Elliott Cowand Jr

In the future, Shutterstock and other agencies will likely charge you a subscription just to store your photos. Recently saw a link on the Shutterstock Contributors Facebook group page for the stock agency (Photojobz.com.) They want photographers to pay $324/annually to host their pictures for possible purchase! No mention of a percentage breakdown - seemed like a scam. But if they get away with it, others will follow.

Whiteaster: I'd also be interested in receiving your step by step tutorial. Thank you.

Defending your rights against those that don't know the law eats up calories and kills enthusiasm. Best to just nod, walk away and reshoot after they've gone.

https://fstoppers.com/legal/photographer-beats-buzzfeed-after-it-removes-his-photo-credit-landmark-legal-508340

Thanks. Interesting link, but it indicates that Shutterstock should still acknowledge the sale and pay the contributor .10 cents. My photo was used in June & July and finally paid in August. I'm wondering if I would have ever been paid had I not mentioned it.

Shutterstock eventually paid me for one sale of the photo, but I thought it was because I made a stink. What is still concerning is that the website said they got it "on a comp basis."

Performing a routine image search on Google, I found one of my photos used twice by a website. Shutterstock never acknowledged a sale or paid me. The website responded to my question saying "the photo was originally downloaded on a "comp" basis. Does Shutterstock just give away photos for free now?

Does a buyer have the right to use my photo multiple times? The image was bought once and that buyer included it in a web article. The article has been reposted to 83 different unique local radio station websites. Is this allowed? I'd be grateful to see the Shutterstock terms about it. Thanks.

Steven, What's your profit sharing arrangement with models. Do you use blackbox for stock sale profit distribution?

Thanks for the link. (Found another paragraph that may let them off the hook.) "right to distribute... across unlimited mediums and distribution channels." Contracts seem to be written in a way that the lawyers can charge clients for hours interpreting their meaning.

oleschwander, Can you provide the link for this contract info? Thanks.

I don't think the individual radio stations are at fault. Think the problem is with the buyer, but I'm interested to learn what is written in the shutterstock agreement. (my original post has been edited for clarity)

My photo sold once for 25 cents and was placed on over 83 seperate independent websites.

I feel royalty free should only allow for the use in one location. It shouldn't allow the photo to be reposted to other independent websites.

Shutterstock sold one of my photos once. This image was included in a news story which has been reposted to over 83 unique and different radio station websites. Is this allowed under the terms of the purchase agreement, or has the buyer violated the contract? (edited for clarity)