Author Topic: New Extended Customer Protetction Plan (Read 5871 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2011, 13:42 »

Lol, just like IS, you get no royalties. Ha haha.

cathyslife · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2011, 13:52 »

On the other hand, Veer isn't taking royalties away, either. That's a good thing.

loop · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2011, 13:57 »

Where did I read almost exactly the same paragraph?

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2011, 13:58 »

Veer isn't increasing prices hugely whilst at the same time reducing commissions to the artists. They haven't implemented a bizarre 'target' system as a complex means of reducing commissions either. Veer haven't completely screwed up their search unlike one place I could think of. Those are all good things too.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2011, 14:01 »

I know, I know. It's just funny that it is exactly the same.

lisafx · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2011, 15:21 »

Thanks for the headsup Chelsey.

+1 on Gostwyck's post.

Artemis · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2011, 17:12 »

... still wished we got a small % of it; without our images no protection plan to offer either..
sounds like the big i set the standard

dirkr · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2011, 18:52 »

Quote from: Chelsey Schaffel on March 23, 2011, 13:09

Hi everyone,

We'd like to let you know about a new extended protection plan we're offering to our customers.

Veer customers can now get extra peace of mind when purchasing images. Options to extend licenses are listed on every product page, and the extended protection plan is now included. Veer’s Customer Protection Plan comes with free coverage up to $10,000. Now, customers can purchase additional protection for 100 credits. With the extended plan, they receive up to $250,000 coverage if a claim is made against their use of Veer content (as long as they stick to the terms of the End User License Agreement). Unlike license extensions, this option has no affect on your royalties — Veer assumes all the risk.

This is a great new development in our product offering. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us at [email protected].

Cheers,

Chelsey

So, if you assume all the risk, does this mean paragraphs V B (*) and VI (**) of the contributor agreement are void?

Because that's what I see as the likely use case for such a legal guarantee: A photo contains some copyrighted content, the copyright holder goes after the end user (and the photographer may have not even known that there is some protected content).

So in this case, you would "assume all the risk" meaning you will never come back to the photographer?
Or more clearly, whatever I upload to you, my responsibility is to clearly state what release I have or if I have none, after that it is YOUR responsibility to either reject an image (if it may contain critical content) or not license it in a way that might bring up legal problems (e.g. sell as editorial only) or, in the worst case, "assume all the risk" and pay for any damage done.
Is this correct?
Because if not (and I have still the responsibility to determine IF I need a release, and still will be liable IF I don't have one, it slips through your review, an end user gets into trouble) you would NOT be "assuming all the risk"...

I would be interested in an answer....

P.S:

(*)
V B. You also warrant that for any Content you submit to Veer that contains recognizable persons and/or
depicts property with unique intellectual property rights, that you have obtained and have provided Veer
with fully-executed, valid and binding model and/or property releases from all parties in substantially the
same form as Veer’ then-current authorized model and/or property release form located on the Site. You
will provide to Veer copies of releases for all Content submitted as model and/or property released. You
further warrant and represent that model and/or property release information is accurate and complete
and that Veer may use such Content without obtaining any additional consents or permissions or the
payment of additional fees to third parties.

(**)
VI. Indemnification
You agree to indemnify, save, and hold Veer, its affiliates (and their respective successors, officers,
directors, employees, directors and representatives) and authorized partners harmless from any and all
claims, demands, costs, losses, penalties, interest and damages (including reasonable attorneys’ fees,
expert witness fees and expenses) arising out of or in connection with any claim by a third party (including
Users) to the extent such claim would (i) constitute a breach of the representations, warranties and
obligations set forth in this Agreement, or (ii) arise out of the use of the Site or any materials or services
provided by Veer and its affiliates by you.

Chelsey Schaffel · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2011, 18:12 »

Hi dirkr,

Thanks for the questions, and apologies for the delayed response. Don't worry, I'm not ignoring you.

I'm just waiting for some responses from our legal team on some of this, to make sure I can give you accurate answers.

Thanks for your patience. I'll post an update here as soon as possible.

Cheers,

Chelsey

Chelsey Schaffel · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2011, 13:35 »

Hi dirkr,

Thanks for waiting. I’ve gotten some feedback from our legal team, and can offer some clarity to the issues you’ve raised.

All sections of the contributor agreement remain valid and enforceable—we still require complete and accurate model and property releases from contributors, and expect images to be free of logos, trademarks, etc. By making an image available for purchase on our site, we’re saying that we’ve verified that releases are valid, and images are free of certain issues that could present legal problems for the customer. We indemnify our customers through the EULA, to a maximum of $10,000 (included) or $250,000 (if the customer purchases extended coverage). In other words, what we are doing is taking on the responsibility of defending the due diligence we’ve performed on the content we represent (i.e., checking to make sure that releases provided to us are complete, accurate, and sufficient).

If we find that there is some defect in a release or image, even after performing our due diligence, we will provide our financial obligation to the customer, and do have the right to come back to the contributor due to a breach of agreement on their part.

So you’re right—to say that we assume all risk was a misleading choice of words. In an attempt to be concise, we created some confusion, and hopefully the information I’ve provided above has alleviated that. The essence of the message to customers is that we’re assuring them we’ve done our part to ensure the image they’re purchasing is free of certain legal issues, and will provide financial coverage if that turns out to not be the case. As a contributor, you have the same responsibilities you’ve always had to submit clean images and accurate releases.

Cheers,

Chelsey

dirkr · « **Reply #11 on:** April 07, 2011, 04:46 »

Chelsey,

thanks for providing clarification. This is more or less how I thought it would work.

And this is also why I think it is inappropriate that the contributor will not get his cut from this new type of extended license.

What you essentially do is selling an insurance product towards your customer and you get paid an insurance premium.

In the case that the insurance is needed, you turn back to the contributor (or at least you reserve your right to do so) to pay the damages. But the contributor did not participate in the premium.

The real question is relates to this sentence:

Quote

If we find that there is some defect in a release or image, even after performing our due diligence, we will provide our financial obligation to the customer, and do have the right to come back to the contributor due to a breach of agreement on their part.

Who defines if it is your due diligence that failed (=your responsibility to pay) or the contributors fault (=you will get back to him/her). I can certainly accept responsibility in case I have knowingly provided false information (e.g. a forged release) - which obviously I don't do

But who is responsible in case of a mistake? E.g. no release was provided but the end result is that one would have been required? That should be a case where only you are responsible - you should have rejected the image otherwise.
My responsibility should be to clearly provide you with the information if a release is available - not more.

The ultimate judgement if a release is required may be a difficult question, and you (and you alone) making money with guaranteeing exactly that judgement towards the customer while at the same time passing responsibility for that onto the contributor is the major problem in my opinion.

So what you should do in my mind:
- pay the contributor their share of that additional income
- provide an opt-out for that kind of EL
OR
- clearly state in the contributor agreement that you are not entitled to reclaim any damages out of such contract for any case other than the contributor knowingly providing false statements on existing releases / forged releases.

Regards,
Dirk

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Extended Customer Protetction Plan (Read 5871 times)

Chelsey Schaffel

Sean Locke Photography

cathyslife

loop

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

Artemis

dirkr

Chelsey Schaffel

Chelsey Schaffel

dirkr

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors