pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock is unsafe.  (Read 18533 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #75 on: April 23, 2017, 17:03 »
+3
If you are sure she is only after money and doesn't have any other grounds (however unjustifiable) for concern, you could say you would take down her images if she pays back her fees, the value of the clothes etc she got, (maybe even an amount to cover your loss of expected earnings). But then you'd need to consider your losses if she agrees.


Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #76 on: April 24, 2017, 00:49 »
0
If you are sure she is only after money and doesn't have any other grounds (however unjustifiable) for concern, you could say you would take down her images if she pays back her fees, the value of the clothes etc she got, (maybe even an amount to cover your loss of expected earnings). But then you'd need to consider your losses if she agrees.
Tricky because they could try to twist that as an admission of guilt. He should stand his ground. What I would actually do is delete the images as it isn't worth the time and stress.

« Reply #77 on: April 24, 2017, 01:40 »
+2
What keeps confusing me:

1) Having problems with a single model means SS is bad but Stocksy is good?
2) The problems are only on SS? What if the images get sold by other agency and the model sees them and takes both you to the court? The model could follow you anywhere not only on SS. How did she found only about SS but not about the other agencies you work with?
3) Is your team stuck in a single model? If true, that means bad bad bad management and you should fire the manager who got you into a such nasty situation but do not shoot SS which understandably is trying to keep safe its ass(that is the rest of contributors).


For a fair judgement would be good the hear to model's opinion too, not only yours.

« Reply #78 on: April 24, 2017, 08:20 »
+3
What keeps confusing me:

1) Having problems with a single model means SS is bad but Stocksy is good?
2) The problems are only on SS? What if the images get sold by other agency and the model sees them and takes both you to the court? The model could follow you anywhere not only on SS. How did she found only about SS but not about the other agencies you work with?
3) Is your team stuck in a single model? If true, that means bad bad bad management and you should fire the manager who got you into a such nasty situation but do not shoot SS which understandably is trying to keep safe its ass(that is the rest of contributors).


For a fair judgement would be good the hear to model's opinion too, not only yours.

#3:  He already said he has multiple models.   In fact, multiple models in that shoot is part of why taking down photos of one model would be such a problem.  Evidently there are a lot of images of groups or multiple models that include this model.  this means that probably most of the shoot would have to come down if he agrees to the models demands.

As for hearing from the model, the OP paid her, she signed a release giving fully informed consent, now she's blackmailing him.  Unless the OP is outright lying, this appears pretty cut and dried.

The one thing I disagree with the OP on is SS being the baddie.  They asked for clarification, which seems reasonable.   Although they threatened to take down the pictures,  it doesn't sound like they have, and they have not closed the OPs account for not taking them down.  Most likely the proof he furnished has satisfied them.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 08:24 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #79 on: April 24, 2017, 11:32 »
0
What keeps confusing me:

1) Having problems with a single model means SS is bad but Stocksy is good?
2) The problems are only on SS? What if the images get sold by other agency and the model sees them and takes both you to the court? The model could follow you anywhere not only on SS. How did she found only about SS but not about the other agencies you work with?
3) Is your team stuck in a single model? If true, that means bad bad bad management and you should fire the manager who got you into a such nasty situation but do not shoot SS which understandably is trying to keep safe its ass(that is the rest of contributors).


For a fair judgement would be good the hear to model's opinion too, not only yours.

#3:  He already said he has multiple models.   In fact, multiple models in that shoot is part of why taking down photos of one model would be such a problem.  Evidently there are a lot of images of groups or multiple models that include this model.  this means that probably most of the shoot would have to come down if he agrees to the models demands.

As for hearing from the model, the OP paid her, she signed a release giving fully informed consent, now she's blackmailing him.  Unless the OP is outright lying, this appears pretty cut and dried.

The one thing I disagree with the OP on is SS being the baddie.  They asked for clarification, which seems reasonable.   Although they threatened to take down the pictures,  it doesn't sound like they have, and they have not closed the OPs account for not taking them down.  Most likely the proof he furnished has satisfied them.

Read Reply #45, SS are not satisfied!

« Reply #80 on: April 24, 2017, 13:45 »
+2
let me ask again:

you are talking about a shooting which costs you 4000 USD and you want to sell the photos to SS, which pay 38 Cent per download, if you are lucky you get a few sales on demand or single and others.

How does this fit together? If you are offering them to SS, you can no longer sell them exclusively to stocksy or so, am I right or do I misunderstand anything? Is nobody talking about profits?

« Reply #81 on: April 24, 2017, 16:39 »
+4
why do people here keep grilling the OP when he has already explained everything? pack of wolves devouring their next piece of meat.

josephine, you need to understand the concept of high volume x low return = still profitable. the guy delivers high quality work which is probably downloaded at high velocity and he already said he would make the investment back on a set of images in one year


FiledIMAGE

  • Freelance Photgrapher based in Melbourne Australia

« Reply #82 on: April 24, 2017, 20:59 »
+5
I have a similar issue with property rights with Shutterstock for Uluru in Australia. I have full paid property release and suddenly get an email saying they are not selling these images anymore. Same thing happened last year and parks management backed me up and got them reinstated. Exactly same thing again a year later

I feel that Shutterstock pay no attention to releases. Big issues for places charging money for them as they are worthless. Then people will do whatever they want and not bother with releases. Luckily Uluru management see this and support me 100% and I am very impressed. Shame about Shutterstock though...

MxR

« Reply #83 on: April 25, 2017, 03:41 »
+3
The problem that is being debated here is how shutter requests reports under the threat of closing accounts. There is a presumption of guilt of the photographer by shutter. Closing threat ... almost like shooting first and asking later.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Shutterstock down

Started by Greg Boiarsky Shutterstock.com

2 Replies
5771 Views
Last post March 24, 2006, 12:13
by leaf
9 Replies
3489 Views
Last post February 12, 2009, 17:55
by Gannet77
129 Replies
56318 Views
Last post June 21, 2020, 11:01
by gbalex
14 Replies
7865 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide
0 Replies
2516 Views
Last post June 26, 2017, 09:30
by Kenneth_17

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors