Author Topic: Shutterstock Guarantee?? (Read 8002 times)

travelstock · « **on:** October 20, 2009, 12:01 »

Just spotted this on Microstock Diaries:

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/next-to-guarantee-photos-is-shutterstock.html

Looks like SS is matching the IS guarantee... !?!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:04 »

Methinks Shutterstock will be paying out some nice protection money. For example...

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?search_group=&lang=en&searchterm=harley&x=0&y=0

travelstock · « **Reply #2 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:06 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 20, 2009, 12:04

Methinks Shutterstock will be paying out some nice protection money. For example...

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?search_group=&lang=en&searchterm=harley&x=0&y=0

Is that a link to their legal defense team?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:11 »

It was a link to a bunch of Harley images, but then I checked the info pages, and what I checked were all editorial use licenses. So, looks like they did their work, at least on that one.

photoshow · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 20, 2009, 12:04

Methinks Shutterstock will be paying out some nice protection money. For example...

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?search_group=&lang=en&searchterm=harley&x=0&y=0

Sean if you actually look at the images in that search you will find that they are pretty much all listed as Editorial Use only. If a buyer uses them for a commercial use the problem would fall in their own front yard as they would be in violation of the EULA under which they downloaded the image

Edit: See what happens when I type before reading the whole thread ;-)

travelstock · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:13 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 20, 2009, 12:11

It was a link to a bunch of Harley images, but then I checked the info pages, and what I checked were all editorial use licenses. So, looks like they did their work, at least on that one.

Yep I opened the link and saw a bunch of bikers... it was kind of an attempt at humor :p

photoshow · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:23 »

The idea of guaranteed clear license on RF images is not a fresh innovative idea of Istock. Lawrence Gould launched VivioZoom a year or so ago. VivoZoom was the first RF agency to offer guaranteed image clearance. As usual IStock simply followed suit and made everyone believe they were the first.

In truth offering this guarantee is as simple as adding Errors and Omissions coverage to your personal liability insurance policy and I find it amazing that RF stock agencies have not been carrying E&O coverage right from the start. I would not even consider working in this industry without it.

What would be far more impressive would be seeing these agencies get more proactive on policing the EULA and protecting the contributors rights. Of course adding coverage to your insurance policy is a whole lot cheaper then adding a license enforcement department to your company. Besides we all know if a couple buyers get stung for using images that are not properly cleared all hell will break loose and Microstock would experience a mass dissertation of buyers who could not afford the risk. Contributors on the other hand accept that their images are being abused and used outside the bounds of the EULA on a daily basis and yet we all continue to silently contribute anywise.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:26 »

Quote from: photoshow on October 20, 2009, 12:23

The idea of guaranteed clear license on RF images is not a fresh innovative idea of Istock. Lawrence Gould launched VivioZoom a year or so ago. VivoZoom was the first RF agency to offer guaranteed image clearance. As usual IStock simply followed suit and made everyone believe they were the first.

I don't think iStock ever played the "first" card on that. However, I'd guess Getty was probably the first RF agency. Vivozoom just decided to take that as their only unique selling point at micro levels.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:34 »

Perhaps the harley example wasn't a good one, but search for cruise ship and see all the protected content in those images - for example.

I think if they want to follow through on this, al the luxury cars, cruise ships, teddy bears etc. that IS has been weeding out will have to go at SS too.

Or Seattle's Public Market sign... or...

travelstock · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:57 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 20, 2009, 12:34

Perhaps the harley example wasn't a good one, but search for cruise ship and see all the protected content in those images - for example.

I think if they want to follow through on this, al the luxury cars, cruise ships, teddy bears etc. that IS has been weeding out will have to go at SS too.

Or Seattle's Public Market sign... or...

SS has the option for editorial licenses - the problem for images with trademarks etc isn't generally that you can't sell an image with that in it, its more what you end up doing with it. In most instances the chances of getting sued are pretty negligible. Personally I think far too much is made of the whole issue...

microstockinsider · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2009, 20:51 »

Is 10k actually enough cover? I read that they all reserve the rights to appoint their own legal teams but surely that won't pay for many hours at the prices that lawyers charge?

Granted that istock offer the 250k option if you pay extra for it - there must be a good reason that they did that? - Either to milk more money from the insecure or because some corporate policies require that level of cover to be included with their purchases?

gostwyck · « **Reply #11 on:** October 21, 2009, 03:29 »

^^^ I thought the $10K is intended to cover the cost of re-designing/printing the campaign in which the image is used __ not legal fees. I'd assume that if the image was used within the terms of the license then it would be the agency/contributor that could be sued.