Jump to content

Rudy Umans

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rudy Umans

  1. 33 minutes ago, geogif said:

    Because of the number .... I did not think about this. But all were Editorials, suitable for calendars?

    Don't remember reading they were editorials, but if so, the answer would be I don't think so.

    I just looked at Photoschmidt's portfolio and figured his work is so beautiful, who wouldn't want that on a postcard or calendar? Hence my thought of those kind of companies

  2. In the US, work based on existing work is called derivative work and the creator of this derivative work does not have copyright protection on the existing elements in the work, only on the new elements. So, in order to have full copyright on the works in question, they need to be different enough of the existing work for it to be called a "new work" and from what I saw and according to your own admission, they are not.

    In other words, you do not have full copyright on those submissions and owning full copyright on submissions is one of the requirements of Shutterstock. The same for work that was based on works already in Public Domain.



    disclaimer: not legal advice

  3. 1 hour ago, aluxum said:

    It is not redundant, as clearly explained by the Shutterstock support that wrote in this post. A special license for sensitive use will override those restrictions. Now your models can be in tobacco ads or endorse political parties if client pays for a sensitive use license. Nothing you can do about it now apart from removing your images.

    That's not how I read that post and there is nothing in the license agreement about that that I can find. There are no special circumstances in the ToS. Can you point it out to me?

    It sounds like that what Kate wrote contradicts item 1.2 and I rather go by what the agreement says in writing than by somebody's interpretation.  Even if it's a staff member.

    The only other option is that SS withholds information from us and if that's the case, that would be terrible indeed.

  4. Frankly, it escapes me what exactly the problem is, clause 1.2 concerning these restrictions is very broad and very inclusive in my opinion

    If I remember correctly, before the sensitive opt out option there was no clause pertaining to sensitive use of any kind. There was always a chance that a model could and would be used in a less desirable manner.  I remember many discussions on these forums about that

    Then a number of years later, SS came up with this Sensitive use opt out option that gave certain restrictions to the end-use of the image. These restrictions were in a separate clause and only applicable if a contributor opted out of the sensitive use.

    Today these restrictions (and then some) are no longer optional, but standard in the license agreement regardless, which seems to make the sensitive opt out option redundant.

    (Kate's post earlier might not have been the clearest post she ever wrote.  Sorry Kate.)





    1. Use Visual Content other than as expressly provided by the license you purchased with respect to such Visual Content.

    2. Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, "adult videos", adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) in a political context, such as the promotion, advertisement or endorsement of any party, candidate, or elected official, or in connection with any political policy or viewpoint; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities.

    3. Use any Visual Content in a pornographic, defamatory, or deceptive context, or in a manner that could be considered libelous, obscene, or illegal.


  5. 4 hours ago, iris wright said:

    Apparently, so.  Any of your models can now be on billboards for strip clubs or escort services, no matter what they originally agreed too.  How can you change a legal contract after the fact?

    A- no they cannot be on billboards for strip clubs etc.  Clause 1.2 is very clear

    B- They can change a legal contract after the fact because you (we) gave them permission to unilaterally make changes when you signed up.


  6. 5 hours ago, siridhata said:

    The post I replied to said they didn't know who will take over. So I replied with a screenshot of the part that mentions who will take over. Wow... Amazing how a simple intention of trying to help a fellow out would actually cause more fuss in this thread. 😂

    This is what the "fuss" is about.

    Somebody asked a question that you answered in a not very nice and condescending way (accidentally or not and if you don't know why it wasn't nice, i would recommend a little bit of Google research)) . If I was the one who asked that question and I got an answer like you gave, I would not feel very good about myself. I called you out on it and instead of apologizing to the person you answered and change your post (since it wasn't intentionally), you got angry and offensive with presumptions about my lifestyle that make no sense whatsoever. Like it is my problem and not yours. The old adage that offense is the best defense is still true I guess.

    If you would have said it was not intentionally and changed you post, I would have said, no problem and I would have deleted my post and life goes on, but that's not what happened

    In the mean time, your post is still the same while you had plenty of opportunities to change it by now, but you didn't.........

  7. 53 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

    Not really.  What is film?  A series of still images projected on a screen and moving through time at 18, 24, 30, or 60 frames per second.  Nothing about video changes the fundamentals of good photography: subject, light, exposure, focus, and composition are all as necessary to achieve good images in video as they are in photography.  What difference then, does it make, if I shoot a scene at 1 frame every few minutes, or 30 frames per second?  

    @Milleflore Images has made a living out of shooting her tabletop scenes with a 4K video camera and pulling stills from the resulting clips.  I see it as killing two birds with one stone.  :)


    The decisive moment from the comfort of your livingroom........ It's probably me. I was never into machinegun style photographer either.

    No wonder so many go back to analog 

  8. 2 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

    One thing I did actually pay attentiont to is the date of the document - its age.  It has been there displayed to the public for over a year.  I am not sure how much misery is related to something left on display for a year.  I also cannot see the difference between this and police wanted notices that are also on SS - this is a name on a "where to collect your stuff notice" while those are names, photos, and descriptions as well as what the person is supposed to have done. 

    I would also be interested to see the legal challenge of a difference between "public to any person in a town" and "public to any person looking online" - where do you draw the line legally?  How do you decide the maximum number of people who could possibly see it in its displayed place and contrast that with the number who could see it at a stock agency?  A legal definition of "only a bit public but not totally public"  or "only public to this number"

    Oh and I am UK - obviously the law on this will be different country to country.  I am as satisfied as I can be that under UK law I have done nothing wrong.

    So you are an expert in privacy and global internet laws. Good to know.  Couldn't tell from reading you first post.

  9. 18 minutes ago, Kirk Fisher said:

    Editorial or not, I wouldn't have done that. Wouldn't be worth the .33 cents to: A. possibly make this person's life more miserable and B. risk a lawsuit or whatever.

    Couldn't agree more.!!!!!  Guess the local posting wasn't embarrassing enough for the person(s), so let's make it global.

    Should never have been submitted like this and should have never been accepted.


  10. To put things into perspective: (true stories)

    I was approached by a company who does those screensavers for TV etc. Their deal was not to pay contributors per sale, but by the number of likes a picture would get on their site! (think about that for a second)

    on the other hand, I was also approached by a company who wanted to license/rent some of my pictures for some short term projects to hang in an event venture. Don't want to reveal the details and what  they offered, but it made me happy and they absorb all the cost of printing etc.! This is recent and still in the works

    The moral of these stories is, as long as you don't let them screw you and branch out, you'll be fine.

  11. 34 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

    I do not see how these legal notices can be defamatory - one states the property has been entered and secured by the legal owner in line with the legal terms of the tenancy the other tells the person the property that was inside has been secured and must be collected by a certain date.  Certainly the one without a name just a "To whom it may concern" cannot be defamatory. 

    I may see if I can recrop to remove the one with the name. 

    just pointing out that you can't compare it with a movie poster.


  12. 2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

    See this is where it all gets confusing - the notice is very definitely intended for public consumption - it is deliberately posted to be read by the public.  The whole "name is personal and/or sensitive information" is also completely and utterly illogical.  Do a search for "famous person" and you have nearly 2 million images including photos with names in the caption, and illustrations/vectors with the names in the image.  Things like movie posters which have names on and which are intended for public consumption are allowed.

    This is probably going to be one of those things where interpretation is everything lol.


    The thing is, what is public record in one country is not necessarily public record in another and SS takes the worst case scenario.


    A movie poster is advertising. Different ball game. A legal notice could be defamatory, which would be like the opposite. Besides, those movie stars sign contracts in which they allow those things and very often it is in their own best interest, especially in they get paid royalties.

  13. 4 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

    One thing is to crop and add some contrast to an editorial. Blurring would likely be a significant alteration and they should reject it accordingly.

    This concept seems like a non-starter. Too risky to be used by publishers as it shows personal information. Best to make something generic, such as a boarded up business with a clear sign that it’s been re-possessed.


    3 hours ago, Linda Bestwick said:

    I politely disagree with blurring a name being an alteration or removing/hiding an object. It is not the same thing. It is not really altering or hiding an object because it is still very obvious it is a name. It is  illegible, not invisible.  It is protecting somebody's privacy as in "sensitive information"  Here in the US, I see blurred out license plates on the evening news all the time.  Linda's 2 quotes seem contradictory, they are not, but regardless, it is the only way I would submit it.



  14. You cannot alter editorial images, but editorial or not, I would most definitely blurr any names and personal information. That way you still protect the privacy of the peope/businesses involved (and yourself) while the integrity of the editorial image remains in tact. You really don't alter anything. (Alterng is in my opinion the more correct term and different than editing. Editorial images are edited all the time, but not altered).

    If Shutterstock still doesn't like that, forget it.

  • Create New...