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... !?!

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?

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 ;-)

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.

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...

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?