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

Mmmm.......

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.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 29, 2015, 22:23
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.

Looks like the page disappeared...

"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. 

Quote from: Microstock Posts on June 30, 2015, 04:34
"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!

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 30, 2015, 05:36

Quote from: Microstock Posts on June 30, 2015, 04:34
"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. 

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 29, 2015, 22:23
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.

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

The new Terms of service are here:

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

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 29, 2015, 22:23
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).

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."

Quote from: PhotoBomb on June 30, 2015, 17:12
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

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 30, 2015, 03:27

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 29, 2015, 22:23
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. 

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.

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."

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

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

Quote from: Dodie on June 30, 2015, 19:18
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.

Quote from: panicAttack on June 30, 2015, 19:07
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

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.

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

Quote from: ibogdan on June 30, 2015, 20:05
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.

Quote from: Dodie on June 30, 2015, 19:50
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

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.