MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Contributor TOS at Shutterstock  (Read 30978 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: July 02, 2015, 11:14 »
+2
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


« Reply #76 on: July 02, 2015, 13:36 »
0
Did something happen at SS today?  The stock is down 5%.

« Reply #77 on: July 02, 2015, 13:44 »
+1
Did something happen at SS today?  The stock is down 5%.

You should have sold when the going was good.

« Reply #78 on: July 02, 2015, 13:45 »
+1
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

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #79 on: July 02, 2015, 14:38 »
+1
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 »
0
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.

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

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #81 on: July 03, 2015, 03:41 »
+1
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

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #82 on: July 03, 2015, 03:48 »
+1
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.

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 »
+2
The whole microstock business is a double edged sword


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
16327 Views
Last post February 21, 2016, 15:47
by Justanotherphotographer
6 Replies
3547 Views
Last post May 11, 2014, 16:15
by MxR
14 Replies
7077 Views
Last post September 22, 2014, 18:50
by spike
4 Replies
3149 Views
Last post August 03, 2016, 15:18
by Stockmaan
2 Replies
1882 Views
Last post September 28, 2016, 07:13
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors