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.

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

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?

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.

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: 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?

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.

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: 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?

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.

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? 

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.

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.

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.

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.