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.

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.

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.

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?

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 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?