Author Topic: Bragging Time - New single sales record: 90.60$ ? (Read 13967 times)

Morphart · « **Reply #25 on:** May 02, 2012, 17:03 »

Quote from: borg on May 02, 2012, 11:40

Is it image with people on it?

No, a simple b&w vector file of a tree... Nothing exceptionnal.

Morphart · « **Reply #26 on:** May 02, 2012, 17:10 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 02, 2012, 12:50

Quote from: Elenathewise on May 02, 2012, 12:21
I've had quite a few $18 dollar sales in the "single and other downloads" category, but not a $90 dollar one. I wonder if it is indeed the"sensitive use" license. My question to people who had them - is your portfolio "opted in" for the sensitive use?

Edit: Anita posted the reply to my question a minute earlier:)

I'll echo Elena's question. Anita, I know we determined the $18 sales were not sensitive use, but I haven't read that about the $90 and $75 sales. Like Elena, I haven't had any of those, and I am opted out of SU also.

Congrats to those of you who are getting those big sales! If they are not SU, I hope to join you soon

I'm opted IN of SU... I never read any thing about SU, what exactly does it imply?

Morphart · « **Reply #27 on:** May 02, 2012, 17:12 »

Quote from: rimglow on May 02, 2012, 15:05

Opted in.

Im opted in also, but I do Illustrations so no models for me.

Anita Potter · « **Reply #28 on:** May 02, 2012, 17:18 »

It's a special license a buyer purchases to use images in a "sensitive" nature i.e. medical, homelessness stuff like that. My brain is drawing a blank to explain it better.

The SU license gets the contributor up to $70 in royalties. Not sure what the $90 would fall under. So far they're not telling us anything unless it's them testing things out?

Morphart · « **Reply #29 on:** May 02, 2012, 17:59 »

Quote from: Anita Potter on May 02, 2012, 17:18

It's a special license a buyer purchases to use images in a "sensitive" nature i.e. medical, homelessness stuff like that. My brain is drawing a blank to explain it better.

The SU license gets the contributor up to $70 in royalties. Not sure what the $90 would fall under. So far they're not telling us anything unless it's them testing things out?

Thanks for thé explanation. I can understand the meaning behind sensitive use.

But for an illustration, I wouldnt think someone will buy a SU license... Confusing

Elenathewise · « **Reply #30 on:** May 02, 2012, 18:11 »

Quote from: Morphart on May 02, 2012, 17:59

Quote from: Anita Potter on May 02, 2012, 17:18
It's a special license a buyer purchases to use images in a "sensitive" nature i.e. medical, homelessness stuff like that. My brain is drawing a blank to explain it better.

The SU license gets the contributor up to $70 in royalties. Not sure what the $90 would fall under. So far they're not telling us anything unless it's them testing things out?

Thanks for thé explanation. I can understand the meaning behind sensitive use.

But for an illustration, I wouldnt think someone will buy a SU license... Confusing

Well my understanding is that sensitive use is just a part of a new license that SS is offering - it may include other things like better number of copies, etc. So when someone buys a picture of tea leaves they don't care about sensitive use aspect of the license, but may want some other terms that this license contains. Which really sucks for photographers with people in their portfolios - just because I don't want to allow my models to be used in some questionable campaigns, my other images - not containing people - can not be sold with this new license! This still doesn't make any sense to me - why couldn't they allow to opt-out just images with model releases attached to them?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #31 on:** May 02, 2012, 18:14 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on May 02, 2012, 18:11

Quote from: Morphart on May 02, 2012, 17:59
Quote from: Anita Potter on May 02, 2012, 17:18
It's a special license a buyer purchases to use images in a "sensitive" nature i.e. medical, homelessness stuff like that. My brain is drawing a blank to explain it better.

The SU license gets the contributor up to $70 in royalties. Not sure what the $90 would fall under. So far they're not telling us anything unless it's them testing things out?

Thanks for thé explanation. I can understand the meaning behind sensitive use.

But for an illustration, I wouldnt think someone will buy a SU license... Confusing

Well my understanding is that sensitive use is just a part of a new license that SS is offering - it may include other things like better number of copies, etc. So when someone buys a picture of tea leaves they don't care about sensitive use aspect of the license, but may want some other terms that this license contains. Which really sucks for photographers with people in their portfolios - just because I don't want to allow my models to be used in some questionable campaigns, my other images - not containing people - can not be sold with this new license! This still doesn't make any sense to me - why couldn't they allow to opt-out just images with model releases attached to them?

you are right, SS should have an option to opt-in in pictures not containing MR's, doesn´t look hard to implement I guess..

THP Creative · « **Reply #32 on:** May 02, 2012, 18:19 »

Even better would be to opt in (or out) on a per-model basis. Then SS would see almost everyone sign on I'd think.

