Note how we've now been successfully conditioned to accept absolutely any amount in payment for a sale.  There are no more rules, price schedules, spelled-out royalty terms.  Payments to contributors are arbitrary, token amounts.  We compare them the way people at an airport gate might compare what they paid for a ticket.  I got 82 cents!  Woo hoo!  I wonder what it was for?

We don't even know what a 'sale' is, anymore. When Alamy gives an image to a customer and they use it for 3 months, then the 'sale' is cancelled - what was that transaction, exactly?

At least the difference on SS is that most of the 'surprises' are nice ones. Just clicked through to find another 4 SOD's, each at $13.08, had landed. Last week a couple of $114 SOD's put a smile on my face.

I know what you mean though. It would be nice to know exactly what license has sold and for what amount.

has anyone had and FB related sales yet?

I don't think so because there is still no ability to do so at Facebook ads, take a look:

.

[deleted]

Quote from: tickstock on October 04, 2013, 12:12

"Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers"

http://blog.hubspot.com/facebook-shutterstock-advertising-partnership-nj

We get paid per usage, so whats the problem?

So, Facebook is paying SS and the advertisers are paying Fb, but in return get access to the images?
Seems clear enough.

I know, why are you telling me?

There was a question mark.
I was trying to confirm if my understanding of the business model was correct.

Quote from: Ron on October 04, 2013, 14:23

I know, why are you telling me?

There was a question mark.
I was trying to confirm if my understanding of the business model was correct.

A question mark to ask what the problem was, because we get paid. I dont see the problem.

Is the question mark applicable to the part of the sentence before the comma or after the comma? I dont know, I am not a native speaker.

I just dont understand why he needs to post that blog, when it has been clear from the get go we get paid per download or per usage. Seems like a feeble attempt to make a good deal from SS look like a bad deal from IS.

I was  bit taken aback the other day to see a facebook ad for a local real estate company featuring my house!

The image is one I sell as stock and has never been on Facebook in my account (i.e. it's not one of those ads that pulls from your own images). I haven't seen anything on SS that I can identify as a sale to FB.

Here's the screenshot

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/FB-ad-house.png

And this is the image it is using

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=77565013

It'd be nice to know how these show up (and it is of course possible this was an image purchased elsewhere in the "normal" way)

Well this is quite shocking to be honest.

I asked Shutterstock in what size they are selling my images on Facebook. I was told they dont know and that I had to contact Facebook about it. And everyone who ever tried to contact Facebook knows that is sheer impossible.

One thing  they told me was that the images can not be unincorporated from the Facebook platform, this will be managed by Facebook. Whatever that means, but it sounds like the images are locked in.

I have asked again what size the images are sold, because I cant believe Shutterstock doesnt know this.

It seems they had missed that I am a contributor and now they are checking what size my images are sold.

Well this is quite shocking to be honest.

I asked Shutterstock in what size they are selling my images on Facebook. I was told they dont know and that I had to contact Facebook about it. And everyone who ever tried to contact Facebook knows that is sheer impossible.

One thing  they told me was that the images can not be unincorporated from the Facebook platform, this will be managed by Facebook. Whatever that means, but it sounds like the images are locked in.

I have asked again what size the images are sold, because I cant believe Shutterstock doesnt know this.

I did not get anywhere asking for specifics regarding display size, Scott dodged my direct request for facebook display size specs.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/changes-to-the-tos-at-shutterstock/msg346341/#msg346341

Gbalex

Re: Changes made to the END USER LICENSE

Does this mean that you have effectively done away with display size limitations altogether?  To date the micros do not have a great track record of protecting our assets from theft and increasing viewable size limitations will compound the problem 100 fold.

Could you please detail the specific display specifications for each media device that our content will be displayed on as well as the specs for each social media outlet.

As submitters it is important for us to understand SS's & BS's encompassing display, usage & royalty terms in regard to Facebook, Creativemornings, Skyward and any other companies we are not aware of at this time.

Will we be receiving standard royalties for our assets which are licensed to these new SS & BS accounts? If not what royalty terms can we expect to receive for our files?

Snip

scottbraut

Reply #174 on: September 25, 2013, 21:57

Hi gbalex,

Thanks for your question as well.

In our license, we have both approved uses and restrictions. The context of how the image is used is subject to a common sense understanding of what's reasonable for a particular use. We prohibit displaying an image as a standalone file on the Web and require either technical or written restrictions on the part of the user intended to prevent the use of the image by third parties. Usage is not allowed without a license and we aggressively pursue copyright infringements. It is important to note that some of our competitors do not put a restriction on file sizes (this varies) and that the 800x600 pixel limitation was a legacy restriction that was inhibiting sales and overdue for a revision.

With respect to Facebook, Skyword and CreativeMornings, these are different opportunities being offered through different brands.

In the Facebook relationship, Shutterstock contributors are getting paid subscription rates (or greater) for a license that is limited to use on Facebook at digital sizes. That license is more limited in scope than what is offered through our normal subscription model. The audience is 1 million local businesses who are advertising on the Facebook platform, with potential to reach 18 million businesses who have pages on the platform.  This relationship greatly expands the market for your images.  The original FAQ regarding our Facebook collaboration is here.

I am confused, I thought size does matter. Its not as if they get full res images for that price. I have different sizes on symbistock, priced accordingly