Shutterstock Policy: Alert - DPChallenge Forums

12/07/2004 08:06:54 PM · #26

Originally posted by SharQ:

I just can't believe that you - basically competent photographers - are willing to licence your images for next to no money.

*shakes head*

edit: I have licenced 5 images in the past month (it's a slow month) and made roughly $850... Even considering to licence an image for less than a dollar sends shivers down my spine. what are you thinking?

This thread is not about what we should be doing with our photos. Please resurrect one of the 50 other threads on this site that have already heard your argument.

umbris

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

12/07/2004 08:08:19 PM · #27

Originally posted by umbris:

I just sent an e-mail to Shutterstock requesting that they reconsider this new policy. I don't plan to sign up for exclusivity with iStockphoto, but I also will not do business with any company (including iStockphoto) that cheats photographers out of royalties.

I will report back once I receive a reply.

Well, they were good enough to reply promptly. It looks like I will be cancelling.

-------

According to the other paragraphs in the TOS, it was implied. I added that to clarify.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: _________@____.com [mailto:_________@____.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:50 PM
To: submit@shutterstock.com
Subject: [Submit] ShutterStock Support Email

To whom it may concern:

I am seeking clarification of Shutterstock's policy regarding payment of
royalties should a contributing photographer terminate his business
relationship with Shutterstock. According to the (new) Terms and
Conditions, "There is a minimum payout rate of $100. If during a pay period,
you haven't accumulated $100 worth of downloads, your earnings will be
brought forward into the next pay period. If you cancel your account before
you reach $100 in earnings, you will be forfeiting those earnings." When I
joined Shutterstock, that paragraph read, "There is a minimum payout rate of
$100. If during a pay period, you haven't accumulated $100 worth of
downloads, your earnings will be brought forward into the next pay period."

Although I have no reason to cancel my Shutterstock account, nor do I intend
to become exclusive with any other stock agency, I find your policy to be a
breach of good faith and an unacceptable business practice. I would
strongly urge you to reconsider this policy as I believe it would
disenfranchise many contributing photographers and cripple the viability of
Shutterstock's business. I will await your response before making any
decisions on the status of my business relationship with Shutterstock.

Sincerely,

Alan J. Goulet
(username: Umbris)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

12/07/2004 08:13:00 PM · #28

Originally posted by umbris:

[quote=umbris]

According to the other paragraphs in the TOS, it was implied. I added that to clarify.

Jon

"Implied" is not good enough. There are very few 'implied' legal agreements that would hold up in court. Just for kicks, I should make a small claim against them and report them to the better business bureau as well. I think i will just pursue the better business bureau :)

gruvin

Nikon D70

12/07/2004 08:19:33 PM · #29

Originally posted by SharQ:

I just can't believe that you - basically competent photographers - are willing to licence your images for next to no money.

I guess it's a case of not having any clue where else to go. If you can offer suggestions on even how to find agencies, I for one would be most grateful.

Photography is something I'm attempting to take up to get out of the I.T. industry, which has almost killed me (literally.) I'm broke and can not afford training so I'm doing it the hard way. To date I haven't been able to figure out exactly how one goes about selling photos - not in a practical sense anyhow. Where does one start?

Throw a guy a crumb will ya? :)

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/07/2004 08:23:25 PM · #30

Well, the line HAS to be drawn somewhere. Say in a month 1000 people sign up and all of them sell one photo -- then one day later, they all decide to cancel -- are they going to send out 1,000 $.10 checks at $.37 a stamp (if not more than that per stamp)? Now add in the price to run the site, the times where they lose money because the people download more than 400 images, the price of the cbecks, etc...they just so happened to choose $100 as the limit.

I agree, it could have been written more clearly, but it seemed very clear to me when I signed up that no matter what, if my account didn't reach $100, I wasn't getting jack.

12/07/2004 08:30:53 PM · #31

Originally posted by deapee:

Wouldn't it be 'nice' of them to pay out $30.10 to someone who sold that much and referred 8 or 9 other users to the site who are selling photos? Rules are rules... sure... There is a right and wrong also. Rules, in the case of businesses, are usually designed to protect the wrong :)

umbris

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

12/07/2004 08:31:14 PM · #32

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by umbris:
[quote=umbris]

According to the other paragraphs in the TOS, it was implied. I added that to clarify.

Jon

"Implied" is not good enough. There are very few 'implied' legal agreements that would hold up in court. Just for kicks, I should make a small claim against them and report them to the better business bureau as well. I think i will just pursue the better business bureau :)

Funny you should say that. Here is the letter I just sent (via e-mail) in response to Jon's e-mail.
--------
Jon

Unfortunately, we disagree that it was implied, and you modified the terms of the agreement
without notifying me by e-mail as stated in the terms and conditions.

Please remove my photos from your site and terminate my membership effective immediately.
According to my accounting, Shutterstock owes me $2.80 in license royalties. Please send a check
for that amount to my address of record, or retract my photos from use by your licensees. Should
I not receive payment for my images that have been sold through your site, and subsequently see
them published, I reserve the right to pursue legal redress against shutterstock and any publisher
or end users for copyright infringement.

Sincerely,

Alan J. Goulet
------------

I don't think I'm going to sue, I will let Karma have its effect.

12/07/2004 08:32:41 PM · #33

Filing a BBB complaint online is relatively painless....

The following complaint was submitted on 12/7/2004 8:28:09 PM:

CUSTOMER INFORMATION:

Mr. John Martin Setzler Jr.
4340 North Center Street
Unit 501
Hickory, NC United States 28601

Daytime Phone xxx-xxx-xxx

COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION INFORMATION:

Shutterstock.com
1137 Broadway
Suite 1427
New York, NY United States 10010
//www.shutterstock.com

COMPLAINT INFORMATION:

Complaint #: 1742563
Complaint Type: General Complaint (not a car maker)
Date Received: 12/7/2004
Primary Complaint Classification: Contract Disputes
Secondary Complaint Classification:
Complaint:
Shutterstock is an online stock photography sales site. I have been selling photography with them for a few months. I wished to terminate my account with them and collect the royalties I had earned. I was refused payment of $30.10 from the sales of my images.

Their Terms of Service stated:

"There is a minimum payout rate of $100. If during a pay period, you haven't accumulated $100 worth of downloads, your earnings will be brought forward into the next pay period."

Today, they changed this TOS to say: "There is a minimum payout rate of $100. If during a pay period, you haven't accumulated $100 worth of downloads, your earnings will be brought forward into the next pay period. If you cancel your account before you reach $100 in earnings, you will be forfeiting those earnings."

This change was made AFTER I requested payment of my $30.10.

They do not have a phone number listed on their website. I have the following contact information:

FAX: 917-386-2199

Mr. Jon Oringer: jon@
Ms. Andrea Miller: andrea@

Desired Settlement: Other (requires explanation)
Settlement Explanation:
I would like to receive payment of $30.10 from Shutterstock.com.
Customer Service Rep: Mr. Jon Oringer
Product or Service:
Model Number:
Account Number:
Order Number:
Salesperson: Jon Orringer
Payment Made: No
Purchase Price:
Disputed Amount:
Payment Method:
Purchase Date:
Problem Date:
Complaint Dates: 12/7/2004

The bureau that will handle your complaint is:

BBB of Metropolitan New York
257 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10010 -7384
Phone: (212)533-6200
Fax: (212)477-4912
Email: complaints@newyork.bbb.org
WWW: //www.newyork.bbb.org

You may wish to print this page for further reference.

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 20:35:15.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

12/07/2004 09:09:08 PM · #34

Originally posted by umbris:

Please remove my photos from your site and terminate my membership effective immediately.

You are going to get an email from Jon telling you that you have to go into each of your individual batch uploads and delete each image individually. He would not purge my photos himself. I did them all manually.

FranziskaLang

Nikon D100

12/07/2004 10:03:02 PM · #35

It is quite customary for companies to charge an administration fee to close an account. Is up to $100 reasonable? No, I don't think so. But is it so different? I don't think it is.

John, you claim not to care about the money, yet you keep posting about this on several different sites even after Shutterstock has clarified their terms. What's your point? You got them to clarify the terms.

12/07/2004 10:10:19 PM · #36

Originally posted by FranziskaLang:

There is no point beyond that. The terms have been reworded so that people like myeslf don't get bit by them in the future.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/07/2004 10:34:52 PM · #37

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

Shutterstock has decided to pay my royalties. They are also extending this offer for two weeks to anyone else who is interested in severing relationships with the business.

I'm not sure why they changed their minds, but it was the right thing to do and I thank them for it.

John Setzler

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

12/07/2004 10:36:31 PM · #38

Good showing by Jon and Shutterstock, at the end of the day.

Just remember to do the 'right thing' too and tell BBB.

M

12/07/2004 10:38:35 PM · #39

I have sent a paypal to john setzler in the amount of $35

I have sent a paypal to Alan-G in the amount of $5

this has blown up to something bigger than it needs to be.

For the next 2 weeks (until 12/21/04 EST) you can remove your photos and request a clearout of your account.

After that, we have a payment min. And if you decide to leave to an exclusive stock agency, you have to forfeit the amount that was there.

I will lower the payout min. to $75 as well.
Jon

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 22:40:38.

moodville

Nikon D100

12/07/2004 10:42:57 PM · #40

Originally posted by shutterstock:

You may want to change that to "And if you decide to leave, you have to forfeit the amount that was there." otherwise there will be people leaving stating reasons other than exclusive stock agencies and quoting you from here. There are word vultures out there!

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/07/2004 10:44:43 PM · #41

You can leave for whatever reason you want! Not sure why you would want to do that tho.

Originally posted by moodville:

Originally posted by shutterstock:
I have sent a paypal to john setzler in the amount of $35

I have sent a paypal to Alan-G in the amount of $5

this has blown up to something bigger than it needs to be.

For the next 2 weeks (until 12/21/04 EST) you can remove your photos and request a clearout of your account.

After that, we have a payment min. And if you decide to leave to an exclusive stock agency, you have to forfeit the amount that was there.

I will lower the payout min. to $75 as well.
Jon

You may want to change that to "And if you decide to leave, you have to forfeit the amount that was there." otherwise there will be people leaving stating reasons other than exclusive stock agencies and quoting you from here. There are word vultures out there!

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

12/07/2004 10:46:01 PM · #42

Originally posted by shutterstock:

You can leave for whatever reason you want! Not sure why you would want to do that tho.

What she's saying is the way you worded it "and if you decide to leave BECAUSE..." leaves open "well I didn't decide to leave BECAUSE of that...so I want my money."

Just remove the "to an exclusive stock agency" and you're cool. :)

M

12/07/2004 10:46:57 PM · #43

Originally posted by mavrik:

Good showing by Jon and Shutterstock, at the end of the day.

Just remember to do the 'right thing' too and tell BBB.

M

Done. There was no form to retract a complaint so I sent them a message through their system with the complaint number stating that the problem had been taken care of.

12/07/2004 10:51:41 PM · #44

Originally posted by shutterstock:

You can leave for whatever reason you want! Not sure why you would want to do that tho.

Thank you for taking care of this issue.

Now that it is said and done, I have a question that you may feel free to answer or not...

WHY would you have a policy of this nature that would keep a photographer from receiving his/her royalties under ANY circumstances?

For what it's worth, if I was doing this business, I would have a policy that states you may draw your earnings once every 6 months or once per year, even if you do not have $100 in profits. If the reasoning behind it is to reduce the number of small transactions that occur, this would eliminate most of that.

In my mind, there is no real reason that you should ever withhold the photographer's royalties without giving them some option to collect it. You have already profited much more on each image sale than the photographer has.

It's something to consider...

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 22:52:27.

12/07/2004 10:56:06 PM · #45

It's just part of the cost of running this business. if you don't hang out to do $100 in sales (we just lowered this to $75), this it isn't worth it for us to provide customer support, bandwidth, storage space, approval services, and marketing power. We spend lots of money to market your images - if you just come and go, it isn't worth it for us.

The real question here is why are agencies pulling you into exclusive deals? That's what initially caused this problem. I see exclusive deals as the real problem here.

ShutterStock is NOT exclusive.. so why would you need to remove your photos? if another agency tries to pull you off our site.

It should be known that the reason why iStockPhoto is starting exclusives is because we have come in as a large compeditor. Competition is good for you, and for our customers. By locking photogs into exclusive deals, they are ruining it for everybody. iStockPhoto is feeling the pressure here, and they decided to do this to start to pull photogs off my site. Maybe they even saw this small problem with the TOS - and decided to exploit it. Either way - I'm happy that I have invented a brand new model for subscription stock photography and that lots of people are making more money on my site than any of the others. I'm also happy that other sites are feeling pressure - it means my model works.

over and out,
Jon

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by shutterstock:
You can leave for whatever reason you want! Not sure why you would want to do that tho.

Thank you for taking care of this issue.

Now that it is said and done, I have a question that you may feel free to answer or not...

WHY would you have a policy of this nature that would keep a photographer from receiving his/her royalties under ANY circumstances?

For what it's worth, if I was doing this business, I would have a policy that states you may draw your earnings once every 6 months or once per year, even if you do not have $100 in profits. If the reasoning behind it is to reduce the number of small transactions that occur, this would eliminate most of that.

In my mind, there is no real reason that you should ever withhold the photographer's royalties without giving them some option to collect it. You have already profited much more on each image sale than the photographer has.

It's something to consider...

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 23:05:27.

umbris

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

12/07/2004 11:03:03 PM · #46

Originally posted by shutterstock:

Thanks Jon, for making this right.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/07/2004 11:04:43 PM · #47

Originally posted by shutterstock:

The real question here is why are agencies pulling you into exclusive deals? That's what initially caused this problem. I see exclusive deals as the real problem here.

Not sure, but if you decide to offer it (for say an extra $.10), let me know...I'll be the first to yank my photos from iStock and email the BBB to inform them that iStock is withholding my money. :-)

12/07/2004 11:06:30 PM · #48

Originally posted by shutterstock:

I can understand that reasoning.

I don't think you will have to worry about this particular issue with any frequency though. iStock is not requiring exclusive contracts. You just get paid more if you do.

I don't shoot 'stock' and don't aspire to make a lot of money selling it. I just submit images that come from my daily shooting routines if I think they would fit in the stock arena. Other photographers who do shoot for stock purposes will definitely NOT be interested in what I'm doing or why.

12/07/2004 11:06:59 PM · #49

Originally posted by deapee:

Tons of photographers (we have over 2000 now) are making more money at ShutterStock than they did at all 3 others combined.

And I will say it again:

It should be known that the reason why iStockPhoto is starting exclusives is because we have come in as a large compeditor. Competition is good for you, and for our customers. By locking photogs into exclusive deals, they are ruining it for everybody. iStockPhoto is feeling the pressure here, and they decided to do this to start to pull photogs off my site. Maybe they even saw this small problem with the TOS - and decided to exploit it. Either way - I'm happy that I have invented a brand new model for subscription stock photography, fixed the TOS problem, and that lots of people are making more money on my site than any of the others. I'm also happy that other sites are feeling pressure - it means my model works.

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 23:15:54.