Anita Potter · « **Reply #33 on:** May 02, 2012, 19:13 »

Exactly. We posted to them on the forum over there when they were first getting ready to implement it that it would be better to opt in on either a per image basis or the ways suggested here. Doesn't make any sense to alienate a huge photography base that wants to protect their models and themselves.

Maybe if enough people were to talk to them about it.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #34 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:47 »

I'm opted in apparently. The image had no way to identify the subject and it was fitness related.

In my opinion, there is no reason to opt out. Pictures get bought and used for all kinds of stuff regardless... microstock customers don't read the fine print and who on earth draws the line on sensitive use? Weight loss campaigns are sensitive to some, not to others. An add for tampons? Again... depends on your opinion.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #35 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:53 »

Just to throw this out there, from a SS post:

Customers must indicate that the image is of a model and used for illustrative purposes only.

They also mention that sensitive use is already common at other agencies and you probably didn't even realize it. I always tell all my models that these uses are a possibility. So far no one has said no to modeling.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #36 on:** May 03, 2012, 11:27 »

Hmm, I was going to reply to this saying that Istock doesn't allow "sensitive use", but then decided to go and read their licensing agreement more carefully. Here it the quote from Restrictions:
"Use that depicts model in a sensitive way i.e. mental or physical health issues, substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual activity or preference without a disclaimer."

Now, little addition of "without a disclaimer" means that you can use images that way if you make a disclaimer. Which is what SS is saying about their "enterprise" license.
They were right, the other agencies, Istock specifically, allows for it and just phrases it in a more sneaky way.

SS' enterprise license says this:

A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of Submitted Content that contains one or more recognizable people in a context that might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject(s): a) suffers from a physical or mental health condition or infirmity; b) uses, endorses, advocates, or believes in a particular, product, service, cause, and/or opinion; and/or c) is otherwise associated with a position that some might consider controversial or unflattering. Sensitive Uses of Submitted Content shall require an accompanying statement to the effect that the person(s) depicted are models and are used for illustrative purposes only. Enterprise Plus licenses shall still prohibit the use of Submitted Content in connection with the promotion, advertisement and/or packaging of tobacco products, as well as in connection with pornography, escort services, dating services and/or other adult entertainment services and/or products.

So... I guess it is the same thing. I might now consider opting in, unless I am prepared to take down all my model-released files from Istock...

lisafx · « **Reply #37 on:** May 03, 2012, 13:00 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on May 03, 2012, 01:47

I'm opted in apparently. The image had no way to identify the subject and it was fitness related.

In my opinion, there is no reason to opt out. Pictures get bought and used for all kinds of stuff regardless... microstock customers don't read the fine print and who on earth draws the line on sensitive use? Weight loss campaigns are sensitive to some, not to others. An add for tampons? Again... depends on your opinion.

I won't dispute that pictures sometimes get used in "sensitive" ways without permission. Once I had a picture of a woman holding a cup of coffee as holding a "urinatte" (urine instead of a latte). Another time I had a sweet elderly couple used on a billboard for getting checked for syphilis.

In both cases, I was able to contact the end user, quote the license terms, and get them to take down the image. If I allowed the usage, I would not have a legal leg to stand on and would have to let the offending usage stand.

Elena, I get what you are saying about the Istock license. That must have been changed somewhere along the line. Not good. I think whether or not they use a disclaimer is splitting hairs.

wut · « **Reply #38 on:** May 03, 2012, 14:14 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on May 03, 2012, 11:27

A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of Submitted Content that contains one or more recognizable people in a context that might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject(s): a) suffers from a physical or mental health condition or infirmity;

I'm opted in and I have some shots of my friend that looks really naive in a few photos. I hope I'll finally get some big bucks.

P.S. He wouldn't mind even if the buyer wouldn't add a disclaimer

Dragomir Nikolov · « **Reply #39 on:** May 03, 2012, 17:19 »

May be the answer is...
http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?enhanced=1

rimglow · « **Reply #40 on:** May 03, 2012, 17:20 »

Quote from: wut on May 03, 2012, 14:14

Quote from: Elenathewise on May 03, 2012, 11:27
A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of Submitted Content that contains one or more recognizable people in a context that might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject(s): a) suffers from a physical or mental health condition or infirmity;

I'm opted in and I have some shots of my friend that looks really naive in a few photos. I hope I'll finally get some big bucks.

P.S. He wouldn't mind even if the buyer wouldn't add a disclaimer

The word "naive" is not really socially acceptable in the United States. It's not about freedom of speech. It's about respect.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #41 on:** May 03, 2012, 17:21 »

Quote from: danielitos on May 03, 2012, 17:19

May be the answer is...
http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?enhanced=1

or NOT

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Bragging Time - New single sales record: 90.60$ ? (Read 13967 times)

Morphart

Morphart

Morphart

Anita Potter

Morphart

Elenathewise

luissantos84

THP Creative

Anita Potter

cardmaverick

cardmaverick

Elenathewise

lisafx

wut

Dragomir Nikolov

rimglow

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors