pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Legal conflict:Shutterstock sensitive usage and Getty images release  (Read 8678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tror

« on: September 20, 2013, 06:30 »
0
If you submit people images with a model release from getty images to shutterstock and allow sensitive usage you may produce some legal trouble. The getty release says:
"For Consideration herein acknowledged as received, and by signing
this release I hereby give the Photographer / Filmmaker and Assigns
my permission to license the Content and to use the Content in any
Media for any purpose (except pornographic or defamatory) which..."

Just wanted to point that out. In this case you, as a photographer, may be held liable. You may want to opt out then. I do not know the spelling of the SS propietary release....someone could check that out as well...
« Last Edit: September 20, 2013, 06:32 by Tror »


« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2013, 07:13 »
0
I personally use Yuri's MR ( from his site) and there is no exception regarding sensitive use there... yet I'm OPT OUT for sensitive use to avoid legal problems in the future. An opt in/out per image on SS will be extraordinarily.


Tror

« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2013, 15:58 »
+1
Hello All,

We'd like to take a moment and clear up any confusion. Our customer licenses -- including those that provide an option for sensitive use -- prohibit images from being used in pornographic or defamatory ways.  We have to humbly and respectfully point out that the original poster is incorrect. 

If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at submit@shutterstock.com, and we will be happy to help you.

Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Contributor Success
Shutterstock

Thanks for clarifying the situation Anthony. I automatically associated "sensitive use" with a possible conflict of the release but was left with some doubts.

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2013, 17:10 »
0
Hello All,

We'd like to take a moment and clear up any confusion. Our customer licenses -- including those that provide an option for sensitive use -- prohibit images from being used in pornographic or defamatory ways.  We have to humbly and respectfully point out that the original poster is incorrect. 

If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at submit@shutterstock.com, and we will be happy to help you.

Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Contributor Success
Shutterstock

Good information.  I didn't realize that Shutterstock's "sensitive use" license prohibited pornographic or defamatory usages.  That's great to know.  That was the reason I opted out of sensitive uses in the first place.  What WOULD constitute sensitive uses then? 

« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2013, 17:46 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:50 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2013, 18:00 »
0
Seems quite clear:
5.2:
" Unless you "opt out" (please see "Your Account"), Shutterstock shall have the right to issue a Premier License (or the equivalent) in respect of your Content. The Premier License grants more rights than the Enhanced License. For example, Premier License customers may use Content for so-called "Sensitive Uses." A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of 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; c) uses tobacco products; and/or d) is otherwise associated with a position that a reasonable person might consider controversial or unflattering. Sensitive Uses of Content shall require an accompanying disclaimer to the effect that the person(s) depicted are models and are used for illustrative purposes only. Notwithstanding the foregoing and except in the case of Content marked "Editorial Use Only": (i) Content depicting a model engaged in conduct that qualifies as "Sensitive" hereunder (e.g., a photograph of a person smoking a cigarette) may be used under a Premier License, or the equivalent, without a disclaimer if such use is consistent with the Content itself and/or the description of such Content as it appears on the Shutterstock Websites (e.g., a tobacco advertisement featuring a photograph of a model smoking a cigarette); and (ii) use of Content in connection with a political advertisement, endorsement or the like is permissible without a disclaimer. The Premier License prohibits the use of all Content in a fashion that a reasonable person or applicable law would consider pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, notwithstanding the context of such Content."
http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms



« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2013, 18:11 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:50 by Audi 5000 »

Tror

« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2013, 18:14 »
0
Seems quite clear:
5.2:
" Unless you "opt out" (please see "Your Account"), Shutterstock shall have the right to issue a Premier License (or the equivalent) in respect of your Content. The Premier License grants more rights than the Enhanced License. For example, Premier License customers may use Content for so-called "Sensitive Uses." A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of 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; c) uses tobacco products; and/or d) is otherwise associated with a position that a reasonable person might consider controversial or unflattering. Sensitive Uses of Content shall require an accompanying disclaimer to the effect that the person(s) depicted are models and are used for illustrative purposes only. Notwithstanding the foregoing and except in the case of Content marked "Editorial Use Only": (i) Content depicting a model engaged in conduct that qualifies as "Sensitive" hereunder (e.g., a photograph of a person smoking a cigarette) may be used under a Premier License, or the equivalent, without a disclaimer if such use is consistent with the Content itself and/or the description of such Content as it appears on the Shutterstock Websites (e.g., a tobacco advertisement featuring a photograph of a model smoking a cigarette); and (ii) use of Content in connection with a political advertisement, endorsement or the like is permissible without a disclaimer. The Premier License prohibits the use of all Content in a fashion that a reasonable person or applicable law would consider pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, notwithstanding the context of such Content."
http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms


Thanks Sue for the further information.

I guess much depends on the definition of the term "Defamatory". Some of the examples mentioned above may be viewed as defamatory by some people and by others not. I would really love to see a opt-in / opt-out on a per image basis. The matter is much too delicate to be able to generalize a decision. I guess I stick with opt-out, but would like to change that on a per image basis...

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2013, 18:44 »
0
Is that new?  The link isn't working for me.

I have no idea, whoops, I scrolled down and it's dated 17th September 2013, the previous one listed being March 1 2012.

The link isn't working for me either,  ::) but when I went back to the page, that was the URL.

I googled 'Shutterstock Sensitive Use' and that was the third link on the search;
Submitter Terms of Service - Shutterstock
submit.shutterstock.com/terms/‎ - the link works from Google.
relevant clause is 5 Usage Restrictions b.

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2013, 19:50 »
0
Out of curiosity, how much more do you get if you get a sensitive use/Premier Licence sale?

Seems odd you can't opt in/opt out individually. Surely models differ in what they agree to, especially if you're using friends/family rather than professional models?

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2013, 03:08 »
0
Seems quite clear:
5.2:
" Unless you "opt out" (please see "Your Account"), Shutterstock shall have the right to issue a Premier License (or the equivalent) in respect of your Content. The Premier License grants more rights than the Enhanced License. For example, Premier License customers may use Content for so-called "Sensitive Uses." A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of 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; c) uses tobacco products; and/or d) is otherwise associated with a position that a reasonable person might consider controversial or unflattering. Sensitive Uses of Content shall require an accompanying disclaimer to the effect that the person(s) depicted are models and are used for illustrative purposes only. Notwithstanding the foregoing and except in the case of Content marked "Editorial Use Only": (i) Content depicting a model engaged in conduct that qualifies as "Sensitive" hereunder (e.g., a photograph of a person smoking a cigarette) may be used under a Premier License, or the equivalent, without a disclaimer if such use is consistent with the Content itself and/or the description of such Content as it appears on the Shutterstock Websites (e.g., a tobacco advertisement featuring a photograph of a model smoking a cigarette); and (ii) use of Content in connection with a political advertisement, endorsement or the like is permissible without a disclaimer. The Premier License prohibits the use of all Content in a fashion that a reasonable person or applicable law would consider pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, notwithstanding the context of such Content."
http://submit.shutterstock.com/terms


Thanks Sue for the further information.

I guess much depends on the definition of the term "Defamatory". Some of the examples mentioned above may be viewed as defamatory by some people and by others not. I would really love to see a opt-in / opt-out on a per image basis. The matter is much too delicate to be able to generalize a decision. I guess I stick with opt-out, but would like to change that on a per image basis...


I'm sure they leave concepts like 'defamatory' deliberately vague to give them some wiggle room in the event of a court case.
iS have the similarly subjective "any other subject matter that would be reasonably likely to be offensive or unflattering to any person reflected in the Content" when 'unflattering' could be adding/subtracting weight, skin/hair problems etc, IMO.
Then there's the question as to what a 'reasonable person' is - iS rely on that apparently-subjective 'reasonable person' too. One lawyer's 'reasonable' could be another's 'extremist'.

But I'd still like to know how much more SS pays the contributor for sale of a Premium licence.

Ron

« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2013, 04:29 »
0
Out of curiosity, how much more do you get if you get a sensitive use/Premier Licence sale?

Seems odd you can't opt in/opt out individually. Surely models differ in what they agree to, especially if you're using friends/family rather than professional models?
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

Single/Two Image On Demand
& Any Products Not Listed

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2013, 05:41 »
0
Ok, tx.
20% - 30% of whatever they can get.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
6481 Views
Last post June 21, 2009, 10:01
by Wisent
17 Replies
4792 Views
Last post August 02, 2012, 18:06
by Les
13 Replies
8274 Views
Last post June 14, 2014, 11:28
by onepointfour
0 Replies
1517 Views
Last post August 15, 2014, 05:21
by Maximilian
4 Replies
554 Views
Last post July 03, 2019, 07:14
by souh

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results