Quote from: YadaYadaYada on September 25, 2017, 21:35

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 25, 2017, 13:22

Quote from: JimP on September 25, 2017, 13:06

Quote from: Mantis on September 22, 2017, 11:33

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

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 21, 2017, 13:59

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.

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 25, 2017, 12:39

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.)

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on September 25, 2017, 21:35

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 25, 2017, 13:22

Quote from: JimP on September 25, 2017, 13:06

Quote from: Mantis on September 22, 2017, 11:33

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

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 21, 2017, 13:59

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.

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 25, 2017, 12:39

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."

Quote from: ravens on September 26, 2017, 08:45

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.

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.

Its rebadged Flashstock from what I've seen we are talking $15 an image ;-)

Quote from: ravens on September 26, 2017, 08:45

"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? 

Eventually, if this effort is successful, SS has built up a huge portfolio of images they own...

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 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.