights, without even telling me who has those rights?

Pete, reread my post. That's exactly my point. There's no way to know where the misuser got the image. That's why its ridiculous for SS to demand we get their permission to pursue misuse. If I find my photos misused I have sent DMCA notices and if that doesn't work I got a lawyer to handle it. Now SS says I can't protect MY IP without their okay?

Rinderart · « **Reply #38 on:** July 01, 2015, 00:10 »

TOS...RE=contributors payout. Quote from SS Forum.

1/. They foresee declining earnings for contributers and to keep contributers who may not reach the $75 threahold each month from getting discouraged and stop uploading they lower it

2/. It will be more of an incentive for new contributers to join thus growing their contributer base and growing there collection with fresh images ( think of third world content i.e. India) and this applies to point 1 as well

3/ this can also be prep work for possible commision declines in the future ?

In a way it is positive but it makes you wonder what may be coming down the pipe

PhotoBomb · « **Reply #39 on:** July 01, 2015, 01:00 »

Quote from: Rinderart on July 01, 2015, 00:10

TOS...RE=contributors payout. Quote from SS Forum.

1/. They foresee declining earnings for contributers and to keep contributers who may not reach the $75 threahold each month from getting discouraged and stop uploading they lower it

2/. It will be more of an incentive for new contributers to join thus growing their contributer base and growing there collection with fresh images ( think of third world content i.e. India) and this applies to point 1 as well

3/ this can also be prep work for possible commision declines in the future ?

In a way it is positive but it makes you wonder what may be coming down the pipe

This is all just speculation by someone who knows nothing more than any other contributor. Poor of you to post that here without a disclaimer.

Pixart · « **Reply #40 on:** July 01, 2015, 01:19 »

If Dreamstime and Veer would just lower their payments.... Why on earth does SS need to?

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #41 on:** July 01, 2015, 01:45 »

Quote from: PhotoBomb on July 01, 2015, 01:00

Quote from: Rinderart on July 01, 2015, 00:10
TOS...RE=contributors payout. Quote from SS Forum.

1/. They foresee declining earnings for contributers and to keep contributers who may not reach the $75 threahold each month from getting discouraged and stop uploading they lower it

2/. It will be more of an incentive for new contributers to join thus growing their contributer base and growing there collection with fresh images ( think of third world content i.e. India) and this applies to point 1 as well

3/ this can also be prep work for possible commision declines in the future ?

In a way it is positive but it makes you wonder what may be coming down the pipe

This is all just speculation by someone who knows nothing more than any other contributor. Poor of you to post that here without a disclaimer.

Speculation in a forum?

skyfish · « **Reply #42 on:** July 01, 2015, 02:01 »

Quote from: Rinderart on July 01, 2015, 00:10

TOS...RE=contributors payout. Quote from SS Forum.

1/. They foresee declining earnings for contributers and to keep contributers who may not reach the $75 threahold each month from getting discouraged and stop uploading they lower it

2/. It will be more of an incentive for new contributers to join thus growing their contributer base and growing there collection with fresh images ( think of third world content i.e. India) and this applies to point 1 as well

3/ this can also be prep work for possible commision declines in the future ?

In a way it is positive but it makes you wonder what may be coming down the pipe

Absolutely logical.
And in some locations for them is more cheap to have contracted photographer. Then they don't need to accept more expensive images.

Me · « **Reply #43 on:** July 01, 2015, 02:31 »

I wonder if it has anything to do with accounts sat below $35 which have never been added to and have been sat stagnant for years? SS will have to keep that total amount in cash held in their bank in case the contributors ever request payout, or what happens if payout is never requested? Does that mean SS hold onto huge amounts on money and can't use it? Imagine having millions sat in your bank which you can't touch? By changing the TOS every registered contributor will get the email, and maybe in six months time SS add another change that if amounts are not requested after a certain period of time the money is forfeited. Within the space of a year, and with minimal impact to their operating business, they release millions to themselves.

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** July 01, 2015, 05:09 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 30, 2015, 21:16

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 30, 2015, 17:36

And PixelBytes if you are with 12 agencies now, and I'm sure some have invisible and unknown partners, how do you know who misuse was through? That's why I'm limited to two agencies (SS and IS) who don't have secret partners and API terms that give away all my rights, without even telling me who has those rights?

Pete, reread my post. That's exactly my point. There's no way to know where the misuser got the image. That's why its ridiculous for SS to demand we get their permission to pursue misuse. If I find my photos misused I have sent DMCA notices and if that doesn't work I got a lawyer to handle it. Now SS says I can't protect MY IP without their okay?

Unfortunately, iS says the same.

Rage · « **Reply #45 on:** July 01, 2015, 08:38 »

Quote from: Me on July 01, 2015, 02:31

I wonder if it has anything to do with accounts sat below $35 which have never been added to and have been sat stagnant for years? SS will have to keep that total amount in cash held in their bank in case the contributors ever request payout, or what happens if payout is never requested? Does that mean SS hold onto huge amounts on money and can't use it? Imagine having millions sat in your bank which you can't touch? By changing the TOS every registered contributor will get the email, and maybe in six months time SS add another change that if amounts are not requested after a certain period of time the money is forfeited. Within the space of a year, and with minimal impact to their operating business, they release millions to themselves.

Well this is a good thing for prople like me who get a payout every couple of months.

On the other hand it would be very bleak if most of the photographers on the site were failing to reach even a 35$ per month.

Rage · « **Reply #46 on:** July 01, 2015, 08:40 »

Quote from: Me on July 01, 2015, 02:31

I wonder if it has anything to do with accounts sat below $35 which have never been added to and have been sat stagnant for years? SS will have to keep that total amount in cash held in their bank in case the contributors ever request payout, or what happens if payout is never requested? Does that mean SS hold onto huge amounts on money and can't use it? Imagine having millions sat in your bank which you can't touch? By changing the TOS every registered contributor will get the email, and maybe in six months time SS add another change that if amounts are not requested after a certain period of time the money is forfeited. Within the space of a year, and with minimal impact to their operating business, they release millions to themselves.

Well this is a good thing for prople like me who get a payout every couple of months.

On the other hand it would be very bleak if most of the photographers on the site were failing to reach even a 35$ per month.

disorderly · « **Reply #47 on:** July 01, 2015, 08:58 »

Quote from: izzikiorage on July 01, 2015, 08:40

On the other hand it would be very bleak if most of the photographers on the site were failing to reach even a 35$ per month.

On the contrary, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's always been so. Most of the people who sign up as suppliers probably don't submit more than a handful of images, see a trickle of sales and stop bothering. They'll never reach even this lower payout. But the next group that makes a few dollars a month might be encouraged enough by their first payout to put some effort in and increase their earnings.

Back when I started it took me seven months to get my first payout. I kept at it despite the meagre returns, but how many don't? Those almost successful suppliers are the likely target of this change, not the vast majority who thought this would be easy money and gave up quickly when they discovered otherwise.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #48 on:** July 01, 2015, 09:55 »

I received e-mail from SS this morning about the TOS change and the wording seemed really strange:

"We've revised the
Contributor Terms of Service

We've given you the option to lower the minimum payout amount from $75 to $35. You still own your work and copyrights, and your agreement with Shutterstock is still non-exclusive."

There was a Learn More button underneath.

Why would they feel the need to say we still own our copyrights - when was that ever even a question?

JPSDK · « **Reply #49 on:** July 01, 2015, 09:58 »

Its a purely financial thing.
They try to become less vulnerable to flucturations, and they can afford it.
Liquids. They lower the bar to not have unpredictable liquid flucturations. Like if suddently many contributors reach their first payout. I really like that they are able to pay for this, in stead of what we have seen of preying downwards from other agencies.
They have seen a big market in the semi/ editorial pictures, and they go for it. Which is good. Agencies shoud persue business oppertunities.
When then we have the lawsuit cases, they want us to let them tackle it. Thats also good.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #50 on:** July 01, 2015, 10:44 »

Quote from: izzikiorage on July 01, 2015, 08:40

On the other hand it would be very bleak if most of the photographers on the site were failing to reach even a 35$ per month.

good point

i s'pose we can be optimistic to not assume this reduction of payout is not an indication of lower earnings, but that ss makes it easier to clear their a/p.
and yes, it would now be most definite we all (or most of us) will be paid monthly.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #51 on:** July 01, 2015, 10:47 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 30, 2015, 17:36

YES other agencies do. But it seems that some here are missing the important condition of this new license option. Let me quote and bold the part that's important - the way I read it.

2. You agree that Shutterstock can permit customers to use editorial content for commercial purposes in limited circumstances (for example, when the customer obtains the necessary rights and clearances).

On occasion, customers may ask to use editorial content for commercial purposes because they are able to obtain the appropriate rights and clearances. This update allows us to permit these customers to use your editorial content for commercial purposes. Please note that this change does not create any additional liabilities or obligations for you.

OK does that explain it?

pete , i think i feel the same way as you now. it is unlikely anyone would be foolish enough to use editiorials commercially without going through the procedure to get IPR from the company involved.

as for the other sites besides IS and SS not being careful, i don't think anyone should worry too much about that, since most do not make much sales, if any...
looking at the right side of leaf's page, all single digit.

panicAttack · « **Reply #52 on:** July 01, 2015, 11:54 »

And I still can't press "I understand" button

stockastic · « **Reply #53 on:** July 01, 2015, 12:05 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 01, 2015, 09:55

I received e-mail from SS this morning about the TOS change and the wording seemed really strange:

"We've revised the
Contributor Terms of Service

We've given you the option to lower the minimum payout amount from $75 to $35. You still own your work and copyrights, and your agreement with Shutterstock is still non-exclusive."

There was a Learn More button underneath.

Why would they feel the need to say we still own our copyrights - when was that ever even a question?

It's strange in 2 ways: first, the one you pointed out; second, that this big, hi-tech company - which must by now be top-heavy with new, high-powered execs - would let such a poorly written statement go out, raising extraneous issues and generating inquiries.

Or, maybe these issues aren't extraneous and this TOS update is in fact a Trojan Horse of some sort.

Freedom · « **Reply #54 on:** July 01, 2015, 12:23 »

"I understand" is still not working, and I cannot work on my account.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #55 on:** July 01, 2015, 12:40 »

Very Strange indeed. Why did they tell us we still own our copyrights and what does that have to do with the lower payment level.

And why lower to $35? I understand some say financial, but how many people are unable to make the $75 target? I mean is $35 going to be life changing for someone, for one month? I sure hope not. I have mine set at $100 because I like the number.

Maybe there are thousands of people who can't make the $75 goal and there are tens of thousands of dollars owed, just sitting for years?

As far as I can see, none of the new terms have any effect on my licensing and if one of those magic Editorial to Commercial conversions ever happens, for what I sell, I'd be very surprised.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 01, 2015, 09:55

I received e-mail from SS this morning about the TOS change and the wording seemed really strange:

"We've revised the
Contributor Terms of Service

We've given you the option to lower the minimum payout amount from $75 to $35. You still own your work and copyrights, and your agreement with Shutterstock is still non-exclusive."

There was a Learn More button underneath.

Why would they feel the need to say we still own our copyrights - when was that ever even a question?

dingles · « **Reply #56 on:** July 01, 2015, 12:51 »

I tried to lower my threshold and it will not let me...still states it has to be $75...is SS becoming IS?

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #57 on:** July 01, 2015, 12:52 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 01, 2015, 12:40

Very Strange indeed. Why did they tell us we still own our copyrights and what does that have to do with the lower payment level.

And why lower to $35? I understand some say financial, but how many people are unable to make the $75 target? I mean is $35 going to be life changing for someone, for one month? I sure hope not. I have mine set at $100 because I like the number.

Maybe there are thousands of people who can't make the $75 goal and there are tens of thousands of dollars owed, just sitting for years?

As far as I can see, none of the new terms have any effect on my licensing and if one of those magic Editorial to Commercial conversions ever happens, for what I sell, I'd be very surprised.

step by step, i would say,
-1) is typical of strange translation using a computer to translate from another language. you get such weird misplacement of phrases when using eg. google translator.
and yes, it's even stranger when a company like ss let such an important statement like this go out without proper proof-read. sounds like an error you expect from a blog, but not from a firm like ss.

2) lowering the payout may just be ss trying to clear their a/p. if that is so, it is "noble" of them,
unlike so many single digit (see right column) agencies who must still have unpaid earning since inception because they don'tsell much, if any. even dreamstime, bigstock,etc one has to wait months to get payout, which compared to ss, i think most of us reach payout monthly, if not, as pointed out, two months.

3) for most of us, who do not have editorials, i don't think we would lose sleep.

except for that strange insertion of reminding us we own our copyrights.

really, for those who live in countries where copyright is automatic, we won't need ss to remind us.
if so, we may end up getting some money when we go after ss for copyright infringement

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #58 on:** July 01, 2015, 14:07 »

Quote from: dingles on July 01, 2015, 12:51

I tried to lower my threshold and it will not let me...still states it has to be $75...is SS becoming IS?

New terms come into effect on 29 July.

dingles · « **Reply #59 on:** July 01, 2015, 14:11 »

Yes, but it what I read from the email that we are able to change the threshold now, but won't be effective until August

Rinderart · « **Reply #60 on:** July 01, 2015, 14:18 »

Quote from: PhotoBomb on July 01, 2015, 01:00

Quote from: Rinderart on July 01, 2015, 00:10
TOS...RE=contributors payout. Quote from SS Forum.

1/. They foresee declining earnings for contributers and to keep contributers who may not reach the $75 threahold each month from getting discouraged and stop uploading they lower it

2/. It will be more of an incentive for new contributers to join thus growing their contributer base and growing there collection with fresh images ( think of third world content i.e. India) and this applies to point 1 as well

3/ this can also be prep work for possible commision declines in the future ?

In a way it is positive but it makes you wonder what may be coming down the pipe

This is all just speculation by someone who knows nothing more than any other contributor. Poor of you to post that here without a disclaimer.

Just about every post on any topic needs a disclaimer if that were true, we guess just about everything. I posted this by permission because I agree with most of it. Thats it. Also....Did SS make Money from Interest on that money. for 10 Years?

"This is all just speculation by someone who knows nothing more than any other contributor" I'll agree 100% with that like at least most of the theories posted here anyway..LOL

ShadySue · « **Reply #61 on:** July 01, 2015, 15:26 »

Quote from: dingles on July 01, 2015, 12:51

I tried to lower my threshold and it will not let me...still states it has to be $75...is SS becoming IS?

It seems to be treading more and more of that sad route.

Tazzy · « **Reply #62 on:** July 01, 2015, 20:36 »

If you are not able to get rid of the pop up window when you click on "I UNDERSTAND", do the following. Click on one of the links in the popup and look in the upper right hand corner where you see log out. Log out and then log back in. The pop up window will pop back up, but this time when you click on the "I UNDERSTAND" button, it will go away.

gbalex · « **Reply #63 on:** July 01, 2015, 22:51 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 01, 2015, 12:40

Very Strange indeed. Why did they tell us we still own our copyrights and what does that have to do with the lower payment level.

And why lower to $35? I understand some say financial, but how many people are unable to make the $75 target? I mean is $35 going to be life changing for someone, for one month? I sure hope not. I have mine set at $100 because I like the number.

Maybe there are thousands of people who can't make the $75 goal and there are tens of thousands of dollars owed, just sitting for years?

As far as I can see, none of the new terms have any effect on my licensing and if one of those magic Editorial to Commercial conversions ever happens, for what I sell, I'd be very surprised.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 01, 2015, 09:55
I received e-mail from SS this morning about the TOS change and the wording seemed really strange:

"We've revised the
Contributor Terms of Service

We've given you the option to lower the minimum payout amount from $75 to $35. You still own your work and copyrights, and your agreement with Shutterstock is still non-exclusive."

There was a Learn More button underneath.

Why would they feel the need to say we still own our copyrights - when was that ever even a question?

It will be interesting what they have to say about this in their next 10Q earnings call.

Pixart · « **Reply #64 on:** July 02, 2015, 00:58 »

Just a thought, but I wonder if there is a sale in the future and they are trying to wrap up some legacy business - maybe payout and close stagnant accounts.

Dumc · « **Reply #65 on:** July 02, 2015, 01:02 »

Quote from: Tazzy on July 01, 2015, 20:36

If you are not able to get rid of the pop up window when you click on "I UNDERSTAND", do the following. Click on one of the links in the popup and look in the upper right hand corner where you see log out. Log out and then log back in. The pop up window will pop back up, but this time when you click on the "I UNDERSTAND" button, it will go away.

Doesn't work.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #66 on:** July 02, 2015, 01:10 »

Quote from: Dumc on July 02, 2015, 01:02

Quote from: Tazzy on July 01, 2015, 20:36
If you are not able to get rid of the pop up window when you click on "I UNDERSTAND", do the following. Click on one of the links in the popup and look in the upper right hand corner where you see log out. Log out and then log back in. The pop up window will pop back up, but this time when you click on the "I UNDERSTAND" button, it will go away.

Doesn't work.

I had the same problem with Firefox. Delete history with all the cookies and then login again.

Dumc · « **Reply #67 on:** July 02, 2015, 01:13 »

Quote from: StockPhotosArt on July 02, 2015, 01:10

Quote from: Dumc on July 02, 2015, 01:02
Quote from: Tazzy on July 01, 2015, 20:36
If you are not able to get rid of the pop up window when you click on "I UNDERSTAND", do the following. Click on one of the links in the popup and look in the upper right hand corner where you see log out. Log out and then log back in. The pop up window will pop back up, but this time when you click on the "I UNDERSTAND" button, it will go away.

Doesn't work.

I had the same problem with Firefox. Delete history with all the cookies and then login again.

Thanks, it works now.

gbalex · « **Reply #68 on:** July 02, 2015, 01:39 »

Quote from: Pixart on July 02, 2015, 00:58

Just a thought, but I wonder if there is a sale in the future and they are trying to wrap up some legacy business - maybe payout and close stagnant accounts.

I wondered the same thing, keep asking myself why they would reverse historical policy on keeping the money tied up and earning interest etc.

Rage · « **Reply #69 on:** July 02, 2015, 08:00 »

I just hope the sale gets this to better people and does not make it like istock or worse like DT and all

Mantis · « **Reply #70 on:** July 02, 2015, 08:24 »

What if you don't agree? Is your account closed? For editorial, why wouldn't they give an opt in or opt out from commercial use? I can see this coming back to haunt the artist down the road, especially when you look at how little the agencies fight for us. Some artists may agree with everything in the TOS except offering their editorial work for commercial use, and if they want to make a business decision NOT to offer it to protect themselves, is the alternative to have your account closed? This seems awful strong handed to say it's all or nothing.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #71 on:** July 02, 2015, 09:43 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 02, 2015, 08:24

What if you don't agree? Is your account closed? For editorial, why wouldn't they give an opt in or opt out from commercial use? I can see this coming back to haunt the artist down the road, especially when you look at how little the agencies fight for us. Some artists may agree with everything in the TOS except offering their editorial work for commercial use, and if they want to make a business decision NOT to offer it to protect themselves, is the alternative to have your account closed? This seems awful strong handed to say it's all or nothing.

If I wanted to continue and had editorial work I was worried about, I'd just delete those items from SS and leave my account open rather than leaving.

I have so few editorial at SS right now, and none that I think could cause problems, so I'm going to leave them there. Probably wouldn't upload any more though

And all or nothing is the Getty way (their April 2011 contract changes). SS is a big dog now and figures it can get away with it without losing any (or many) contributors.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #72 on:** July 02, 2015, 09:45 »

Could be a bit late to this, but I think the strange wording about copyright is to reassure us because of the change agreeing to go to them with copyright concerns over usage.

tickstock · « **Reply #73 on:** July 02, 2015, 09:46 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 02, 2015, 09:43

And all or nothing is the Getty way (their April 2011 contract changes). SS is a big dog now and figures it can get away with it without losing any (or many) contributors.

All or nothing is every agency's agreement since the beginning of time, when did you ever get to pick and choose which parts an the agreement you wanted to follow and which ones you could ignore?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #74 on:** July 02, 2015, 10:14 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 02, 2015, 09:46

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 02, 2015, 09:43
And all or nothing is the Getty way (their April 2011 contract changes). SS is a big dog now and figures it can get away with it without losing any (or many) contributors.
All or nothing is every agency's agreement since the beginning of time, when did you ever get to pick and choose which parts an the agreement you wanted to follow and which ones you could ignore?

Never. But those aren't the only two choices.

There were many times in the early days of microstock agencies that groups of contributors nudged the agencies to change terms in the TOS when we weren't happy with them. And they did. That's obviously ancient history now and the agencies are big and profitable enough that they don't bend or negotiate or in any other way consider contributors' interests.

gbalex · « **Reply #75 on:** July 02, 2015, 11:14 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 02, 2015, 10:14

Quote from: tickstock on July 02, 2015, 09:46
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 02, 2015, 09:43
And all or nothing is the Getty way (their April 2011 contract changes). SS is a big dog now and figures it can get away with it without losing any (or many) contributors.
All or nothing is every agency's agreement since the beginning of time, when did you ever get to pick and choose which parts an the agreement you wanted to follow and which ones you could ignore?

Never. But those aren't the only two choices.

There were many times in the early days of microstock agencies that groups of contributors nudged the agencies to change terms in the TOS when we weren't happy with them. And they did. That's obviously ancient history now and the agencies are big and profitable enough that they don't bend or negotiate or in any other way consider contributors' interests.

Not such ancient history, we recently demanded an opt out for DPC and got it. We just need to be as proactive as the Russian community recently was.

If we tell ourselves over and over that we can't, we make that reality true by our own actions.

The truth is, WE CAN

tickstock · « **Reply #76 on:** July 02, 2015, 13:36 »

Did something happen at SS today? The stock is down 5%.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #77 on:** July 02, 2015, 13:44 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 02, 2015, 13:36

Did something happen at SS today? The stock is down 5%.

You should have sold when the going was good.

tickstock · « **Reply #78 on:** July 02, 2015, 13:45 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on July 02, 2015, 13:44

Quote from: tickstock on July 02, 2015, 13:36
Did something happen at SS today? The stock is down 5%.

You should have sold when the going was good.

I should have bought at the IPO.

ShadySue · « **Reply #79 on:** July 02, 2015, 14:38 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 02, 2015, 09:43

Quote from: Mantis on July 02, 2015, 08:24
What if you don't agree? Is your account closed? For editorial, why wouldn't they give an opt in or opt out from commercial use? I can see this coming back to haunt the artist down the road, especially when you look at how little the agencies fight for us. Some artists may agree with everything in the TOS except offering their editorial work for commercial use, and if they want to make a business decision NOT to offer it to protect themselves, is the alternative to have your account closed? This seems awful strong handed to say it's all or nothing.

If I wanted to continue and had editorial work I was worried about, I'd just delete those items from SS and leave my account open rather than leaving.

I have so few editorial at SS right now, and none that I think could cause problems, so I'm going to leave them there. Probably wouldn't upload any more though

And all or nothing is the Getty way (their April 2011 contract changes). SS is a big dog now and figures it can get away with it without losing any (or many) contributors.

SS already have the all in / all out for sensitive use, and all out means one of the higher earnings possibilities is closed. Rather a pity for those supplying images of children, especially.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #80 on:** July 02, 2015, 21:25 »

I'd like image exclusive on IS but they force me all in or not. I'd like DPC individual images by choice, but it's all or none. I'd like to have some images in Novel Use (by choice), on Alamy, but I can't. And I can only opt out once a year... IS also has or had the all in or not for exclusives images going to Thinkstock, no choice. All In or All Out.

Every one of these makes a difference on earnings and we have to make personal choices. We can't have every possible option the way we want it to be.

Hi All,

When you receive a high royalty for a single image, it is because the image was sold under a license that offers the option for sensitive use. That does not mean that the use was a sensitive one. The majority of these images will not be used in a sensitive manner. However, such use is a possibility. Unlike some competitors, we give you the ability to opt-out.

High royalties are often the result of a prenegotiated agreement with volume buyers such as large advertising agencies. These volume buyers may require additional license or workflow features, such as the option for sensitive use, indemnification, multi-user accounts, prenegotiated pricing, and special billing and workflow features.

By opting-in to sensitive use, you get access to all sales made to these buyers. By opting out, your images aren't available to buyers who require the option of sensitive use.

Overall, these sales are a great opportunity to drive additional revenue to you and we're excited to make them available. Smiley

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

It's not only for Sensitive Use there are other reasons. People dwell on the negative.

Quote from: ShadySue on July 02, 2015, 14:38

SS already have the all in / all out for sensitive use, and all out means one of the higher earnings possibilities is closed. Rather a pity for those supplying images of children, especially.

ShadySue · « **Reply #81 on:** July 03, 2015, 03:41 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 02, 2015, 21:25

IS also has or had the all in or not for exclusives images going to Thinkstock, no choice. All In or All Out.

POI, that was never so. Exclusives could (historically) opt images in or out on an individual basis. All in for exclusives was never possible, as images within 18 months of uploading could be iS or PP, but never both.

ShadySue · « **Reply #82 on:** July 03, 2015, 03:48 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 02, 2015, 21:25

Hi All,
When you receive a high royalty for a single image, it is because the image was sold under a license that offers the option for sensitive use. That does not mean that the use was a sensitive one. The majority of these images will not be used in a sensitive manner. However, such use is a possibility. Unlike some competitors, we give you the ability to opt-out.
...

Overall, these sales are a great opportunity to drive additional revenue to you and we're excited to make them available. Smiley
...

It's not only for Sensitive Use there are other reasons. People dwell on the negative.

Quote from: ShadySue on July 02, 2015, 14:38
SS already have the all in / all out for sensitive use, and all out means one of the higher earnings possibilities is closed. Rather a pity for those supplying images of children, especially.

That's exactly what I said.
If you want to take advantage of the possiblity of higher earnings, you must opt every one of your images into the possibility of sensitive use. There was nothing to stop there being one opt in for the negotiated uses, and another for sensitive use. From what I read here, a lot of people start by using 'family and friends' as models, or children, like I said. And as we see on msg from time to time, even professional models may have their limits on how their images might be used.
Seems like on SS, like iS, when they're 'excited' to announce something, it's a double-edged sword.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #83 on:** July 03, 2015, 06:59 »

The whole microstock business is a double edged sword

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Contributor TOS at Shutterstock (Read 31237 times)

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

Rinderart

Uncle Pete

Semmick Photo

Rinderart

StockPhotosArt.com

Justanotherphotographer

Uncle Pete

Semmick Photo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors