MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Chichikov on September 21, 2017, 09:10
-
http://custom.shutterstock.com/ (http://custom.shutterstock.com/)
_________
SUBMISSION AGREEMENT
THIS IS A BINDING AGREEMENT
This agreement (the “Submission Agreement”) governs the terms by which photographers may submit photographs to Shutterstock Custom Platform ULC (“we”, “our” or “us”).
You acknowledge that this Submission Agreement is a legal agreement between you and us. You must comply with all the terms of this Submission Agreement at all times. If this Submission Agreement is not acceptable to you, you are under no obligation to accept its terms or to make any submissions to us.
We may update this Submission Agreement from time to time, and you are responsible for periodically reviewing the most current version. If you continue to make any submission to us after the date of any such update, you will be deemed to have conclusively accepted the updated Submission Agreement.
YOUR SUBMISSIONS
Once you have accepted the terms of this Submission Agreement, provided your account has not been suspended or terminated by us, you may submit photographs to us via our website located at www.shutterstock.com/customcontributor (http://www.shutterstock.com/customcontributor) (the “Site”) or directly to our agents, employees or contractors (each, a “Submission”). Each Submission will be governed by the terms of the then-current version of this Submission Agreement.
OWNERSHIP OF SUBMISSIONS
By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion. You agree that by providing a Paid Submission to us, you will thereby waive all moral rights or any similar rights you may have in relation to that Paid Submission. If we request you to do so, you will sign and deliver to us any and all further assignments and other instruments we may require in order to confirm our ownership of your Paid Submissions.
You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (“Unselected Submissions”). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, “Confidentiality”.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will continue to have the right to display your Submissions solely as part of a personal portfolio demonstrating your photographic abilities.
REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, COVENANTS AND INDEMNITIES
You hereby represent, warrant and covenant to us that:
each Submission you provide to us will be your own original work, and will not include the work of others or be a copy of someone else’s work, and you will have the full power and authority to provide that Submission to us, to assign ownership of the Submission to us, and to waive all of your moral rights in the Submission;
where identifiable individuals appear in a Submission: (a) each of those individuals will be older than the age of majority in their place of residence at the time the Submission was created and will have agreed to our then-current model agreement, a copy of which may be accessed at shutterstock.com/customcontributor (or in the case of minors, their parent or legal guardian will have agreed to such model agreement); and (b) you will be responsible for any and all payments to that individual, as mutually agreed between you and them. For clarity, in no event will we be responsible for making any payment to any individuals who appear in any of your Submissions;
we will be fully entitled to exercise all of our rights and ownership in each Submission without any obligation to obtain consent from any other party and without any obligation to make any payment or provide any credit to any other party;
no portion of any Submission will be defamatory nor will it violate or infringe upon the copyright, moral rights, trademark rights, privacy rights, personality rights, publicity rights or any other right of any kind of any other party;
no Submission will contain any element of gratuitous, explicit or excessive violence, any element which is characterized by the undue
exploitation of matters of a sexual nature, or matters of a sexual nature and one or more of the following subjects: crime, horror, cruelty or violence, or any sexual offence under any laws of Canada, the United States or any other applicable jurisdiction, or any matter which is obscene, offensive or in any other way unlawful;
no Submission will contain any disabling mechanism or protection feature or other mechanism designed to prevent or interfere with its use including any clock, timer, counter, computer virus, worm, software lock, drop dead device, Trojan horse routine, trap door, time bomb or any other codes or instructions that may be used to access, modify, replicate, distort, delete, damage or disable our software or computer systems or other software or hardware; and
once you have provided a Submission to us, you will not make it available through any other distributor, website or other marketing, distribution, sale or licensing venue of any kind, and in the event you have previously made that Submission available elsewhere, you will ensure that the Submission is no longer available after you have provided it to us. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in no event will you enter into any agreement that conflicts with our rights under this Submission Agreement, and in the event any such conflicting agreement exists, you will ensure such agreement has been terminated and all access to the applicable Submission permanently revoked prior to providing such Submission to us.
you agree not to use any other images taken for a specific Brief that contain an identifiable brand, for any commercial purpose whatsoever, whether or not the images were Paid Submissions or Unselected Submissions.
You acknowledge and agree that we will have the right (but no obligation) to reject any Submission or to remove from our Site any previously accepted Submission for any reason whatsoever, including without limitation, for any potential breach of the foregoing representations, warranties and covenants.
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold us and our directors, officers, shareholders, employees, agents, contractors, licensees and assignees harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including legal fees) incurred as a result of:
use, reproduction, display, electronic transmission, distribution, publication, broadcast, modification, editing, combination with the work of others, making of derivative works from, or other exploitation of any Submission provided by you; or
any breach or alleged breach of your representations, warranties or covenants made under this Submission Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with our defense of the applicable claim.
In the event of any claim subject to the foregoing indemnity, without limiting any of our other rights or remedies, we will be entitled to withhold sums payable under this Submission Agreement in an amount reasonably related to our potential liability and any related costs and legal fees.
COMPENSATION / CREDIT
From time-to-time, you may choose to make a Submission for a Brief that includes a fee for images selected for our clients (“Paid Submissions”).
A Brief may also specify whether you are entitled to reimbursement of expenses related to the Paid Submissions (“Reimbursable Expenses”). In order to receive payment of Reimbursable Expenses, you must submit receipts to us, in a timely manner. Expense receipts submitted may be rejected and not reimbursed should the number of Paid Submissions not meet our minimum threshold, which we shall determine at our sole discretion.
For each calendar month during which you provide Paid Submissions and, or Reimbursable Expenses to us, you will be paid a fee as specified in the corresponding Brief for which the Submission is made, based on the total number of Paid Submissions you provide during that month which are accepted by us, at our sole discretion. Submissions that are not selected will not be entitled to any compensation or credit.
All payments will be made to you within 30 calendar days of the end of each calendar month via PayPal or other means determined by us in our sole discretion.
You acknowledge that we have not made any representations, warranties or covenants to you regarding the extent to which we will use or exploit any Submission or that we will continue to use or exploit a Submission if we commence to do so. The decision to accept each Submission or to exploit any or all of the rights granted to us for each Submission will be made in our sole discretion, and nothing in this Submission Agreement will obligate us to exploit any of such rights or to continue such exploitation once commenced.
PASSWORDS
Upon completion of your signup process and acceptance of this Submission Agreement, you will be issued a username and password that will permit you to
make Submissions to us. You agree to keep your username and password secret and confidential, and you acknowledge that we will be entitled to rely on any Submission or other communication made using your username and password as conclusive evidence that you made that Submission or communication.
You hereby consent to the collection, use and disclosure by us of any personal information you provide to us in connection with the Site and our exercise of any rights with respect to any Submissions you provide to us. You acknowledge that we may make such personal information available to one or more service providers we engage in connection with the operation of the Site and that we and our service providers may store and process such personal information in any jurisdiction located anywhere in the world, as determined in our (or their) sole discretion.
CONFIDENTIALITY
You acknowledge that this Agreement creates a confidential relationship between you and us. That confidential relationship is the basis on which we disclose or may in the future disclose its commercially valuable, proprietary, confidential information or trade secrets pertaining to the services provided for in this Agreement. We may also disclose to you information disclosed to us in confidence by a third party. You shall hold all of our confidential information and trade secrets, the confidential information of third parties, and all Intellectual Property assigned pursuant to Section 6 in strict confidence, and shall neither disclose the same to any third party nor use it for purposes other than providing services under this Agreement, without our prior written consent. This Agreement is also confidential and you shall not, without our express written consent disclose any information relative to or derived from this Agreement, including, specifically, information concerning the intended use of the goods and/or services provided under this Agreement. These secrecy obligations will not apply to information that is or becomes generally available to the public as a matter of record other than as a result of a breach of this Agreement by you. You shall safeguard all materials, whether written or otherwise, which we supply to you and shall not, without our prior written consent, copy, duplicate or share such materials with any third party.
DISCLAIMERS / LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
OUR SITE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND. WE, OUR AFFILIATES, LICENSORS, SERVICE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS REGARDING ACCURACY, TECHNICAL AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, SUITABILITY OF CONTENT, MERCHANTABLE QUALITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THOSE ARISING BY LAW, STATUTE, USAGE OF TRADE, OR COURSE OF DEALING. WE, OUR AFFILIATES, LICENSORS, SERVICE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THE FORM OF MODEL AGREEMENT MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR SUBMISSIONS. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT, IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION, TO CORRECT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN ANY PORTION OF OUR SITE AND IN OUR FORM OF MODEL AGREEMENT. WE MAY MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES TO OUR SITE AND OUR FORM OF MODEL AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE.
WE, OUR AFFILIATES AND OUR RESPECTIVE DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS SHALL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR SPECIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, THOSE ARISING FROM ANY USE OR REMOVAL BY US OF ANY OF YOUR SUBMISSIONS, LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER RESULTING FROM THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE OUR SITE, OR ANY OTHER CAUSE EVEN IF WE OR OUR AFFILIATES OR EITHER OF OUR RESPECTIVE LICENSORS, SERVICE PROVIDERS OR SUPPLIERS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH DAMAGES OCCURRING.
OUR TOTAL CUMULATIVE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SUBMISSION AGREEMENT AND YOUR USE OF THE SITE, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR TORT OR OTHERWISE, WILL NOT EXCEED THE LESSER OF: (I) THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT PAID TO YOU UNDER THIS SUBMISSION AGREEMENT IN THE 12 MONTH PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FINAL EVENT GIVING RISE TO SUCH LIABILITY; OR (II)
$500.
THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS SHALL APPLY TO YOU TO THE FULLEST EXTENT THAT APPLICABLE LAW PERMITS, IN ALL ACTIONS OF ANY KIND, WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENCE) OR ANY OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY.
TERM AND TERMINATION
Once you have accepted this Submission Agreement, it will become effective and will remain in effect until it has been terminated.
You may terminate this Submission Agreement at any time by providing written notice to us via e-mail at [email protected].
Without limiting our other rights and remedies, we may temporarily suspend your access to our Site and your ability to provide Submissions to us, or we may terminate this Submission Agreement at any time, in the event that we believe the security of your account has been compromised or you have breached this Submission Agreement. Any determinations in this regard will be made in our sole discretion, without prior notice to you, provided that will we will provide you with notice of any such suspension or termination after the fact at your next login to our Site.
Any suspension or termination of this Agreement, whether by you or us, will not affect our rights with respect to any Submission you provided to us prior to such suspension or termination. In addition, Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 will survive any termination of this Agreement.
SOLE REMEDY
In the event of any breach or alleged breach by us of this Submission Agreement, your sole remedy shall be limited to the right, if any, to recover money damages at law and you shall have no right by reason of any such breach or alleged breach to rescind this Submission Agreement or to any equitable or injunctive relief, or to enjoin or restrain the use, reproduction, display, electronic transmission, distribution, publication, broadcast, modification, editing, combination with the work of others, making of derivative works from, or other exploitation of any Submission provided by you.
Non-Competition; Non-Solicitation.
During the Term of this Agreement and for a period of twelve (12) months following the last day of your affiliation with Shutterstock (the “Restricted Period”), you will not, without the prior written consent from Shutterstock:
Either individually, or on behalf of or through any third party, directly or indirectly, solicit, divert or appropriate or attempt to solicit, divert or appropriate any Shutterstock customer, client, or other business partner (or any person or entity which was a Shutterstock customer, client, or business partner at any time during the twelve (12) month period preceding such actual or attempted solicitation, diversion or appropriation), or any prospective Shutterstock customer, client, or business partner with respect to which Shutterstock has developed or made a sales presentation (or similar offering of services) during the twelve (12) month period preceding such actual or attempted solicitation, for the purpose of competing with Shutterstock or reducing Shutterstock’s relationship with any of its customers, clients, or other business partners; or
Either individually or on behalf of or through any third party, directly or indirectly, (A) solicit, entice or persuade or attempt to solicit, entice or persuade any Shutterstock employee or Shutterstock consultant to end or reduce such
person’s relationship with Shutterstock, or (B) employ, hire, cause to be employed or engaged, or solicit the employment or the engagement as a consultant of any Shutterstock employee or Shutterstock consultant while any such person is affiliated with Shutterstock, and for the Restricted Period.
GENERAL
We may assign or subcontract this Submission Agreement, in whole or in part, to any person or entity without notice to you, in which case the assignee will be bound by, and we will be released from, our obligations under this Submission Agreement. You may not assign this Submission Agreement without our prior written consent, which consent may be withheld in our sole discretion.
This Submission Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between you and us relating to its subject matter and may only be amended in writing between the parties or as otherwise expressly set out in this Submission Agreement. Neither you nor we have made any representations, promises or warranties not set forth in this Submission Agreement.
Our failure to insist in any one or more instances upon your performance of any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of its future performance. Your obligations with respect to such term, covenant or condition shall continue unchanged and in full force and effect. No waiver by us of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by us.
If any provision of this Agreement is deemed void, illegal or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, you and we will replace such provision with an enforceable provision that as nearly as possible reflects the economic effect of the unenforceable provision, and the remainder of this Submission Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
You acknowledge that although our Site may be accessed on a global basis, it is controlled and operated by us from our offices within the Province of Ontario, Canada. Accordingly, this Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein, without reference to any conflicts of laws principles. You and we each hereby irrevocably attorn to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario and the federal courts of Canada. The United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods shall not be applicable to this Submission Agreement. The parties to this Submission Agreement have requested that this document, and all related documents, be expressed solely in the English language. Les parties aux présentes ont expressément exigé que le
présent contrat, ainsi que tous les documents qui s’y rattachent, soient rédigés en langue anglaise seulement.
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in the event any dispute arises under this Submission Agreement or in connection with any of your Submissions or use of our Site, you hereby waive any right you may have to trial by jury, or to commence or participate in any class proceeding or class action against us, our affiliates and our respective directors, officers, shareholders, employees, agents, contractors, licensees or assignees.
HOW TO CONTACT US
If you have any questions or concerns about our Site or your Submissions, or if you wish to provide us with any formal notice under this Submission Agreement, you may contact us via e-mail at the following address:
[email protected]
For clarity, without limiting the generality of Section 12 above, in no event will any information or advice provided by us or our representatives via telephone, e-mail or in person serve as an amendment, supplement or waiver of any portion of this Submission Agreement.
INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE
In agreeing to the terms of this Submission Agreement, you acknowledge that:
you have had sufficient time to review and consider this Submission Agreement thoroughly;
you have read and understand the terms of this Submission Agreement and your obligations under this Submission Agreement;
you have been given an opportunity to obtain independent legal advice concerning the interpretation and effect of this Submission Agreement; and
you have entered into this Submission Agreement voluntarily and without any pressure as an inducement to us to provide a means for you to economically exploit your photographs.
-
INTERESTING...i will apply independently my account in ss. i will show my best work outside. i love work for assignment.
-
Is this like imagebrief?
-
INTERESTING...i will apply independently my account in ss. i will show my best work outside. i love work for assignment.
I have applied, but the promised verification email has never arrived…
Is this like imagebrief?
As I have understood it is similar, but maybe more "brand oriented" (?)
-
Congrats Ron,
You’ve submitted your application!
Thanks so much for submitting your application into Shutterstock Custom’s network of creative contributors!
Your portfolio and information will be reviewed by a member of our team in the next few days. Expect to hear from us soon!
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/press/15094 (https://www.shutterstock.com/press/15094)
It was Flashstock, now Shutterstock Custom
-
Are there rates and so on buried in there somewhere or are we expected to do custom work for .38 or 33%?
-
Are there rates and so on buried in there somewhere or are we expected to do custom work for .38 or 33%?
"Get compelling content that fits your brand guidelines at a practical price"
"Practical" for them means ..... for you.
-
I have applied, but the promised verification email has never arrived…
Is this like imagebrief?
As I have understood it is similar, but maybe more "brand oriented" (?)
Check you spam folder
-
Seems kind of light on details.
-
Is this like those design contests/ spec work, or do you actually get paid to supply creative content based on a brief?
-
Are there rates and so on buried in there somewhere or are we expected to do custom work for .38 or 33%?
I didn't see any rates posted, but here's an earlier thread that included some info on what a Flashstock contributor got paid (not much but not 38 cents :) )
http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/'on-demand'-site-flashstock-com-anyone-tried-this (http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/'on-demand'-site-flashstock-com-anyone-tried-this)
-
Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
-
Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
Yes, I'm sure the average Shutterstock contributor can easily get $40k for some custom work.
Deadmau5 can get $200,000 per night, but that doesn't mean Joe Schmoe from Utah will get that at his local club.
-
I have applied, but the promised verification email has never arrived…
Is this like imagebrief?
As I have understood it is similar, but maybe more "brand oriented" (?)
Check you spam folder
Nothing except a mail from a nice young woman who proposes me to marry her… ;)
-
Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
Yes, I'm sure the average Shutterstock contributor can easily get $40k for some custom work.
Deadmau5 can get $200,000 per night, but that doesn't mean Joe Schmoe from Utah will get that at his local club.
"Famous" photographers charge hundreds of thousands. These are major clients, wanting photographers to do custom work for $2. That's insane. (If that's what the rates still are.)
-
I hope their prices are better than that. That's pretty low. Do they really want to destroy the whole market?
-
They are going to get what they pay for ...
-
Well, I've just signed up and they're reviewing my application.
At least they're trying to stay competitive by innovating...whether it will pay well is another matter altogether but at this stage it's insane to believe that only Microstock is the way forward.
-
Well, I've just signed up and they're reviewing my application.
At least they're trying to stay competitive by innovating...whether it will pay well is another matter altogether but at this stage it's insane to believe that only Microstock is the way forward.
I'm not sure buying other companies is particularly innovative but might be worth applying I guess. FWIW I believe SS want to move away from "straight" Microstock as its not a particularly profitable field.
-
Well, I've just signed up and they're reviewing my application.
At least they're trying to stay competitive by innovating...whether it will pay well is another matter altogether but at this stage it's insane to believe that only Microstock is the way forward.
I'm not sure buying other companies is particularly innovative but might be worth applying I guess. FWIW I believe SS want to move away from "straight" Microstock as its not a particularly profitable field.
I think it's quite profitable, but only for them.
-
Well, I've just signed up and they're reviewing my application.
At least they're trying to stay competitive by innovating...
This idea - assignment work on the cheap - is not new.
The first time I remember seeing it was iStock's BuyRequest, but there have been a number of smaller companies that have tried this and it hasn't worked (as far as I know) yet. I'm assuming it wasn't working for Flashstock either or they wouldn't have been willing to be acquired.
No idea if SS will be able to make this fly, but it isn't innovating. As I think their audience is the Wall Street watchers - the people they have been trying to sell a story to about how they're going to keep growth rates up by becoming a platform (you can read more of the buzzy drivel in their earnings conference calls) - they don't have to actually innovate. They just have to have a story that people who don't know much about the business will like the sound of.
-
No idea if SS will be able to make this fly, but it isn't innovating.
In hindsight, innovation isn't the right word. It's more like diversification.
The model certainly works, Imagebrief seems to be doing well.
-
No idea if SS will be able to make this fly, but it isn't innovating.
In hindsight, innovation isn't the right word. It's more like diversification.
The model certainly works, Imagebrief seems to be doing well.
There's nothing wrong with the model. Artist and agent relationships have existed forever. The question is are they going to invest in that relationship and work for the artist?
-
Well, I've just signed up and they're reviewing my application.
At least they're trying to stay competitive by innovating...whether it will pay well is another matter altogether but at this stage it's insane to believe that only Microstock is the way forward.
I'm not sure buying other companies is particularly innovative but might be worth applying I guess. FWIW I believe SS want to move away from "straight" Microstock as its not a particularly profitable field.
I think it's quite profitable, but only for them.
I think though some people might not like it stock photos are basically a commodity big money is made by adding perceived value....like the difference between selling wheat and "artisan" bread.
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
-
Well, I've just signed up and they're reviewing my application.
At least they're trying to stay competitive by innovating...whether it will pay well is another matter altogether but at this stage it's insane to believe that only Microstock is the way forward.
I'm not sure buying other companies is particularly innovative but might be worth applying I guess. FWIW I believe SS want to move away from "straight" Microstock as its not a particularly profitable field.
I think it's quite profitable, but only for them.
I think though some people might not like it stock photos are basically a commodity big money is made by adding perceived value....like the difference between selling wheat and "artisan" bread.
Hence the majority of contributors (wheat growers) won't be applying or at least they won't be accepted, only artisans need apply, but not being monkeys will they accept peanuts?
-
I just wrote a blog post about SS Custom:
http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/23/review-introducing-shutterstock-custom/ (http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/23/review-introducing-shutterstock-custom/)
It appears that they've accepted me :)
-
So you have no idea how much the jobs will pay. Wonder when they'll let you in on that little secret.
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
I couldn't agree more and joining without knowing the complete Deal and commissions? really?.
-
I just wrote a blog post about SS Custom:
[url]http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/23/review-introducing-shutterstock-custom/[/url] ([url]http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/23/review-introducing-shutterstock-custom/[/url])
It appears that they've accepted me :)
sorry but what a bruttaly idiotical title for an author with only $ in his eyes. :-*
-
I don't see any risk in joining up as it doesn't commit you to do anything as far as I can see. I don't think I'm what they are looking for but if an location based project came up near me it might be worth my while.
-
sorry but what a bruttaly idiotical title for an author with only $ in his eyes. :-*
Don't judge a book by its cover
-
sorry but what a bruttaly idiotical title for an author with only $ in his eyes. :-*
Don't judge a book by its cover
His comment reads like he's judging the cover by the book. Anyway, I look forward to your update now that you are accepted? I hear payments are tiered like ELs and in the smallprint it says that they keep the copyright, would newbies sell their content for 20% or veterans for 30%? I guess that would be a deal breaker for many, if true.
-
I just wrote a blog post about SS Custom:
[url]http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/23/review-introducing-shutterstock-custom/[/url] ([url]http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/23/review-introducing-shutterstock-custom/[/url])
It appears that they've accepted me :)
Did you get accepted or just the second email to complete the application?
-
sorry but what a bruttaly idiotical title for an author with only $ in his eyes. :-*
Don't judge a book by its cover
Though not necessarily what you would say when selling images for book covers :o
-
I just wrote a blog post about SS Custom:
[url]http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/23/review-introducing-shutterstock-custom/[/url] ([url]http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/23/review-introducing-shutterstock-custom/[/url])
It appears that they've accepted me :)
sorry but what a bruttaly idiotical title for an author with only $ in his eyes. :-*
Iam judging the author by his behaviour. Bruttaly heavy spaming...
-
Anyway, I look forward to your update now that you are accepted?
Yeah, for sure I'll update.
I hear payments are tiered like ELs and in the smallprint it says that they keep the copyright, would newbies sell their content for 20% or veterans for 30%? I guess that would be a deal breaker for many, if true.
Yes, they keep the copyright which is fair enough as it's fit-for-purpose exclusive content tailored for a client. In return I would expect higher payments for this burden. It would be highly advisable not to license the content elsewhere.
I imagine SS will have no issue recruiting enough contributors from their current army of 250,000 Microstock contributors. Not sure yet what the % is yet - probably a bit higher than 30% I think because it's supposed to be a "premium" service (probably wishful thinking).
What I found encouraging is that some briefs will allow contributors to file expense reports for some briefs to receive some reimbursements. Here's from their FAQ:
"On some assignments, you may receive an allotted amount for an expense budget. Expenses are for you to purchase props and/or product depending on the brief specifications. Sometimes, you will have the ability to select props to your wish, but other times there will be a set guideline on what you are to purchase according to the brief. It is your responsibility to check the brief guidelines to find out exactly what your expense budget should be used on. You will be reimbursed for your expenses by submitting all receipts."
They go on to add that the contributor would still be reimbursed even if the client decides not to use the images once the brief has been accepted.
"If they don’t use the images I submit, do I still get reimbursed for product?" Answer: "Yes, you will be reimbursed for approved expenses as long as you’ve completed the assignment. You can upload receipts for up to your allocated expense amount when submitting your images."
Did you get accepted or just the second email to complete the application?
Didn't receive any confirmation email but I can login into their dashboard. See screenshot.
Iam judging the author by his behaviour. Bruttaly heavy spaming...
I love haters, they make me work harder.
-
This sounds worse every minute. You'll be reimbursed for your expenses if they decide not to use your photos, but it says nothing about you being paid for the assignment if they decide not to use your photos. So Arm & Hammer could hire ten photographers to shoot something, reimburse them all 50 cents for one box of baking soda, and pay only one person $50 for four photos that they then own the copyright to, so those photos cannot be licensed elsewhere.
What SS is doing is trying to keep clients from contacting artists directly and hiring them to do custom work. By offering clients prices much, much lower than any independent artist would ever, ever charge. And then SS keeps the lion's share of the fee, too.
I find this despicable, honestly, as low as anything iStock has ever done.
-
but it says nothing about you being paid for the assignment if they decide not to use your photos.
If they don't use the images, surely they can still be uploaded as regular stock? Need to see the t&cs but seems logical that it should be OK considering someone has gone through so much time and expense (of which some was recovered) to create the content.
-
How would you use them as regular stock? They'd feature a copyrighted product, I'm guessing. I think SS stopped accepting photos of products. Even if they did accept them they'd be editorial, no?
Really, they're just trying to grab the lion's share of fees for custom work from clients by underpricing the very people they represent. I'd think the folks who are getting independent assignments would see their assignments disappear as their clients realize they can get that stuff for a few bucks, and have ten or twenty people work on it, if they go through sS.
-
Really, they're just trying to grab the lion's share of fees for custom work from clients by underpricing the very people they represent. I'd think the folks who are getting independent assignments would see their assignments disappear as their clients realize they can get that stuff for a few bucks, and have ten or twenty people work on it, if they go through sS.
I agree, although this could be a great networking opportunity for contributors.
Depending on legalities such as confidentiality, client poaching etc, this may mean that contributors may be able to perhaps work directly with such clients. Again need to analyse t&cs carefully. I do have a legal background so does come in handy once in a while.
After all, there's nothing stopping a contributor networking and if it leads to opportunities down the line, perhaps from a client's contact via referrals it's going to be much more profitable. Tread carefully though.
-
Not sure who will agree to work on these conditions but those who will aren't competition.
-
Custom image 20 to 30% just like ELs https://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts
-
Really, they're just trying to grab the lion's share of fees for custom work from clients by underpricing the very people they represent. I'd think the folks who are getting independent assignments would see their assignments disappear as their clients realize they can get that stuff for a few bucks, and have ten or twenty people work on it, if they go through sS.
I agree, although this could be a great networking opportunity for contributors.
Depending on legalities such as confidentiality, client poaching etc, this may mean that contributors may be able to perhaps work directly with such clients. Again need to analyse t&cs carefully. I do have a legal background so does come in handy once in a while.
After all, there's nothing stopping a contributor networking and if it leads to opportunities down the line, perhaps from a client's contact via referrals it's going to be much more profitable. Tread carefully though.
I don't see how. The client will see you as a cheap resource. They paid you ten bucks an image to own your copyright. Why would they ever pay you more?
-
I don't see how. The client will see you as a cheap resource. They paid you ten bucks an image to own your copyright. Why would they ever pay you more?
Everything is negotiable, I suppose.
-
If SS was acting like a real rep and negotiating large fees on your behalf, especially for a buyout, it would be fine, I guess, although keeping 70-80% for themselves would suhck, because real reps keep, like, 20%.
However, what they're doing is undercutting any price you'd negotiate with a client and keeping 80% of that. IF your photos are chosen. Big IF. Otherwise you get to submit receipts to get back the $1.50 you spent on the client's product.
And how do you know you'll wind up with contacts? It sounds like you'll get a brief, submit your photos and that's it. I don't see any mention of direct client contact. My guess is you'll get no contact information for a human being on the client side. SS will keep that to themselves. Otherwise clients would be inundated with emails from all the people who worked on that brief.
-
I don't see how. The client will see you as a cheap resource. They paid you ten bucks an image to own your copyright. Why would they ever pay you more?
Everything is negotiable, I suppose.
Rose Colored Glasses ;)
-
How would you use them as regular stock? They'd feature a copyrighted product, I'm guessing. I think SS stopped accepting photos of products. Even if they did accept them they'd be editorial, no?
Really, they're just trying to grab the lion's share of fees for custom work from clients by underpricing the very people they represent. I'd think the folks who are getting independent assignments would see their assignments disappear as their clients realize they can get that stuff for a few bucks, and have ten or twenty people work on it, if they go through sS.
Not true. They still accept Illustrative Editorial images.
-
How would you use them as regular stock? They'd feature a copyrighted product, I'm guessing. I think SS stopped accepting photos of products. Even if they did accept them they'd be editorial, no?
Really, they're just trying to grab the lion's share of fees for custom work from clients by underpricing the very people they represent. I'd think the folks who are getting independent assignments would see their assignments disappear as their clients realize they can get that stuff for a few bucks, and have ten or twenty people work on it, if they go through sS.
Not true. They still accept Illustrative Editorial images.
Hmmm. Some of mine were rejected because "we no longer accept this type of image." Anyway, a shot with a trademarked product in it can't be submitted as commercial. But really, that's the least of the problems with this scheme.
-
They are going to get what they pay for ...
It will be like one of those Fiverr projects where the client picks the perfect design only to learn that the designer just lifted some stock art. They should change the name of that site to "recommend a stock artist to hire by stealing their stuff". That might need a clever acronym. :D
-
Anyway, I look forward to your update now that you are accepted?
Yeah, for sure I'll update.
I hear payments are tiered like ELs and in the smallprint it says that they keep the copyright, would newbies sell their content for 20% or veterans for 30%? I guess that would be a deal breaker for many, if true.
Yes, they keep the copyright which is fair enough as it's fit-for-purpose exclusive content tailored for a client. In return I would expect higher payments for this burden. It would be highly advisable not to license the content elsewhere.
I imagine SS will have no issue recruiting enough contributors from their current army of 250,000 Microstock contributors. Not sure yet what the % is yet - probably a bit higher than 30% I think because it's supposed to be a "premium" service (probably wishful thinking).
What I found encouraging is that some briefs will allow contributors to file expense reports for some briefs to receive some reimbursements. Here's from their FAQ:
"On some assignments, you may receive an allotted amount for an expense budget. Expenses are for you to purchase props and/or product depending on the brief specifications. Sometimes, you will have the ability to select props to your wish, but other times there will be a set guideline on what you are to purchase according to the brief. It is your responsibility to check the brief guidelines to find out exactly what your expense budget should be used on. You will be reimbursed for your expenses by submitting all receipts."
They go on to add that the contributor would still be reimbursed even if the client decides not to use the images once the brief has been accepted.
"If they don’t use the images I submit, do I still get reimbursed for product?" Answer: "Yes, you will be reimbursed for approved expenses as long as you’ve completed the assignment. You can upload receipts for up to your allocated expense amount when submitting your images."
Did you get accepted or just the second email to complete the application?
Didn't receive any confirmation email but I can login into their dashboard. See screenshot.
Iam judging the author by his behaviour. Bruttaly heavy spaming...
I love haters, they make me work harder.
Same here.
The "funny" thing is that the data in my profile are different than the ones that I have given in the application form…
Different address format (street number, town, ZIP code missing), wrong birthday (one day before), no interest, no portfolio and portfolio sites…
So I don't think that the application has been accepted or even reviewed yet.
-
Anyway, I look forward to your update now that you are accepted?
Yeah, for sure I'll update.
I hear payments are tiered like ELs and in the smallprint it says that they keep the copyright, would newbies sell their content for 20% or veterans for 30%? I guess that would be a deal breaker for many, if true.
Yes, they keep the copyright which is fair enough as it's fit-for-purpose exclusive content tailored for a client. In return I would expect higher payments for this burden. It would be highly advisable not to license the content elsewhere.
I imagine SS will have no issue recruiting enough contributors from their current army of 250,000 Microstock contributors. Not sure yet what the % is yet - probably a bit higher than 30% I think because it's supposed to be a "premium" service (probably wishful thinking).
What I found encouraging is that some briefs will allow contributors to file expense reports for some briefs to receive some reimbursements. Here's from their FAQ:
"On some assignments, you may receive an allotted amount for an expense budget. Expenses are for you to purchase props and/or product depending on the brief specifications. Sometimes, you will have the ability to select props to your wish, but other times there will be a set guideline on what you are to purchase according to the brief. It is your responsibility to check the brief guidelines to find out exactly what your expense budget should be used on. You will be reimbursed for your expenses by submitting all receipts."
They go on to add that the contributor would still be reimbursed even if the client decides not to use the images once the brief has been accepted.
"If they don’t use the images I submit, do I still get reimbursed for product?" Answer: "Yes, you will be reimbursed for approved expenses as long as you’ve completed the assignment. You can upload receipts for up to your allocated expense amount when submitting your images."
Did you get accepted or just the second email to complete the application?
Didn't receive any confirmation email but I can login into their dashboard. See screenshot.
Iam judging the author by his behaviour. Bruttaly heavy spaming...
I love haters, they make me work harder.
Same here.
The "funny" thing is that the data in my profile are different than the ones that I have given in the application form…
Different address format (street number, town, ZIP code missing), wrong birthday (one day before), no interest, no portfolio and portfolio sites…
So I don't think that the application has been accepted or even reviewed yet.
I don't think mine has either ...hard to tell though pretty uninformative site.
-
This is just another way of devaluing creative content.
I don't know what the rates will be, but I know it will be a lot less than an agency hiring a photographer the traditional way.
Sounds like the equivalent of the minimum wage, part-time, no benefit jobs in other industries.
-
Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
Yes, I'm sure the average Shutterstock contributor can easily get $40k for some custom work.
Deadmau5 can get $200,000 per night, but that doesn't mean Joe Schmoe from Utah will get that at his local club.
"Famous" photographers charge hundreds of thousands. These are major clients, wanting photographers to do custom work for $2. That's insane. (If that's what the rates still are.)
easy, don't sign up and get your imaginary $40,000 yourself.
-
When you create custom content, commissions, briefs for lets say an AD, art-buyer, designer etc, etc. The dayrate is often start at around $ 1200 and thats a dayrate not on specs!
This stinks like imagebrief all over.
-
When you create custom content, commissions, briefs for lets say an AD, art-buyer, designer etc, etc. The dayrate is often start at around $ 1200 and thats a dayrate not on specs!
This stinks like imagebrief all over.
I don't think the real world need worry just yet and neither should the microstock world if they are offering $300 for 20 images. If I were to produce 20 decent images I think I would take my chances with half a dozen microstock sites against selling my copyright for twice that. It only takes one of them to take off and you would make more than what they are paying for 20.
-
Hmmm....when they were Flashstock typically $50 for 4 photos.
Any chance in Europe? All seen as one country - no expenses paid for briefs from Barcelona to Vladivostok! Jolly dee.
-
Hmmm....when they were Flashstock typically $50 for 4 photos.
Any chance in Europe? All seen as one country - no expenses paid for briefs from Barcelona to Vladivostok! Jolly dee.
Hmmm....that price of $300 for 20 images came from a Flashstock thread and I wouldn't say that the price is that far out as to say it was untypical $12.5 each against $15 each.
-
Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
Yes, I'm sure the average Shutterstock contributor can easily get $40k for some custom work.
Deadmau5 can get $200,000 per night, but that doesn't mean Joe Schmoe from Utah will get that at his local club.
"Famous" photographers charge hundreds of thousands. These are major clients, wanting photographers to do custom work for $2. That's insane. (If that's what the rates still are.)
easy, don't sign up and get your imaginary $40,000 yourself.
It's not imaginary. I hate to tell you what clients pay to license music.
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
Have to agree with you. Next time someone here has a $40,000 shoot why don't they hire one of us? I'd take 10 or $20,000 for the same work
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
Have to agree with you. Next time someone here has a $40,000 shoot why don't they hire one of us? I'd take 10 or $20,000 for the same work
Maybe if you weren't so rude to Creative Directors here you'd be considered. (And maybe not anonymous, too.) Just sayin'. ;)
-
They can hardly sell micro pics anymore so how are they going to sell this?? down petticoat-lane?
-
Hmmm....when they were Flashstock typically $50 for 4 photos.
Any chance in Europe? All seen as one country - no expenses paid for briefs from Barcelona to Vladivostok! Jolly dee.
Hmmm....that price of $300 for 20 images came from a Flashstock thread and I wouldn't say that the price is that far out as to say it was untypical $12.5 each against $15 each.
Actually the $50 for 4 very specific photos and that may incur expenses which are not reimbursed comes from personal experience.
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
I couldn't agree more and joining without knowing the complete Deal and commissions? really?.
You signed up to SS 13 years ago for 20 cent a pop and you are still selling images on DP for 3% commission. Hardly in a position to criticize anyone for trying out a new opportunity imo.
And who joins, might find out more about the earnings. Doesnt mean they submit anything.
-
I am accepted as well. Yay.
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
Have to agree with you. Next time someone here has a $40,000 shoot why don't they hire one of us? I'd take 10 or $20,000 for the same work
Maybe if you weren't so rude to Creative Directors here you'd be considered. (And maybe not anonymous, too.) Just sayin'. ;)
Why don't you hire people like Sean or Paulie or others here who are well versed and capable, for lets say, $20,000 or $10,000? Why do you hire someone else for $40,000 for Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
One image? Fly them in, do the photo, have a week.
It's not imaginary. I hate to tell you what clients pay to license music.
I can get you a whole band of studio professionals, for a week, in a practice studio and half a dozen new original songs. What do you pay?
Why don't you hire from here? I think there are many quite capable people.
-
Are there rates and so on buried in there somewhere or are we expected to do custom work for .38 or 33%?
I didn't see any rates posted, but here's an earlier thread that included some info on what a Flashstock contributor got paid (not much but not 38 cents :) )
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/'on-demand'-site-flashstock-com-anyone-tried-this[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/'on-demand'-site-flashstock-com-anyone-tried-this[/url])
Sounds like you would make more at a place called Fiverr. Hummmm 😐
-
What SS is doing here is expecting members to spend lots of time trying to create conceptual photography and high-commercial-value photography normally associated with Rights-managed content. Slowly they will turn this into some glorified micro-stock and lowering prices for contributors.
Its not a bad deal and could be an opening for those who sign-in. Personally for this kind of material I stick with the RM agencies since they have the know-how in this field.
Just on a note the intro to this show some SUV's in winter and snow. I gave that as a series to SS about two years back about 25 pictures. I've had one sale on that in two years time.
SS have lost some pretty good commercial and niched portfolios and this sounds like a warped way to get them back. Had they not been so eager and keen to direct everything towards the poorer countries contruibutors then things would have been pretty different.
-
I'm in too to be honest that means the bar is set pretty low. :o
-
Is this only photos, or videos as well?
-
Is this only photos, or videos as well?
Both.
-
I'm in too to be honest that means the bar is set pretty low. :o
I too have access to my account, but I have doubts this means one has been accepted. I'd wait for a formal confirmation.
Moreover, it's interesting to read their FAQ on Shutterstock Custom's Score. In particular, this may give more insight into their pricing models and the potential:
For example, a higher score will put you in a more elite category of Shutterstock Custom Photographers who will be given greater access to higher paying jobs, complex briefs etc. If you have a lower score, you may be given access to more general assignments or assignments with a pay-by-image rate until you improve it.
However, what is more concerning for me is that they appear to request (not desire) a 2-4x number of photos for each requested one, so that their team can select the final ones:
Submitting double images is a requirement, not a suggestion. Our curation team reviews all content from a brief and makes the final selections for the client. Submitting 2-4x your required images allows the team to have options to choose from, and ensures you have enough approved content to fill your assignment. This will also give you a bonus calculated into your overall score. This is a great, easy way to increase your points. Just be wary that all of your content uploaded is on brief, as this is also accounted in your score.
If the assignment is 5 final photos, then producing 10-20 is not a big deal. But if they require to have 10-20 final photos, then it becomes really burdensome to produce 20-80 photos for a single assignment (plus, it also depends on how much they'd be eager to pay for that).
-
You may be right originally I could only access the buyer side...now can see the contributor stuff. Whether it actually comes to be doing an assignment will depend on my estimate of cost vs potential reward.
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
Have to agree with you. Next time someone here has a $40,000 shoot why don't they hire one of us? I'd take 10 or $20,000 for the same work
Maybe if you weren't so rude to Creative Directors here you'd be considered. (And maybe not anonymous, too.) Just sayin'. ;)
Why don't you hire people like Sean or Paulie or others here who are well versed and capable, for lets say, $20,000 or $10,000? Why do you hire someone else for $40,000 for Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
One image? Fly them in, do the photo, have a week.
It's not imaginary. I hate to tell you what clients pay to license music.
I can get you a whole band of studio professionals, for a week, in a practice studio and half a dozen new original songs. What do you pay?
Why don't you hire from here? I think there are many quite capable people.
You need a rep. A real one, not Shutterstock.
Each month reps come in to ad agencies and provide a catered lunch to the creative department to review photographers' portfolios.
Your rep is in touch with the art buyers, who are the poeple who negotiate licensing terms on behalf of the ad agency.
The creative team and creative director review portfolios that meet the needs of a particular concept. They recommend three or four photographers to the client, who has final say over who gets hired for the job (within the client's budget).
Creative people really don't look through stock sites to find photographers. They look for a stock shot that meets their needs. The reason they look for stock is the client's budgetary constraints. If the team has an idea tha requires a custom shoot, and the client has the budget for it, they ask the art buyer to get in touch with reps to send portfolios over.
The reps fight for high pay for the photographer, and the client usually fights to pay less. So some negotiation takes place.
The amount paid depends on many factors...budget, complexity of the shoot, location, the reputation of the photographer, and licensing terms. For example, the $40,000 we paid the photographer I mentioned earlier was for only one print ad in limited distribution for one year. And the client was Arm & Hammer. (That's why I used them as an example of someone who would now be able to go through SS and pay you 50 cents for a box of baking soda.)
-
When you log on the Shutterstock Custom site, there is a lengthy Submission Agreement.
This part looks rather scary. What Mantis said is happening if people agree to this; giving our work away for pennies will destroy professional photography.
(quote)
OWNERSHIP OF SUBMISSIONS
"By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion. You agree that by providing a Paid Submission to us, you will thereby waive all moral rights or any similar rights you may have in relation to that Paid Submission. If we request you to do so, you will sign and deliver to us any and all further assignments and other instruments we may require in order to confirm our ownership of your Paid Submissions.
You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (“Unselected Submissions”). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, “Confidentiality.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will continue to have the right to display your Submissions solely as part of a personal portfolio demonstrating your photographic abilities."
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
Have to agree with you. Next time someone here has a $40,000 shoot why don't they hire one of us? I'd take 10 or $20,000 for the same work
Maybe if you weren't so rude to Creative Directors here you'd be considered. (And maybe not anonymous, too.) Just sayin'. ;)
Why don't you hire people like Sean or Paulie or others here who are well versed and capable, for lets say, $20,000 or $10,000? Why do you hire someone else for $40,000 for Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
One image? Fly them in, do the photo, have a week.
It's not imaginary. I hate to tell you what clients pay to license music.
I can get you a whole band of studio professionals, for a week, in a practice studio and half a dozen new original songs. What do you pay?
Why don't you hire from here? I think there are many quite capable people.
You need a rep. A real one, not Shutterstock.
Each month reps come in to ad agencies and provide a catered lunch to the creative department to review photographers' portfolios.
Your rep is in touch with the art buyers, who are the poeple who negotiate licensing terms on behalf of the ad agency.
The creative team and creative director review portfolios that meet the needs of a particular concept. They recommend three or four photographers to the client, who has final say over who gets hired for the job (within the client's budget).
Creative people really don't look through stock sites to find photographers. They look for a stock shot that meets their needs. The reason they look for stock is the client's budgetary constraints. If the team has an idea tha requires a custom shoot, and the client has the budget for it, they ask the art buyer to get in touch with reps to send portfolios over.
The reps fight for high pay for the photographer, and the client usually fights to pay less. So some negotiation takes place.
The amount paid depends on many factors...budget, complexity of the shoot, location, the reputation of the photographer, and licensing terms. For example, the $40,000 we paid the photographer I mentioned earlier was for only one print ad in limited distribution for one year. And the client was Arm & Hammer. (That's why I used them as an example of someone who would now be able to go through SS and pay you 50 cents for a box of baking soda.)
I have an exclusive agent and she takes 25%. She reresents 4 photographers. I joined her 4 years back and best thing I have ever done!! she lands me commissions for at least $ 60.000 a year and I dont have to do anything but photography no worries nothing.
I dont think this sort of agent would represent anything involving stock though. We are in the stock business but outside our world the word "stock" have a bad a cheapo name associated with second rate material. Its unfair actually but true.
Youre right SS is on its way out they are hard pushed selling micro images so how the heck are they planning to sell this? only a couple of weeks back I was up at a design/pr company who used to buy from SS only and spending around 10-15 grand a year with them. Now! they scout for pics at smaller traditional agencies. I asked and they said " cant find anything at SS anymore.
My own thoughts are. They just have too many pictures and everything takes too much time for buyers to scout around. Too many niched ports have quit and they are more less left with the rif-raf.
-
When you log on the Shutterstock Custom site, there is a lengthy Submission Agreement.
This part looks rather scary. What Mantis said is happening if people agree to this; giving our work away for pennies will destroy professional photography.
(quote)
OWNERSHIP OF SUBMISSIONS
"By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion. You agree that by providing a Paid Submission to us, you will thereby waive all moral rights or any similar rights you may have in relation to that Paid Submission. If we request you to do so, you will sign and deliver to us any and all further assignments and other instruments we may require in order to confirm our ownership of your Paid Submissions.
You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (“Unselected Submissions”). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, “Confidentiality.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will continue to have the right to display your Submissions solely as part of a personal portfolio demonstrating your photographic abilities."
I can understand why they do this....the company in question will want to use the material in ongoing marketing campaigns and not have their carefully planned marketing strategy derailed by similar parallel images popping up in odd places. Whether or not the financial incentive is sufficient though is the question. It certainly makes it less attractive as it seems in many instances it will be impossible to sell on rejected work.
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
Have to agree with you. Next time someone here has a $40,000 shoot why don't they hire one of us? I'd take 10 or $20,000 for the same work
Maybe if you weren't so rude to Creative Directors here you'd be considered. (And maybe not anonymous, too.) Just sayin'. ;)
Why don't you hire people like Sean or Paulie or others here who are well versed and capable, for lets say, $20,000 or $10,000? Why do you hire someone else for $40,000 for Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
One image? Fly them in, do the photo, have a week.
It's not imaginary. I hate to tell you what clients pay to license music.
I can get you a whole band of studio professionals, for a week, in a practice studio and half a dozen new original songs. What do you pay?
Why don't you hire from here? I think there are many quite capable people.
You need a rep. A real one, not Shutterstock.
Each month reps come in to ad agencies and provide a catered lunch to the creative department to review photographers' portfolios.
Your rep is in touch with the art buyers, who are the poeple who negotiate licensing terms on behalf of the ad agency.
The creative team and creative director review portfolios that meet the needs of a particular concept. They recommend three or four photographers to the client, who has final say over who gets hired for the job (within the client's budget).
Creative people really don't look through stock sites to find photographers. They look for a stock shot that meets their needs. The reason they look for stock is the client's budgetary constraints. If the team has an idea tha requires a custom shoot, and the client has the budget for it, they ask the art buyer to get in touch with reps to send portfolios over.
The reps fight for high pay for the photographer, and the client usually fights to pay less. So some negotiation takes place.
The amount paid depends on many factors...budget, complexity of the shoot, location, the reputation of the photographer, and licensing terms. For example, the $40,000 we paid the photographer I mentioned earlier was for only one print ad in limited distribution for one year. And the client was Arm & Hammer. (That's why I used them as an example of someone who would now be able to go through SS and pay you 50 cents for a box of baking soda.)
Let me rephrase that. You meaning you personally. Why don't you hire from here, professionals that you know and know their work and record. Not anonymous forum people. You could save your company money and help someone who's being under paid by Microstock agencies?
-
What ss is doing is simple. They are taking another photography vertical, comissioned shoots, and turning that into cheap microstock royalties, effectively destroying another element of our business for personal gain. And the sad part is that photographers will do these shoots for pennies.
Have to agree with you. Next time someone here has a $40,000 shoot why don't they hire one of us? I'd take 10 or $20,000 for the same work
Maybe if you weren't so rude to Creative Directors here you'd be considered. (And maybe not anonymous, too.) Just sayin'. ;)
Why don't you hire people like Sean or Paulie or others here who are well versed and capable, for lets say, $20,000 or $10,000? Why do you hire someone else for $40,000 for Those prices are absolutely appalling for a custom shoot. And according to SS these are "enterprise clients." Ad agencies/clients pay in the tens of thousands for custom photography. The last shoot I was on (we used one photoshopped image) we paid the photog $40,000, if I remember correctly. And that was a discounted rate we had to haggle over on the client's behalf.
One image? Fly them in, do the photo, have a week.
It's not imaginary. I hate to tell you what clients pay to license music.
I can get you a whole band of studio professionals, for a week, in a practice studio and half a dozen new original songs. What do you pay?
Why don't you hire from here? I think there are many quite capable people.
You need a rep. A real one, not Shutterstock.
Each month reps come in to ad agencies and provide a catered lunch to the creative department to review photographers' portfolios.
Your rep is in touch with the art buyers, who are the poeple who negotiate licensing terms on behalf of the ad agency.
The creative team and creative director review portfolios that meet the needs of a particular concept. They recommend three or four photographers to the client, who has final say over who gets hired for the job (within the client's budget).
Creative people really don't look through stock sites to find photographers. They look for a stock shot that meets their needs. The reason they look for stock is the client's budgetary constraints. If the team has an idea tha requires a custom shoot, and the client has the budget for it, they ask the art buyer to get in touch with reps to send portfolios over.
The reps fight for high pay for the photographer, and the client usually fights to pay less. So some negotiation takes place.
The amount paid depends on many factors...budget, complexity of the shoot, location, the reputation of the photographer, and licensing terms. For example, the $40,000 we paid the photographer I mentioned earlier was for only one print ad in limited distribution for one year. And the client was Arm & Hammer. (That's why I used them as an example of someone who would now be able to go through SS and pay you 50 cents for a box of baking soda.)
Let me rephrase that. You meaning you personally. Why don't you hire from here, professionals that you know and know their work and record. Not anonymous forum people. You could save your company money and help someone who's being under paid by Microstock agencies?
First, because I haven't worked in advertising in years. Second, because even if I did it's not that easy. I could recommend someone, but as a writer I have probably the least sway. As a Creative Director I'd be making my team miserable by forcing my choices on them, and I wasn't that type of manager. And when you shoot for large multinational clients, there are a lot of rules and legalities involved, not to mention the photogrpahers' area of expertise and contacts...he/she would need to have a lighting crew, know makeup and hair people if they're involved, be able to source a good location scout, etc. etc.
In more than three decades in advertising I managed to get one friend cast in a commercial...and only because he's a great voice actor who really had the best audition. And even he had a rep who had to handle all the negotiations, legalities and contracts in order for him to perform.
If I were still in advertising and thought someone I knew from stock was right for the job, absolutely, I'd recommend them, but the art buyer would probably not consider them unless they had a rep.
Edited to add: If I did recommend someone I would never do it to save the agency money. I'd recommend someone who would work within the existing budget, and I would fight for that person to get paid the max. I did work for huge corporations who rake in billions of dollars in profits, and I think people deserve to be compensated for their talent and expertise.
-
When you log on the Shutterstock Custom site, there is a lengthy Submission Agreement.
This part looks rather scary. What Mantis said is happening if people agree to this; giving our work away for pennies will destroy professional photography.
(quote)
OWNERSHIP OF SUBMISSIONS
"By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion. You agree that by providing a Paid Submission to us, you will thereby waive all moral rights or any similar rights you may have in relation to that Paid Submission. If we request you to do so, you will sign and deliver to us any and all further assignments and other instruments we may require in order to confirm our ownership of your Paid Submissions.
You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (“Unselected Submissions”). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, “Confidentiality.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will continue to have the right to display your Submissions solely as part of a personal portfolio demonstrating your photographic abilities."
Worst agreement I've ever read in my entire life.
-
Ok, I get that the transfer of ownership is a deal-breaker for many contributors. Other than that it's pretty standard legalese for me without being completely oppressive to the contributor, as there's numerous exceptions, such as:
You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (“Unselected Submissions”). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, “Confidentiality.
What if you just clone out the client's logos/trademarks and any other association with the client? This may be impossible for some shoots, Ferrari asks contributors to photograph Ferrari cars at a show and don't end up using such images. But for more generic briefs, I don't see many issues.
8) rose-tinted glasses are on 8)
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will continue to have the right to display your Submissions solely as part of a personal portfolio demonstrating your photographic abilities."
Honestly, which lawyers did they hire to come up with this? It's like: "sometimes we'll make you work days on end for a project, not use your images for whatever reason, but (we'll be nice and) you may use it to show your work (but can't sell it). At least we're not complete monsters."
I think that's the LEAST they can offer, but I would have preferred some sort of small compensation in return for unused images. Something along the lines that, "in case images are not used for reasons specified in clause XX, contributor to be compensated $2 per unused image according to XX schedule".
-
When you log on the Shutterstock Custom site, there is a lengthy Submission Agreement.
This part looks rather scary. What Mantis said is happening if people agree to this; giving our work away for pennies will destroy professional photography.
(quote)
OWNERSHIP OF SUBMISSIONS
"By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion. You agree that by providing a Paid Submission to us, you will thereby waive all moral rights or any similar rights you may have in relation to that Paid Submission. If we request you to do so, you will sign and deliver to us any and all further assignments and other instruments we may require in order to confirm our ownership of your Paid Submissions.
You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (“Unselected Submissions”). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, “Confidentiality.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will continue to have the right to display your Submissions solely as part of a personal portfolio demonstrating your photographic abilities."
Worst agreement I've ever read in my entire life.
agree 110%
-
If that's the agreement between you and SS, then SS owns your selected submitted images and can do anything they want with them forever, including licensing them to that same client at a later date for broader usage without compensating you, using it to market themselves without paying you, retouching out the brand stuff and selling the images to other people themselves on the SS site, etc. etc.
So, let's say SS has an agreement with the client that they'll pay you $12 per image for one use for a year. Then the client comes back a year later and says, oh, we'd like to use that again for a broader market. So SS says sure, that'll be a thousand dollars, and you get nothng. Cause they own it.
Plus, if the client wants to be sure they own it, or wants a buyout with transfer of copyright, they'll require you to spend more time proving their ownership of your work.
Or at least that's how it sounds to me.
-
If that's the agreement between you and SS, then SS owns your selected submitted images and can do anything they want with them forever, including licensing them to that same client at a later date for broader usage without compensating you, using it to market themselves without paying you, retouching out the brand stuff and selling the images to other people themselves on the SS site, etc. etc.
True, at face value this looks like a bad deal for contributors. However, this is before we know for sure how much each brief pays - OK, it's 20-30% but 20-30% of how much? To make up for giving away so many rights and other inconveniences I'd expect to be paid a considerable sum way above any microstock expected value.
I'd also want to take my "rights" (they're all implied since there aren't really any express ones!) to as close as I can to the grey lines, such as:
1. Would similar images be OK to be submitted (assuming they have no logos/trademarks)?
2. Direct contact with client or referrals outside the agreement? I wrote about this earlier.
-
If that's the agreement between you and SS, then SS owns your selected submitted images and can do anything they want with them forever, including licensing them to that same client at a later date for broader usage without compensating you, using it to market themselves without paying you, retouching out the brand stuff and selling the images to other people themselves on the SS site, etc. etc.
True, at face value this looks like a bad deal for contributors. However, this is before we know for sure how much each brief pays - OK, it's 20-30% but 20-30% of how much? To make up for giving away so many rights and other inconveniences I'd expect to be paid a considerable sum way above any microstock expected value.
I'd also want to take my "rights" (they're all implied since there aren't really any express ones!) to as close as I can to the grey lines, such as:
1. Would similar images be OK to be submitted (assuming they have no logos/trademarks)?
2. Direct contact with client or referrals outside the agreement? I wrote about this earlier.
Its rebadged Flashstock from what I've seen we are talking $15 an image ;-). Shutterstock paid $50m for this when I do a google they are not exactly high profile for many and I can't find any meaningul financial stats such as turnover...wonder if SS have been sold a pup?!
-
Its rebadged Flashstock from what I've seen we are talking $15 an image ;-)
So it's about $5/image? They should rename it "Shutterstock Custom Fiverr"!
-
Its rebadged Flashstock from what I've seen we are talking $15 an image ;-)
So it's about $5/image? They should rename it "Shutterstock Custom Fiverr"!
The only thing i've found is on this forum where someone was paid $15 per image...while I signed up to see whats happening I really don't expect much to come of it
-
If that's the agreement between you and SS, then SS owns your selected submitted images and can do anything they want with them forever, including licensing them to that same client at a later date for broader usage without compensating you, using it to market themselves without paying you, retouching out the brand stuff and selling the images to other people themselves on the SS site, etc. etc.
True, at face value this looks like a bad deal for contributors. However, this is before we know for sure how much each brief pays - OK, it's 20-30% but 20-30% of how much? To make up for giving away so many rights and other inconveniences I'd expect to be paid a considerable sum way above any microstock expected value.
I'd also want to take my "rights" (they're all implied since there aren't really any express ones!) to as close as I can to the grey lines, such as:
1. Would similar images be OK to be submitted (assuming they have no logos/trademarks)?
2. Direct contact with client or referrals outside the agreement? I wrote about this earlier.
Arm & Hammer (boy, they'd hate me if they saw this) goes to SS Custom for four images to do an ABCD split to see which image performs best in focus groups. SS agrees to license them those four images for focus group use only for $200, of which you get $40 and SS gets $160. Two weeks later A&H comes back and says image B worked best. So now we need it for a huge international campign in print, on billboards, for social, for our Superbowl commercial as the end shot. SS negotiates a $50,000 licensing fee (cheap!); you get nothing.
Ss immediately airbrushes the remaining three images and offers them on Offset for $500 a pop. You get nothing. A year later image B's licensing terms are over, so they airbrush that and put it on the main SS site, in direct competiton with your own port. You get nothing, and you're not named on SS or Offset as the photographer. You're also not allowed to tell people that SS image is yours.
Eventually, if this effort is successful, SS has built up a huge portfolio of images they own, and they create a high end site licensing them to premier customers. Or they put them all on the main SS site, so now all those images compete with yours and you lose sales while SS keeps 100% of all the licensing fees on stuff you shot.
And every day on Facebook you see SS using your images to promote their new premier site (or the main SS site), which drives buyers to their port and away from yours.
I'm in!
-
"By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion. You agree that by providing a Paid Submission to us, you will thereby waive all moral rights or any similar rights you may have in relation to that Paid Submission. If we request you to do so, you will sign and deliver to us any and all further assignments and other instruments we may require in order to confirm our ownership of your Paid Submissions.
You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (“Unselected Submissions”). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, “Confidentiality.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will continue to have the right to display your Submissions solely as part of a personal portfolio demonstrating your photographic abilities."
LOL. The only thing that is missing here is a worldwide perpetual non-compete clause. How did they not think about it? 8)
-
"By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion. You agree that by providing a Paid Submission to us, you will thereby waive all moral rights or any similar rights you may have in relation to that Paid Submission. If we request you to do so, you will sign and deliver to us any and all further assignments and other instruments we may require in order to confirm our ownership of your Paid Submissions.
You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (“Unselected Submissions”). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, “Confidentiality.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you will continue to have the right to display your Submissions solely as part of a personal portfolio demonstrating your photographic abilities."
LOL. The only thing that is missing here is a worldwide perpetual non-compete clause. How did they not think about it? 8)
Don't give them any ideas!
-
Ss immediately airbrushes the remaining three images and offers them on Offset for $500 a pop. You get nothing. A year later image B's licensing terms are over, so they airbrush that and put it on the main SS site, in direct competiton with your own port. You get nothing, and you're not named on SS or Offset as the photographer. You're also not allowed to tell people that SS image is yours.
Eventually, if this effort is successful, SS has built up a huge portfolio of images they own...
I've been wondering for a while if SS doesn't already have some wholly owned content on the site. Getty has content they own, not to far-fetched to think SS may be behind some of the large portfolios that we see.
-
I work with another websites that sorta does this. While not the same, the concept may be similar, where they match designers with clients for custom work.
They basically play matchmaker and allow the designer to set the price and the website take a 5% cut. SS may take up to 10% since they're more established. I don't think SS will set a price for custom work since every job is different. The photographer will have to do the negotiating and set their own prices. If you can't come to an agreement, the client will contact another photographer.
I think SS will keep track of the initial matchmaking, but they won't be able to control any contact beyond the original matchmaking. It means you can possibly continue to work with the client without SS involved. I would look at this as an opportunity.
-
I work with another websites that sorta does this. While not the same, the concept may be similar, where they match designers with clients for custom work.
They basically play matchmaker and allow the designer to set the price and the website take a 5% cut. SS may take up to 10% since they're more established. I don't think SS will set a price for custom work since every job is different. The photographer will have to do the negotiating and set their own prices. If you can't come to an agreement, the client will contact another photographer.
I think SS will keep track of the initial matchmaking, but they won't be able to control any contact beyond the original matchmaking. It means you can possibly continue to work with the client without SS involved. I would look at this as an opportunity.
You couldn't be more wrong, but I have the advantage of you, I read the thread.
-
Eventually, if this effort is successful, SS has built up a huge portfolio of images they own...
It all makes sense now! Wow...
-
Think about it: IF SS has its own photographers creating ports for them, they have to pay them some sort of salary or price per image and take the risk that the images won't make back their investment (though their algorithm would make that unlikely). But if they hook you up with their clients, they're almost guaranteed to make money right off the bat, by taking 70-80% of that small initial fee, and then they own your best, approved images outright and can resell them as often as they want and charge clients whatever they want for them forever. Think how their investors will love that.
-
Think about it: IF SS has its own photographers creating ports for them, they have to pay them some sort of salary or price per image and take the risk that the images won't make back their investment (though their algorithm would make that unlikely). But if they hook you up with their clients, they're almost guaranteed to make money right off the bat, by taking 70-80% of that small initial fee, and then they own your best, approved images outright and can resell them as often as they want and charge clients whatever they want for them forever. Think how their investors will love that.
I actually had been talking about this lately a little bit. Agencies paying contributors salaries to get exclusive content and also maybe freelance services or a multitude of other sales avenues. I think it is a good idea (and maybe a real place for them to grow), but it needs to actually come with a real salary to be taken seriously.
-
Think about it: IF SS has its own photographers creating ports for them, they have to pay them some sort of salary or price per image and take the risk that the images won't make back their investment (though their algorithm would make that unlikely). But if they hook you up with their clients, they're almost guaranteed to make money right off the bat, by taking 70-80% of that small initial fee, and then they own your best, approved images outright and can resell them as often as they want and charge clients whatever they want for them forever. Think how their investors will love that.
I actually had been talking about this lately a little bit. Agencies paying contributors salaries to get exclusive content and also maybe freelance services or a multitude of other sales avenues. I think it is a good idea (and maybe a real place for them to grow), but it needs to actually come with a real salary to be taken seriously.
Its not a good idea for them though as currently photographers bear all the risk if photos don't sell. Why take on the huge complexity of employing people all over the world?
-
I work with another websites that sorta does this. While not the same, the concept may be similar, where they match designers with clients for custom work.
They basically play matchmaker and allow the designer to set the price and the website take a 5% cut. SS may take up to 10% since they're more established. I don't think SS will set a price for custom work since every job is different. The photographer will have to do the negotiating and set their own prices. If you can't come to an agreement, the client will contact another photographer.
I think SS will keep track of the initial matchmaking, but they won't be able to control any contact beyond the original matchmaking. It means you can possibly continue to work with the client without SS involved. I would look at this as an opportunity.
Lot of "I think" and speculation when all you have to do is look at what Flashstock have been doing a while ;-).
-
Signed up a few days ago
Never got a confirmation email but got my first assignment
It was to provide 4 images for the princely sum of $50 - for a very large financial institution
I declined the task, but was curious to see what a typical payout would be
SS has nothing to lose and everything to gain by opening a new revenue stream by doing this
And you can bet that just as there are lineups of contributers joining microstock, just to feel good ' knowing someone is willing to buy my images' mentality, they may make a go of this new initiative
As was pointed out, perhaps in a few short years, they will have ammassed for themselves a diverse library of images that they can use any way they choose
Scary
-
Signed up a few days ago
Never got a confirmation email but got my first assignment
It was to provide 4 images for the princely sum of $50 - for a very large financial institution
I declined the task, but was curious to see what a typical payout would be
SS has nothing to lose and everything to gain by opening a new revenue stream by doing this
And you can bet that just as there are lineups of contributers joining microstock, just to feel good ' knowing someone is willing to buy my images' mentality, they may make a go of this new initiative
As was pointed out, perhaps in a few short years, they will have ammassed for themselves a diverse library of images that they can use any way they choose
Scary
Time will tell question is will those prepared to accept $50 for four images produce the content a high end financial institute are looking for.....if its something I could shoot for little/no cost maybe. I would have thought the market is likely to be small businesses that in the past couldn't afford custom work.
-
Think about it: IF SS has its own photographers creating ports for them, they have to pay them some sort of salary or price per image and take the risk that the images won't make back their investment (though their algorithm would make that unlikely). But if they hook you up with their clients, they're almost guaranteed to make money right off the bat, by taking 70-80% of that small initial fee, and then they own your best, approved images outright and can resell them as often as they want and charge clients whatever they want for them forever. Think how their investors will love that.
Getty have their own stable of photographers have had since 94 so why shouldnt SS?? was complaints about that long before micro. SS is big enough! we would never know anyway would we?
-
looks interesting. Have you seen anywhere where they list what the rates are or what a typical commission is?
-
Just got this:
We have an assignment for xxx-yyy-zzz! Are you interested in shooting for this?
Project: xxx, zzz, yyy
Project Summary:
PLEASE NOTE: This project requires you to shoot both photo & video. Please only show interest if you are willing and able to do so. If selected, payout will be updated for this photo assignment and video assignment will be sent out.
Total Rate per Assignment: $680
• Photo Assignment: $180 for 12 approved photos
• Video Assignment: $500 for 10 approved videos
Deadline: xxx,yy, zzzz
Total Expense Budget: $350
Receipts & Model Fees must be claimed in expenses upon submission for reimbursement.
• Model Budget: $50/model (Max. 1 per photographer)
• Reimbursement: $300 for xxx admission/expenses/travel
SHOW INTEREST OR DECLINE THE ASSIGNMENT WITHIN 24 HOURS HERE:
[link]
You will be notified if you have been selected for this project within 2 business days.
-
Thanks....just wonder are you allowed to share this? $15 a pic is beginning to sound like the going rate for stills. $50 for a model....cheapskates! I think it would only work if you were travelling somewhere nice and could get the shoot done in the 1/2 hr you could get the model for!
-
Thanks....just wonder are you allowed to share this? $15 a pic is beginning to sound like the going rate for stills. $50 for a model....cheapskates! I think it would only work if you were travelling somewhere nice and could get the shoot done in the 1/2 hr you could get the model for!
I am not sharing the assignment details, I can only say that there is a long list of details, requirements (e.g. shoot this, don't shoot that), preferences, photo samples, etc.
-
I am not sharing the assignment details, I can only say that there is a long list of details, requirements (e.g. shoot this, don't shoot that), preferences, photo samples, etc.
The money isn't great but if it gives you access to an event (SS gives you a press pass for example) that's a great networking opportunity.
I'm sure some briefs would be a breeze for some on here.
-
OMG people. Large financial institutions asking for photos for $12.50 that SS will then own the rights to. I wrote commercials for Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, T Rowe Price, and more. The marketing people who work for these institutions make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The CEOs make BILLIONS. They pay MILLIONS of dollars for commercials. I worked with Elton John for Citibank—I can't even guess how many millions he was paid to appear in their spots. And he threw a hissy fit and refused to show up for the second day of a two-day shoot, but you better believe he got every penny of his fee, and the license for use of each of his songs was in the millions.
What are you thinking, selling your rights away for ten or fifteen dollars? To billionaires whose parents sent them to Harvard and Yale even with bad grades? People with 5,000-square-foot pieds-a-terre (I've shot them in their apartments, with separate entrances for the maid's quarters) overlooking Central Park, plus a mansion in Scarsdale and another in the Hamptons.
They are laughing their behinds off in their private jets on the way to their yachts at the chance to get you to work for pennies per hour. Oringer's peeing himself with joy.
My god.
-
Agree with the above, Shelma.
On a side note and also a rant, I received the following email today from Snapwire:
Hi Alexandre,
Hope you've been well! We send 7 photos from some of our best photographers directly to photo buyers every week (buyers sign up for this through our blog: Snapwire Snaps). This email & blog is an incredible way for you to gain exposure as a photographer as it is one of the most powerful sources of photo sales on Snapwire and goes out to thousands of buyers. We want to feature a handful of the best photographers for Snaps, and because of your work, we would love for you to contribute.
We ask the photographers involved to contribute images that they are comfortable having under the creative commons public domain which makes them free to use. If you would like to be involved, please email 7+ high resolution photos back to me (using google drive or dropbox if they don't fit in the email). Include your personal website &/or Instagram.
What's this industry coming to? :-\
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
Here's my reply:
-
Shelma you are completely on point. What kind of Photographer would agree to these terms? They are going to get horrible images to show their clients. SS will look like a joke presenting such images.
-
Let them try. Let them understand the stress and time commitment to meet ridiculous, specific client demands only to have their images rejected and receive no pay, or worse to have a few accepted and receive $1/hour for their time only to have Shutterstock pull buyers away from their ports by starting their own Shutterstock port with those images.
If the scheme's successful and the investors are happy, I'll be investing in SS stock. That's the only opportunity to make money with this deal.
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
That was Robber Baron v2 (of whom I'd never heard until I read your post and had to google why you were talking about America!)
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
I don't know much about video so would your estimate include post processing? If so yes its not great but it sounds not too bad.
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
That was Robber Baron v2 (of whom I'd never heard until I read your post and had to google why you were talking about America!)
"The metaphor appeared as early as February 9, 1859, when The New York Times used it to characterize the unethical business practices by Cornelius Vanderbilt."
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
I don't know much about video so would your estimate include post processing? If so yes its not great but it sounds not too bad.
Hmm, you are right, I din't include processing. I only estimated 8 hours for travel and shooting. We probably have to add half a day of processing to it.
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
How many photographers are working on that $680 assignment? How many will get paid anything? They're giving you $15/photo (IF they approve any of them), $50/video (same thing), and that gives Shutterstock your copyright for all of them. Which they can then upload to SS to compete with you.
What if you worked those 8 hours and they approved one photo? That's less than $2/hour.
Your math reminds me of me thinking I was going to retire on my SS earnings a few years ago. Multiplying my earnings by my number of illustrations and imagining how much more I'd earn every year as I uploaded more. I'd be making a six-figure income by now drawing little cartoons at home. Then SS used my images to promote my niches on FB, so everyone under the sun flooded with site with similar images and killed my sales overnight.
Yeah, that was awesome.
-
Shelma you are completely on point. What kind of Photographer would agree to these terms? They are going to get horrible images to show their clients. SS will look like a joke presenting such images.
Not surprised Angela! they have lost loads of HCV portfolios thanks to whatever caused the hickups that cut people in half earnings just over night and this way they are trying to get back that sort of content.
Of course might work for some? and if some wants to join fine but this is a far, far cry from what its supposed to sound like and the money is lousy.
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
How many photographers are working on that $680 assignment? How many will get paid anything? They're giving you $15/photo (IF they approve any of them), $50/video (same thing), and that gives Shutterstock your copyright for all of them. Which they can then upload to SS to compete with you.
What if you worked those 8 hours and they approved one photo? That's less than $2/hour.
Your math reminds me of me thinking I was going to retire on my SS earnings a few years ago. Multiplying my earnings by my number of illustrations and imagining how much more I'd earn every year as I uploaded more. I'd be making a six-figure income by now drawing little cartoons at home. Then SS used my images to promote my niches on FB, so everyone under the sun flooded with site with similar images and killed my sales overnight.
Yeah, that was awesome.
Let me remind you that I rejected the offer.
These potential $680 + expenses are not tempting enough for me.
But I can imagine others having no problems with it. Some people I know are ready to shoot a whole wedding for similar amounts.
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
How many photographers are working on that $680 assignment? How many will get paid anything? They're giving you $15/photo (IF they approve any of them), $50/video (same thing), and that gives Shutterstock your copyright for all of them. Which they can then upload to SS to compete with you.
What if you worked those 8 hours and they approved one photo? That's less than $2/hour.
Your math reminds me of me thinking I was going to retire on my SS earnings a few years ago. Multiplying my earnings by my number of illustrations and imagining how much more I'd earn every year as I uploaded more. I'd be making a six-figure income by now drawing little cartoons at home. Then SS used my images to promote my niches on FB, so everyone under the sun flooded with site with similar images and killed my sales overnight.
Yeah, that was awesome.
Let me remind you that I rejected the offer.
These potential $680 + expenses are not tempting enough for me.
But I can imagine others having no problems with it. Some people I know are ready to shoot a whole wedding for similar amounts.
So you're just going to pretend that the scheme is guaranteed to pay you $85/hour for a shoot, instead of admitting the actuality that a large corporation is getting 50 photographers to work on 50 8-hour shoots plus a half day of processing and will most likely be paying a handful of them a few bucks each. And then Shutterstock will be competing against them with their own work and using their algorithm to push clients to those shots.
Whatevs. If it works, I'm investing in SSTK.
-
Let me remind you that I rejected the offer.
These potential $680 + expenses are not tempting enough for me.
But I can imagine others having no problems with it. Some people I know are ready to shoot a whole wedding for similar amounts.
but the only way to get the big money assignments is to collect points on the lesser assignments to increase your Shutterstock Custom Score.
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
How many photographers are working on that $680 assignment? How many will get paid anything? They're giving you $15/photo (IF they approve any of them), $50/video (same thing), and that gives Shutterstock your copyright for all of them. Which they can then upload to SS to compete with you.
What if you worked those 8 hours and they approved one photo? That's less than $2/hour.
Your math reminds me of me thinking I was going to retire on my SS earnings a few years ago. Multiplying my earnings by my number of illustrations and imagining how much more I'd earn every year as I uploaded more. I'd be making a six-figure income by now drawing little cartoons at home. Then SS used my images to promote my niches on FB, so everyone under the sun flooded with site with similar images and killed my sales overnight.
Yeah, that was awesome.
Let me remind you that I rejected the offer.
These potential $680 + expenses are not tempting enough for me.
But I can imagine others having no problems with it. Some people I know are ready to shoot a whole wedding for similar amounts.
So you're just going to pretend that the scheme is guaranteed to pay you $85/hour for a shoot, instead of admitting the actuality that a large corporation is getting 50 photographers to work on 50 8-hour shoots plus a half day of processing and will most likely be paying a handful of them a few bucks each. And then Shutterstock will be competing against them with their own work and using their algorithm to push clients to those shots.
Whatevs. If it works, I'm investing in SSTK.
I'm not pretending anything. I just believe it is rather safe to assume that there are not too many photographers ready to travel and shoot in that area, if any.
So counting on the full amount could make sense. But I repeat: not even this full advertised amount is sufficient to make me move my ass, let alone if, after the first assignment, I would find-out that I wasted my time.
It is definitely not about your "robber barons" myth. We have the choice to say no!
If all photographers from my area will do the same, they will quickly learn that what they are ready to pay is below the market price. Subsequently, they will adjust their rates accordingly, until their offer will make me, and the others like me, move our asses.
If somebody else is already free-willingly accepting this assignment, it means they got it right. It means this is the market price for that type of work.
As simple as that.
-
I'm not pretending anything. I just believe it is rather safe to assume that there are not too many photographers ready to travel and shoot in that area, if any.
So counting on the full amount could make sense. But I repeat: not even this full advertised amount is sufficient to make me move my ass, let alone if, after the first assignment, I would find-out that I wasted my time.
It is definitely not about your "robber barons" myth. We have the choice to say no!
If all photographers from my area will do the same, they will quickly learn that what they are ready to pay is below the market price. Subsequently, they will adjust their rates accordingly, until their offer will make me, and the others like me, move our asses.
If somebody else is already free-willingly accepting this assignment, it means they got it right. It means this is the market price for that type of work.
As simple as that.
You need to get with the program and rack up your points quick, these people now have the Enterprise Team behind them and will grow exponentially and pretty soon they will have $40,000 commissions for the favoured few. It's not about $680 at this time it's all about points, get off your arse before you get left behind.
-
Let me remind you that I rejected the offer.
These potential $680 + expenses are not tempting enough for me.
But I can imagine others having no problems with it. Some people I know are ready to shoot a whole wedding for similar amounts.
but the only way to get the big money assignments is to collect points on the lesser assignments to increase your Shutterstock Custom Score.
If indeed those big money assignments exist;-)
-
I'm not pretending anything. I just believe it is rather safe to assume that there are not too many photographers ready to travel and shoot in that area, if any.
So counting on the full amount could make sense. But I repeat: not even this full advertised amount is sufficient to make me move my ass, let alone if, after the first assignment, I would find-out that I wasted my time.
It is definitely not about your "robber barons" myth. We have the choice to say no!
If all photographers from my area will do the same, they will quickly learn that what they are ready to pay is below the market price. Subsequently, they will adjust their rates accordingly, until their offer will make me, and the others like me, move our asses.
If somebody else is already free-willingly accepting this assignment, it means they got it right. It means this is the market price for that type of work.
As simple as that.
You need to get with the program and rack up your points quick, these people now have the Enterprise Team behind them and will grow exponentially and pretty soon they will have $40,000 commissions for the favoured few. It's not about $680 at this time it's all about points, get off your arse before you get left behind.
Thanks! I appreciate your advice, but I'll pass!
I don't trust "points" as currency nor the promise of a better afterlife.
-
I'm not pretending anything. I just believe it is rather safe to assume that there are not too many photographers ready to travel and shoot in that area, if any.
So counting on the full amount could make sense. But I repeat: not even this full advertised amount is sufficient to make me move my ass, let alone if, after the first assignment, I would find-out that I wasted my time.
It is definitely not about your "robber barons" myth. We have the choice to say no!
If all photographers from my area will do the same, they will quickly learn that what they are ready to pay is below the market price. Subsequently, they will adjust their rates accordingly, until their offer will make me, and the others like me, move our asses.
If somebody else is already free-willingly accepting this assignment, it means they got it right. It means this is the market price for that type of work.
As simple as that.
You need to get with the program and rack up your points quick, these people now have the Enterprise Team behind them and will grow exponentially and pretty soon they will have $40,000 commissions for the favoured few. It's not about $680 at this time it's all about points, get off your arse before you get left behind.
Thanks! I appreciate your advice, but I'll pass!
I don't trust "points" as currency nor the promise of a better afterlife.
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
-
I'm not pretending anything. I just believe it is rather safe to assume that there are not too many photographers ready to travel and shoot in that area, if any.
So counting on the full amount could make sense. But I repeat: not even this full advertised amount is sufficient to make me move my ass, let alone if, after the first assignment, I would find-out that I wasted my time.
It is definitely not about your "robber barons" myth. We have the choice to say no!
If all photographers from my area will do the same, they will quickly learn that what they are ready to pay is below the market price. Subsequently, they will adjust their rates accordingly, until their offer will make me, and the others like me, move our asses.
If somebody else is already free-willingly accepting this assignment, it means they got it right. It means this is the market price for that type of work.
As simple as that.
You need to get with the program and rack up your points quick, these people now have the Enterprise Team behind them and will grow exponentially and pretty soon they will have $40,000 commissions for the favoured few. It's not about $680 at this time it's all about points, get off your arse before you get left behind.
Thanks! I appreciate your advice, but I'll pass!
I don't trust "points" as currency.
At least you had the option, unlike when the top earners got inducted into Premier Select and the top erners who just missed out got their earnings ripped in half. You need the enterprise team on your side. because they will be encouraging all the big spenders to switch their budgets to Custom.
-
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
-
Let me remind you that I rejected the offer.
These potential $680 + expenses are not tempting enough for me.
But I can imagine others having no problems with it. Some people I know are ready to shoot a whole wedding for similar amounts.
but the only way to get the big money assignments is to collect points on the lesser assignments to increase your Shutterstock Custom Score.
If indeed those big money assignments exist;-)
Like Imagebrief who gets our ideas for free and shows to the people who enter a brief. Ever notice that few are sold and some come back over and over? The clients are using us for ideas and then making their own images. Some do buy, but it's a way to milk us for ideas and pay nothing. I won't work for them.
Custom score? I never signed up. Just like many have posted here, we are not forced into this and if I choose to not participate, I'm fine. I won't sell out for low prices like some people will. I'm not so desperate that I'll devalue my better work, for a cheap contract. Of course I'm happy taking Micro money for snapshots that I upload when I have time.
My advise to some of the loudest complainers is, if you don't like it, don't apply for the program. I didn't join, but I might change my mind if the reports from people who actually do the work, are finding it's not completely unfair. Seems like some others have made up their mind, without every giving SS a chance?
-
Like Imagebrief who gets our ideas for free and shows to the people who enter a brief. Ever notice that few are sold and some come back over and over? The clients are using us for ideas and then making their own images. Some do buy, but it's a way to milk us for ideas and pay nothing.
There was a funny brief a few weeks ago. Someone wanted an image "just like one from Alamy" and they even showed the image with the watermark. Ok, makes me wonder, if they wanted an image like that why not just license that Alamy image? Cheap *insult removed* lol
-
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
Is there somewhere I can redeem those "I got scammed" points or is it like a karma thing? :D
-
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
Better odds doing the lottery then?
-
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
Better odds doing the lottery then?
But don't forget, you have to buy a ticket. :)
-
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
Is there somewhere I can redeem those "I got scammed" points or is it like a karma thing? :D
I conceed that in most cases you will be able to tell me "I told you so" time and time again in thread after thread. I have no doubt the vast majority of people will be disapointed with this scheme, but carrots work and some kid could well become the next big thing chasing them. I think any decent microstocker could take some of these assignments make them their own and submit the images and videos to half a dozen sites and make a lot more than they are offering, but if the Enterprise Team do their work a few very good ambitious photographers will break through and make a lot of money.
-
What's to stop a client from requesting cheaper photographers copy the breakthrough photographers' work?
Look, if these corporations were willing to pay good bucks for shots they'd just be having their ad agencies handle a shoot with a top photographer, and they could go to the shoot themselves and give feedback on the spot to be sure they got what they wanted.
The only reason to do this is to get talented photographers to work for peanuts instead.
SSTK is up 2.61%.
-
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
Is there somewhere I can redeem those "I got scammed" points or is it like a karma thing? :D
I conceed that in most cases you will be able to tell me "I told you so" time and time again in thread after thread. I have no doubt the vast majority of people will be disapointed with this scheme, but carrots work and some kid could well become the next big thing chasing them. I think any decent microstocker could take some of these assignments make them their own and submit the images and videos to half a dozen sites and make a lot more than they are offering, but if the Enterprise Team do their work a few very good ambitious photographers will break through and make a lot of money.
I actually have no idea how it will all turn out. It may very well work out just fine for some people. I was just teasing because that is one of those classic pitches you get from clients trying to get a big discount.
Overall, I'm not sure about their offering. It seems to have potential, but selling off rights to a middle man without a lot of guarantees of future earnings seems a big leap of faith. They seem to want a stable of reliable artists without putting much investment into those artists. Call me old fashioned, but I like to be wined and dined a bit.
-
What's to stop a client from requesting cheaper photographers copy the breakthrough photographers' work?
Look, if these corporations were willing to pay good bucks for shots they'd just be having their ad agencies handle a shoot with a top photographer, and they could go to the shoot themselves and give feedback on the spot to be sure they got what they wanted.
The only reason to do this is to get talented photographers to work for peanuts instead.
SSTK is up 2.61%.
That's true for the majority of contributors and has been for years in microstock, they treat us like the suckers we are. What makes this different is that they can offer their enterprise customers something they said they would never do, offer exclusivity. I think for Shutterstock they see this as game changer and they see an opportunity to break into a new market.
-
Absolutely. They'll break into a new market, break that market, and rake in the bucks. They'll pay you guys peanuts and put better-paid photographers out of business. If it works.
-
I actually have no idea how it will all turn out. It may very well work out just fine for some people. I was just teasing because that is one of those classic pitches you get from clients trying to get a big discount.
Overall, I'm not sure about their offering. It seems to have potential, but selling off rights to a middle man without a lot of guarantees of future earnings seems a big leap of faith. They seem to want a stable of reliable artists without putting much investment into those artists. Call me old fashioned, but I like to be wined and dined a bit.
They know that talented people will work for peanuts and how to exploit them, why do you think exposure is offered as a reward so often instead of remuneration, it works. Many just like their ego stroked and are just happy that someone is willing to pay for their images, even if it is for less than a dollar. Here is a article that shows how little artist work for https://www.dacs.org.uk/latest-news/artist-salary-research?category=For+Artists&title=N (https://www.dacs.org.uk/latest-news/artist-salary-research?category=For+Artists&title=N) no wonder that the likes of Shutterstock tap into this resource.
-
Absolutely. They'll break into a new market, break that market, and rake in the bucks. They'll pay you guys peanuts and put better-paid photographers out of business. If it works.
Yes they will do to assignment photography what they did to stock, but they won't be paying me peanuts, I turned off my port until the climate for contributors becomes more favourable, could be a long, long wait.
-
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
I'm guessing that somewhere in the contributor agreement it will say that any terms and conditions can be changed at any time without notice. You're more than an optimist if you expect that the terms they promote now to entice you to participate will remain the same over time.
We have many, many examples from stock agencies of reneging on favorable terms once it suited them.
If you don't mind working for what you're being paid now, then go ahead. But hoping for future returns (without any sort of binding contracts) is just flying in the face of the last decade of stock agency track records.
-
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
I'm guessing that somewhere in the contributor agreement it will say that any terms and conditions can be changed at any time without notice. You're more than an optimist if you expect that the terms they promote now to entice you to participate will remain the same over time.
We have many, many examples from stock agencies of reneging on favorable terms once it suited them.
If you don't mind working for what you're being paid now, then go ahead. But hoping for future returns (without any sort of binding contracts) is just flying in the face of the last decade of stock agency track records.
From what I've seen you would be hard pressed to find any favourable Terms and Conditions regarding Shutterstock Custom and they won't change over time for passed briefs because unlike RF once they have your images that's it, gone, and unlike everyone else I do mind working for what Shutterstock is paying now.
-
The issue is the points not terms for a set of images.
You seem to think it's worth working on these underpaid assignments to rack up points to get the big assignments. Suppose you do this and either they double the number of points required at a later time, or scrap the points system entirely in favor of flat fees. You will have been counting points as part of your compensation only to have the value of them cut or eliminated.
You cannot count on the future value of the points - and if that doesn't matter to you, then go ahead, but unless I misunderstood your earlier post, I thought you suggested getting assignments now to get points for more lucrative assignments down the road.
-
Why would clients agree to pay for photographers with more points? They got good photos for $15; they know they can continue to get good photos for $15. They'll just keep offering jobs that pay $15 per photo, and the people with more "points" will be shut out of assignments.
-
The issue is the points not terms for a set of images.
You seem to think it's worth working on these underpaid assignments to rack up points to get the big assignments. Suppose you do this and either they double the number of points required at a later time, or scrap the points system entirely in favor of flat fees. You will have been counting points as part of your compensation only to have the value of them cut or eliminated.
You cannot count on the future value of the points - and if that doesn't matter to you, then go ahead, but unless I misunderstood your earlier post, I thought you suggested getting assignments now to get points for more lucrative assignments down the road.
Airlines Frequent Flyer "miles" and most other points systems can be recalculated in many ways at many different locations along the lifetime. Change the number of points earned per transaction. Change the value of the points in the bank with a "stock" split. Barter between points systems and lose a lot of value paying the transfer fees. Roll in points for some enticement program. Change the number of points needed to receive a given reward. Points are an unstable currency and have an unstable buying power. Points systems can be killed on a whim and the points become useless.
-
The issue is the points not terms for a set of images.
You seem to think it's worth working on these underpaid assignments to rack up points to get the big assignments. Suppose you do this and either they double the number of points required at a later time, or scrap the points system entirely in favor of flat fees. You will have been counting points as part of your compensation only to have the value of them cut or eliminated.
You cannot count on the future value of the points - and if that doesn't matter to you, then go ahead, but unless I misunderstood your earlier post, I thought you suggested getting assignments now to get points for more lucrative assignments down the road.
You seem to think you know what I think and perhaps I have mislead you or you may have misread me, no matter. What I was trying to say regarding the game that is Shutterstock Custom is that turning down underpaid assignments at the inception of the game just because they are underpaid would not be a wise move because at this stage of the game it is about points, you need a fast start in accumulating points. This is because those who amass a lot of points at the begining get the better assignments, which would lead to more points. Turning down assignments will lead to poorer assignments and the likelyhood that they too will be turned down until one comes around that you fancy enough to get of your arse, by that time the game will be lost, everybody else will have more points than you. If many people play the game in relation to the number of assignments the harder it will be for late starters.
This advice does not endorse the game, I think the game is diablolical, a cynical way to incentivise people, but for the people here who signed up and want to play the game I think it is valid advice. As you say down the line the rules of the game may change, but in any game like this most players will lose eventually, it dosen't mean they can't enjoy it. I always lose at Monopoly, but I never refuse a game and I don't think it's real money.
-
Just got a request so have something concrete rather than speculation $12.50 each for four images.....but very run of the mill location based. If I happened to live near its something I could do in minutes and probably incorporate into a wider shoot. If they didn't sell they wouldn't identify the brand so I could put up for sale....precisely what this business model is suited to.
-
Just got a request so have something concrete rather than speculation $12.50 each for four images.....but very run of the mill location based. If I happened to live near its something I could do in minutes and probably incorporate into a wider shoot. If they didn't sell they wouldn't identify the brand so I could put up for sale....precisely what this business model is suited to.
In Germany?
I got the same, apparently. Would be a breeze of a shoot if I lived there or had visited. Just general cityscapes.
-
Just got a request so have something concrete rather than speculation $12.50 each for four images.....but very run of the mill location based. If I happened to live near its something I could do in minutes and probably incorporate into a wider shoot. If they didn't sell they wouldn't identify the brand so I could put up for sale....precisely what this business model is suited to.
In Germany?
I got the same, apparently. Would be a breeze of a shoot if I lived there or had visited. Just general cityscapes.
Same here, Germany. Apart from $12 per image, what is amazing is that no expense budget is provided. They know where I live (mentioned in my profile) and that it would take at least one-hour flight or 5-hour drive, the cost of transportation alone would be multiple times the $50 fee. So why sending this brief at all to people like me?
On the good side, they appear to accept one's archive photos if they match the brief, so no need to travel. But chances that I have pictures from that location which weren't published elsewhere are slim.
Does anybody know whether rejecting the offer affects your points compared to, say, ignoring it until its expiry?
-
Just got a request so have something concrete rather than speculation $12.50 each for four images.....but very run of the mill location based. If I happened to live near its something I could do in minutes and probably incorporate into a wider shoot. If they didn't sell they wouldn't identify the brand so I could put up for sale....precisely what this business model is suited to.
In Germany?
I got the same, apparently. Would be a breeze of a shoot if I lived there or had visited. Just general cityscapes.
Same here, Germany. Apart from $12 per image, what is amazing is that no expense budget is provided. They know where I live (mentioned in my profile) and that it would take at least one-hour flight or 5-hour drive, the cost of transportation alone would be multiple times the $50 fee. So why sending this brief at all to people like me?
On the good side, they appear to accept one's archive photos if they match the brief, so no need to travel. But chances that I have pictures from that location which weren't published elsewhere are slim.
Does anybody know whether rejecting the offer affects your points compared to, say, ignoring it until its expiry?
Was it Hannover?
-
You'd be willing to sell Shutterstock worldwide perpetual copyright to photos in your portfolio for $12, less than one EL.
The more I think about it the more I think there are no clients; SS is just writing briefs themselves to get people to sell them copyrights to photos for $12.
I remember people being absolutely incensed that SS was doing away with the standard $28 for an EL and replacing it with what might be (and has turned out to be, in most cases) less than $28 for an EL. Some people opted out of ELs because of it.
Yet you still own the copyright to those images, and they still sell for all kinds of prices in all kinds of places.
But for $12, you'll give your rights away, accept the condition that you can never mention Shutterstock in relation to those images, accept that you can never sue Shutterstock, and allow Shutterstock to compile a portfolio of your images that competes with you, tweaking their secret algorithm to place the images you sold to them at the top of the search while pushing your port further down.
-
What a brilliant way to plump up Offset, too. Clients have been complaining about the lack of choice. Get photographers to submit their best work to fictitious assignments, buy the copyright from them for $12. Now those images have to be removed from all other sites because SS owns the copyright. SS puts the best of the best on Offset and the rest on SS, and they're now branded the exclusive Offset or Shutterstock collection, and they always appear at the top of page 1 in any search.
Look how many of you were invited to submit photos for one location in Germany.
-
The more I think about it the more I think there are no clients; SS is just writing briefs themselves to get people to sell them copyrights to photos for $12.
That would be fraud / misrepresentation and for a public company the worst kind of publicity imaginable. I don't think they would stoop this low but then again I wear rose-coloured sunglasses 8)
-
I got an email from a Nigerian prince this morning. He says if I sell him the copyright to my best-selling illustrations for $12 it will allow him to buy his sick mother a plane ticket home. Should I do it? Or do you think t's some sort of scam?
-
What a brilliant way to plump up Offset, too. Clients have been complaining about the lack of choice. Get photographers to submit their best work to fictitious assignments, buy the copyright from them for $12. Now those images have to be removed from all other sites because SS owns the copyright. SS puts the best of the best on Offset and the rest on SS, and they're now branded the exclusive Offset or Shutterstock collection, and they always appear at the top of page 1 in any search.
Look how many of you were invited to submit photos for one location in Germany.
I actually live in that exact location. But I still have no intention in selling the rights for $50/4 images. I just signed up to see for myself what they have to offer.
Just to get the facts straight:
You sell the rights to the client - not to SS.
The website was just rebranded and has been around for a while as Flashstock. So it´s not a new scheme SS came up with.
-
The more I think about it the more I think there are no clients; SS is just writing briefs themselves to get people to sell them copyrights to photos for $12.
That would be fraud / misrepresentation and for a public company the worst kind of publicity imaginable. I don't think they would stoop this low but then again I wear rose-coloured sunglasses 8)
Whether the assignments are fictitious or not, the outcome is the same. You sell SS the copyright to your best work for $12.
-
What a brilliant way to plump up Offset, too. Clients have been complaining about the lack of choice. Get photographers to submit their best work to fictitious assignments, buy the copyright from them for $12. Now those images have to be removed from all other sites because SS owns the copyright. SS puts the best of the best on Offset and the rest on SS, and they're now branded the exclusive Offset or Shutterstock collection, and they always appear at the top of page 1 in any search.
Look how many of you were invited to submit photos for one location in Germany.
I actually live in that exact location. But I still have no intention in selling the rights for $50/4 images. I just signed up to see for myself what they have to offer.
Just to get the facts straight:
You sell the rights to the client - not to SS.
The website was just rebranded and has been around for a while as Flashstock. So it´s not a new scheme SS came up with.
Do you sell the rights to the client? It's hard to tell from the "ownership" language posted earlier.
In that case you're willing to sell a corporation your perpetual worldwide copyright for less than one EL. And any images from your existing port would have to be taken down from all other sites, because the client would own the copyright.
(That's "you" plural, not you in particular.)
-
In that case you're willing to sell a corporation your perpetual worldwide copyright for less than one EL. And any images from your existing port would have to be taken down from all other sites, because the client would own the copyright.
Yeah, I think in this case it's a no brainer. I'd go get some nice cityscape shots...probably take about 2 hours then another hour post-processing them. So that's about 3 hours of work for $50. Then I'd grab a burger. No dessert though as I'm looking after my bootylicious body (see other thread about body image)
For bigger jobs requiring much more investment perhaps it's not worth it but I'll see it on a case-by-case basis.
-
I have edited the OP with the SUBMISSION AGREEMENT
-
By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion.
I wonder what they mean by "make derivative works" :o Probably minor compared to the other rights which SS would acquire.
-
Just got a request so have something concrete rather than speculation $12.50 each for four images.....but very run of the mill location based. If I happened to live near its something I could do in minutes and probably incorporate into a wider shoot. If they didn't sell they wouldn't identify the brand so I could put up for sale....precisely what this business model is suited to.
In Germany?
I got the same, apparently. Would be a breeze of a shoot if I lived there or had visited. Just general cityscapes.
Yeah sounds like it....thinking I need to have a back up stock of images for likely places ;-).
-
The more I think about it the more I think there are no clients; SS is just writing briefs themselves to get people to sell them copyrights to photos for $12.
That would be fraud / misrepresentation and for a public company the worst kind of publicity imaginable. I don't think they would stoop this low but then again I wear rose-coloured sunglasses 8)
Whether the assignments are fictitious or not, the outcome is the same. You sell SS the copyright to your best work for $12.
Who said anything about best work? These would be run of the mill shots of which there are thousands similar available for RF sale. I certainly would be doing anything that a) Cost a lot to produce b) I thought was of higher quality than the sale price warrants......comparing these assignments with the top end is fallacious and if anyone is daft enough to be investing thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in shoots like this then they only have themselves to blame.
-
In that case you're willing to sell a corporation your perpetual worldwide copyright for less than one EL. And any images from your existing port would have to be taken down from all other sites, because the client would own the copyright.
Yeah, I think in this case it's a no brainer. I'd go get some nice cityscape shots...probably take about 2 hours then another hour post-processing them. So that's about 3 hours of work for $50. Then I'd grab a burger. No dessert though as I'm looking after my bootylicious body (see other thread about body image)
For bigger jobs requiring much more investment perhaps it's not worth it but I'll see it on a case-by-case basis.
Yes thats exactly the correct approach as I said if I was in the area id combine this with other work for stock and the cost would be negligible.
-
Just got a request so have something concrete rather than speculation $12.50 each for four images.....but very run of the mill location based. If I happened to live near its something I could do in minutes and probably incorporate into a wider shoot. If they didn't sell they wouldn't identify the brand so I could put up for sale....precisely what this business model is suited to.
In Germany?
I got the same, apparently. Would be a breeze of a shoot if I lived there or had visited. Just general cityscapes.
Same here, Germany. Apart from $12 per image, what is amazing is that no expense budget is provided. They know where I live (mentioned in my profile) and that it would take at least one-hour flight or 5-hour drive, the cost of transportation alone would be multiple times the $50 fee. So why sending this brief at all to people like me?
On the good side, they appear to accept one's archive photos if they match the brief, so no need to travel. But chances that I have pictures from that location which weren't published elsewhere are slim.
Does anybody know whether rejecting the offer affects your points compared to, say, ignoring it until its expiry?
I'm in UK and got it....doesn't really fill me with confidence about the sophistication of their IT specially if I lose points for turning down work for locations 100s of miles away.
-
Europe has always been something strange for US inhabitants.
It reminds me of the American guy calling from London asking which underground line he has to take to meet me in Paris ^^
-
Europe has always been something strange for US inhabitants.
It reminds me of the American guy calling from London asking which underground line he has to take to meet me in Paris ^^
Well, since you can take a train from London to Paris it isn't that strange, is it?
-
Europe has always been something strange for US inhabitants.
It reminds me of the American guy calling from London asking which underground line he has to take to meet me in Paris ^^
Well, since you can take a train from London to Paris it isn't that strange, is it?
Yes a 3 hour ride in train, not exactly a fast underground commute ;)
-
Yes a 3 hour ride in train, not exactly a fast underground commute ;)
Yes, he made the mistake of asking which underground instead of which train. Still, not that strange.
3 hours is still nothing for an American to get anywhere. Let alone from a capital in one country to the capital in another.
-
I'm in UK and got it....doesn't really fill me with confidence about the sophistication of their IT specially if I lose points for turning down work for locations 100s of miles away.
Back to the question how someone's points might "unexpectedly" disappear 8) ...
-
You'd be willing to sell Shutterstock worldwide perpetual copyright to photos in your portfolio for $12, less than one EL.
The more I think about it the more I think there are no clients; SS is just writing briefs themselves to get people to sell them copyrights to photos for $12.
I remember people being absolutely incensed that SS was doing away with the standard $28 for an EL and replacing it with what might be (and has turned out to be, in most cases) less than $28 for an EL. Some people opted out of ELs because of it.
Yet you still own the copyright to those images, and they still sell for all kinds of prices in all kinds of places.
But for $12, you'll give your rights away, accept the condition that you can never mention Shutterstock in relation to those images, accept that you can never sue Shutterstock, and allow Shutterstock to compile a portfolio of your images that competes with you, tweaking their secret algorithm to place the images you sold to them at the top of the search while pushing your port further down.
That's exactly what I thought when I read that they were after generic pics of a city. I thought DT's offer of $25 for an accepted assignment pic was lousy! I joined this just to check it out but I'm pretty sure I won't be accumulating any points. I also doubt if I would have an assignment offer as I'm in the back of beyond down under.
ETA: Oops, spoke too soon! Just checked my email. I have an OVERSEAS assignment for $50 for 4 shots! But of course if I have pics from a previous visit I can use those! OMG this just gets better doesn't it?! They're dreamin!!
-
By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion.
I wonder what they mean by "make derivative works" :o Probably minor compared to the other rights which SS would acquire.
I'm very surprised that they're not explicitly forbidding you to do anything with sister/similar images.
-
And voila, just another assignment offer in my mailbox. Same (final) customer, same fee ($50 for 5 photos), but location...is in India. I'm located in Europe. No expense budget. This is pathetic and so disappointing.
Coupled with a lousy launch of new stats feature on iStock today, thinking of quitting this business at all.
-
I have got 3 assignments this morning.
With this text: "We've got a new assignment available for you in your Shutterstock Custom account. However, we've noticed that you haven't accepted the Shutterstock Custom End User Terms of Service yet. You must do so before you can accept the assignment terms."
I refused sending the following email:
_____________
I don't accept the assignment terms:
"By providing a Submission to us that we accept and compensate you for (“Paid Submission”), you will thereby assign to us and we will own, all right, title and interest in and to that Paid Submission, irrevocably, perpetually and without any limitation or restriction whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, upon receipt of each Paid Submission, we will have the exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to use, reproduce, display, electronically transmit, distribute, publish, broadcast, modify, edit, combine with the work of others, make derivative works from and otherwise exploit each of your Paid Submissions, and to grant any of those rights to others, for any purpose whatsoever, and on any terms determined by us in our sole discretion. You agree that by providing a Paid Submission to us, you will thereby waive all moral rights or any similar rights you may have in relation to that Paid Submission.”
It is just inadmissible for me
_____________
I think that we should all do something similar, systematically.
-
And voila, just another assignment offer in my mailbox. Same (final) customer, same fee ($50 for 5 photos), but location...is in India. I'm located in Europe. No expense budget. This is pathetic and so disappointing.
Coupled with a lousy launch of new stats feature on iStock today, thinking of quitting this business at all.
No more for me wonder if its because I declined one I don't think i'm missing out on gaining great riches.
-
Are we sure the client keeps exclusive use forever? With ss having the copyright could we see ss ending up with a collection of wholly owned content in a few years?
Eta sorry just worked my way through the thread and this has already been covered.
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
Well if you sacrificed everything to get to america you really didn't have much choice but to work like a slave for crumbs. You didn't have any money to get back home and ended up working hand to mouth along with all those other millions sold a BS dream. Thank god they managed to unionize eventually
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
Well if you sacrificed everything to get to america you really didn't have much choice but to work like a slave for crumbs. You didn't have any money to get back home and ended up working hand to mouth along with all those other millions sold a BS dream. Thank god they managed to unionize eventually
Yes and any comparison with their lives and underpaid photographers is ridiclous
-
you can' compare an ad with elton john who probably will be the most important ad for a company, streamed on tv etc, with a little job who probably want just produce some sideline contents.
700 dollar are good money for such kind of job.
you know how much pay some big mag for a n editorial? less than1000 if u are not testino...
many people don't understand one thing: 20 years ago there were 50000 working photographer in the world capable and available...today...10000000000 ready available eager to accept any money to enter the business, talented much more skilled than 99% of pro working 20 years ago. competition is fierce. everywhere there are photographer...instagram have million people with talent in any sector from food to outdoor who can produce absolutely good content for any enterprise.
700 dollar not good? for one day? you are living on the moon i think.
-
I am not getting any emails !!
-
We're back to the days of the robber barons. Prepare to line up for your cheese ration.
This is nonsense. First of all, even during the so called "robber baron" era, people flocked by millions to America, sacrificing everything they had at home, only to work for those "robber barons". Obviously their life under the "robber baron's" boot was better than what they left home.
Secondly, the assignment I got pays $680 for something that can be done in a day or 8 hours. This means $85/hour. This is not bad at all. In a year, this means $173k. I wonder how many members of this forum make this kind if money in a year?
Obviously the client will not get anything comparable to your Elton John shots, but maybe they don't need anything so fancy.
Having said that, I have rejected their offer for reasons beyond the ideological divide!
Robber barons? C'mon!
Well if you sacrificed everything to get to america you really didn't have much choice but to work like a slave for crumbs. You didn't have any money to get back home and ended up working hand to mouth along with all those other millions sold a BS dream. Thank god they managed to unionize eventually
Maybe.
But people kept on flocking. If what they found was worse, the flow would have stopped long time ago. It didn't.
I recommend you to watch this when you have a few minutes: https://youtu.be/dmzZ8lCLhlk
Remember that people tend to "vote with their feet": they always migrate to a better place and better life.
-
Dear compatriots,
Correct me if I'm wrong but I interpret this in the way that I ought to submit a number of photos they require (or videos for that matter) and with the rest I may do whatever I want. Submit to shutterstock "classic" or other agencies? Yay or Nay?
Here is what I read in the contract that needs to be signed:
"You may also make Submissions that we do not accept and for which we do not compensate you, on our sole prerogative (“Unselected Submissions”). You will own, all right, title and interest in and to the Unselected Submissions, however Unselected Submissions containing an identifiable brand in the image that were shot and submitted specifically for a Shutterstock Brief, may not re-sold or licensed or used for any commercial purpose whatsoever, nor may you represent that the Unselected Submissions were taken for a Shutterstock client or for a Shutterstock Brief, both of which are covered by Section 7, “Confidentiality”. "
Thank you for your clarification.
Cheers,
-
Nay, if they have a brand on them you can't sell them, you can't even talk about them in relation to the brief. If they don't have a brand on them it may become contentious, but I would think, in most cases, you would be OK to sell them elsewhere. It is difficult to envisage all posible scenarios with these things, so it might be wise to take it case by case.
-
I just want to wait it out in that case as I am not willing to shoot something and not own any rights for any image on that set. Doing a couple of photos for couple of hundred bucks is ok as long as I can make hundred more images but something tells me that is not the case.
Other than that I just can not comprehend how one could possibly finance a shoot with pocket money?
If offered around 400-500 for business location that one has to travel to and shoot 4-5 models can get by getting 300-400 dollars I may be doing something totally wrong or very right.
Travel expenses
Equipment amortization
Time spent organizing models and location
Shooting time
Model costs (20-50bucks /h)
...
and of course the retouching, uploading, tagging process is free in this case but otherwise still accounts for a large part of the expenses.
And this is why I just dont know how I could possibly charge something 500 bucks that cost me close to 1000 not counting my effort / time / experience etc.
-
I just want to wait it out in that case as I am not willing to shoot something and not own any rights for any image on that set. Doing a couple of photos for couple of hundred bucks is ok as long as I can make hundred more images but something tells me that is not the case.
Other than that I just can not comprehend how one could possibly finance a shoot with pocket money?
If offered around 400-500 for business location that one has to travel to and shoot 4-5 models can get by getting 300-400 dollars I may be doing something totally wrong or very right.
Travel expenses
Equipment amortization
Time spent organizing models and location
Shooting time
Model costs (20-50bucks /h)
...
and of course the retouching, uploading, tagging process is free in this case but otherwise still accounts for a large part of the expenses.
And this is why I just dont know how I could possibly charge something 500 bucks that cost me close to 1000 not counting my effort / time / experience etc.
Just say no, if the math is not in your favor.
-
And this is why I just dont know how I could possibly charge something 500 bucks that cost me close to 1000 not counting my effort / time / experience etc.
I agree, as Yuri once said: "At some point the professional gets tired of selling 12 course testing menues at 0300AM at burger prices"
Don't want to divert the discussion, but would you say this lack of sustainability also extends to Microstock in general?
I do a lot of bike touring to capture my shots and I wrote recently about one such two-day trip. I recorded all my expenses over two days ($276) where I shortlisted 96 or so images. I question whether I'll be able to offset even those small expenses over a one-year period at Micros. The answer is: probably not.
Here's a link to the article:
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/09/25/is-microstock-a-sustainable-business-model/
-
So did anybody get another invitation(s) since the two from Germany and India, coming so quickly after the service's inception? In my case it's dead quiet which only underpins the suspicion that the first two invites were just a bug/scam.
-
So did anybody get another invitation(s) since the two from Germany and India, coming so quickly after the service's inception? In my case it's dead quiet which only underpins the suspicion that the first two invites were just a bug/scam.
None.
-
So did anybody get another invitation(s) since the two from Germany and India, coming so quickly after the service's inception? In my case it's dead quiet which only underpins the suspicion that the first two invites were just a bug/scam.
None.
None for me....I only ever had one....
-
Even if i'd find the money offered/work needed to be done ratio acceptable, or even good, it still wouldn't look like an acceptable deal.
If I can come up with photos even remotely usable for anything, i wouldn't sell the COPYRIGHTS for 15 USD/image..
-
So did anybody get another invitation(s) since the two from Germany and India, coming so quickly after the service's inception? In my case it's dead quiet which only underpins the suspicion that the first two invites were just a bug/scam.
Not me, but it is understandable after that I replied to their emails, explaining that I do not accept their policy about the ownership of the copyright of *my* images…
-
Shutterstock Custom: it's best not to get involved.
-
Shutterstock Custom: it's best not to get involved.
That's the way I feel about it too.
-
I find it very insulting. It's almost like they are saying "let's see how low we can go with these photographers"...
-
Got my first request for some Seattle shots - pay $50 for 4 images, with talent - no expenses.
I'm in Southern California - why would I get a request for something almost 1200 miles away?
This is a joke.
-
I agree its best not to get involved at all. couple of weeks back I got a request from a smaller boutique RM agency of a fly-fisherman using a technique called spey-casting the client offered £ 350 sterling! big difference.
Sounds to me as if SS wants commissioned shots for micro prices.
-
I agree its best not to get involved at all. couple of weeks back I got a request from a smaller boutique RM agency of a fly-fisherman using a technique called spey-casting the client offered £ 350 sterling! big difference.
Sounds to me as if SS wants commissioned shots for micro prices.
I would love to know how much SS charges for these shoots - no doubt they are getting the lions share of the deal
Everything has become cloak and dagger woth micros- frankly the lack of transparency makes me distrust every single one of them
-
I agree its best not to get involved at all. couple of weeks back I got a request from a smaller boutique RM agency of a fly-fisherman using a technique called spey-casting the client offered £ 350 sterling! big difference.
Sounds to me as if SS wants commissioned shots for micro prices.
I would love to know how much SS charges for these shoots - no doubt they are getting the lions share of the deal
Everything has become cloak and dagger woth micros- frankly the lack of transparency makes me distrust every single one of them
Couldnt agree more!
-
I agree its best not to get involved at all. couple of weeks back I got a request from a smaller boutique RM agency of a fly-fisherman using a technique called spey-casting the client offered £ 350 sterling! big difference.
Sounds to me as if SS wants commissioned shots for micro prices.
I would love to know how much SS charges for these shoots - no doubt they are getting the lions share of the deal
Everything has become cloak and dagger woth micros- frankly the lack of transparency makes me distrust every single one of them
Its a low bar but SS are probably the least worse...being a Public company they at least have to file some information and as far as I know they don't have numerous sites as "partners". I think if you sell in Microstock you either have to grin and bear it or spend your life trying to work out whats happening with your images once they are "released".
-
So, did this die off already? I haven't seen anything offered since the first one, weeks ago.
-
So, did this die off already? I haven't seen anything offered since the first one, weeks ago.
Should I change the thread title in " Shutterstock Custom is dead"?
-
From the earnings call yesterday...
Oringer: "Moving to Shutterstock Custom, ... we are very pleased with from customers. We continue to believe Custom is a large long-term opportunity for us...We believe that the global custom content creation category is a $7 billion addressable market alone, giving us tremendous opportunities with new and existing customers."
Steven Berns: "As previously mentioned, Shutterstock Custom will have a minimal impact on our financial results in 2017, but we believe it will be a significant growth engine in years to come."
From minimal to billions in a few easy steps :)
A lot of this depends on whether you buy the idea that lots of photos as post-like advertising on social media will be a long term thing (versus hot right now) - some numbers in this article (https://blog.adstage.io/2017/05/19/social-media-advertising-stats/).
The problem, IMO, is that very few people like ads (versus posts from the people they follow); the idea that paid content can look like, and be as interesting as "organic" content is a fantasy; if the ratio of ads to posts gets too high, users will drift away over time.
So if there is a burst of activity with SS Custom, I'm guessing that the demand won't last for long (even if they can get contributors to create custom content for next-to-nothing payments). It's worth noting in this article (https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/social-media-advertising/) the comment that stock photos don't work in Instagram ads - they emphasize custom content with real people. I can see how the costs of custom content for social media ads would need to be really low to make it work from the advertiser's point of view...
-
So, did this die off already? I haven't seen anything offered since the first one, weeks ago.
Same here....
Maybe only sending to the Chosen Few now - but surprised if you're not amongst them....
-
Me too I assumed it cos I dared to refuse something where I would have to fly a few thousand miles for a possible $45 return.
-
I still receive the occassional assignment
Never done one - mever will at these rates
I am blown away that each assignment is for very large corporations with deep pockets i.e. McDs,subway,johnson and johnson, etc
SS is just trying to monopolize and kill any possible decent revenue opportunities left in the photography market
-
Truly disgusting. The CEOs of these companies make millions, but want to pay you $10 for a custom photo.
I hope this dies a quick death.
-
Truly disgusting. The CEOs of these companies make millions, but want to pay you $10 for a custom photo.
I hope this dies a quick death.
Yes, this is how they make millions (millions that they will never use then…)
-
Truly disgusting. The CEOs of these companies make millions, but want to pay you $10 for a custom photo.
Looks like SS might be pursuing them with offers of cheap custom photos. From Jo Ann's post above looks like it's a market they very much want to tap into (and to hell with the suppliers).
-
Truly disgusting. The CEOs of these companies make millions, but want to pay you $10 for a custom photo.
Looks like SS might be pursuing them with offers of cheap custom photos. From Jo Ann's post above looks like it's a market they very much want to tap into (and to hell with the suppliers).
Hard to say if they want to be seen to be pursuing new "huge" markets (to keep Wall Street thinking positively about their stock and prospects) or if they're serious about building a business, but they've certainly been busy on Twitter promoting new webinars. Shutterstock Custom (https://twitter.com/ShutterstockCst/with_replies) has its own account. They had a webinar at the beginning of October and another one is coming up Nov 9th (https://twitter.com/ShutterstockCst/status/925756808437882880).
The thing that strikes me about all the pictures in the tweets from (or re-tweeted by) SS Custom is that they all look like stock shots. I'm sure they are custom, but if they look like they aren't is that helping? Stock shots with the logos and brand identities showing.
This is the twitter feed for SS Custom's (https://twitter.com/andre_chinn)"Brand Partnerships Associate" in Toronto. Not sure how video of Elmo on fire is going to work for my brand... From his LinkedIn page "Our unique model ingests a brand’s identity and strategy, which enables us to create on-brand content on demand. Our global network of contributors and proprietary technology platform allow us to streamline the content creation process."
Right.
-
I have no doubt that the market for custom photos in a multi-billion-dollar market. But this is just a way for big multi-billion-dollar brands to avoid paying decent rates for custom work.
I see on their Facebook page they're getting five or six likes on their posts from SS Custom employees and photographers who are still in college.
Yuge success! Biggest success ever. They have all the best successes. What a turnout!
https://www.facebook.com/ShutterstockCustom/ (https://www.facebook.com/ShutterstockCustom/)
-
At least they tried. Clap. Clap. Clap.
-
I have no doubt that the market for custom photos in a multi-billion-dollar market. But this is just a way for big multi-billion-dollar brands to avoid paying decent rates for custom work.
I see on their Facebook page they're getting five or six likes on their posts from SS Custom employees and photographers who are still in college.
Yuge success! Biggest success ever. They have all the best successes. What a turnout!
https://www.facebook.com/ShutterstockCustom/ (https://www.facebook.com/ShutterstockCustom/)
And not one person can be bothered to comment it seems....
-
I just received 3 briefs in a roll, you guys as well?
-
I just received 3 briefs in a roll, you guys as well?
Yes you don't seem to be able to reject them now. As I might be able to do one by walking down the garden I might just try it to see what happens...one thing for sure they are only going to get something very basic.
-
I also continue to receive their
email spam
I have never accepted the term and conditions.
To unsubscribe I must accept the terms and conditions.
This is just absurd!!
-
I got the 3 assignments as well, just wondering, they are asking for photos never used before in any way. They also say no expenses budget.
They want new exclusive photos for 50 dollar, and you are asked to submit double the amount of images for curation.
So they want 8 never before used and exclusive photos for 12.50 per photo and no expense reimbursed.
Thats a loss making business for the photographer.
One of the assignments was with models in their 20s.
Is my assessment correct? If so, that doesnt make sense, who else accepts these assignments, apart from Pauws?
The only assignment that could be slightly profitable is the one where you can shoot in your backyard if you have any close up shots of interest. I dont, for that assignment I would have to drive to the nearest forest. And then it will already be a challenge to break even, considering time and expenses.
-
https://customcontributor.shutterstock.com/blog/2017/11/16/how-to-impress-clients-with-your-professionalism
Two photos in that blog are birds eye view, yet their briefs say do not use birds eye view.
:o
-
I got the 3 assignments as well, just wondering, they are asking for photos never used before in any way. They also say no expenses budget.
They want new exclusive photos for 50 dollar, and you are asked to submit double the amount of images for curation.
So they want 8 never before used and exclusive photos for 12.50 per photo and no expense reimbursed.
Thats a loss making business for the photographer.
One of the assignments was with models in their 20s.
Is my assessment correct? If so, that doesnt make sense, who else accepts these assignments, apart from Pauws?
The only assignment that could be slightly profitable is the one where you can shoot in your backyard if you have any close up shots of interest. I dont, for that assignment I would have to drive to the nearest forest. And then it will already be a challenge to break even, considering time and expenses.
I only said I might and only if I can do at at near zero cost and yes I could do it from my backyard...if the sun comes up I might take a stroll up there and do some very generic shots. I think they are hoping amateurs with stuff on their HD might have stuff....But yes I couldn't quite believe what they were asking for the other shoots.
-
The only assignment that could be slightly profitable is the one where you can shoot in your backyard if you have any close up shots of interest. I dont, for that assignment I would have to drive to the nearest forest. And then it will already be a challenge to break even, considering time and expenses.
That could be expected. Some time ago I had my contacts listed in case anyone wanted any custom work done for them. With some extremely rare exceptions the offers were ridiculous. All in all, correspondence with delusional people wasn't worth my time. I removed any info that could lead people directly to me long time ago.