Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fixazh

If the Internet resource has not fulfilled its obligations...

Recommended Posts

In Russia, it is quite easy to block a fraudulent site that is financially deceiving its participants. And don't care about the laws of California.  How does this happen in other countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. If any Internet site (looting.com is registered in the U.S., California, for example) violates financial or other obligations to a Russian citizen, a Russian citizen may apply to court with a request to block the fraudulent site. He does not need to know U.S. law. If there is fraud on the Internet, citizens should be protected from fraud.

My question: Are there similar laws in other countries?

___________________________________________

MJD Graphics, I expect a reasonable answer from you about politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it's pretty much the same for most other countries, but assuming with the "voilating financial or other obligations" part you are referring to the recent changes at SS, I don't understand what you are getting at. They can make changes to the TOS (the royalty structure is part of this) and we are free to leave if we don't like it.

It were different if they had removed the option to disable our portfolio or close our account. But as long as they are paying us royalties for downloads and give us the option to disable ports/close accounts, I don't see how they are violating financial or other obligations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gtranquillity said:

I suppose it's pretty much the same for most other countries, but assuming with the "voilating financial or other obligations" part you are referring to the recent changes at SS, I don't understand what you are getting at. They can make changes to the TOS (the royalty structure is part of this) and we are free to leave if we don't like it.

It were different if they had removed the option to disable our portfolio or close our account. But as long as they are paying us royalties for downloads and give us the option to disable ports/close accounts, I don't see how they are violating financial or other obligations.

I think what he is trying to say is 1 of 2 things. 

1. Shutterstock are breaching their duty to pay us a fair amount for the level of work put in. Like 'minimum wage laws' for example. Something along those lines. Or ...

2. Shutterstock have committed to this new payment schedule. But in law they must make the terms of their payments to us clear. Any payment chart you have seen has been produced by other contributers. All Shutterstock have produced is a percentage based earnings scheme. I would imagine there is a law that they must abide by that states they must show how that percentage is arrived at. Which they certainly have not.

It has become abundantly clear that you cannot use their buyer plan terms to work it out because each country thus far has different pricing to each other. 

The option to "walk away if you dont like it" could be used as a defence if they had instantly paid everyone what was in their accumulated funds even if they hadn't yet reached payout. By not doing that it forced everyone to remain whether they liked it or not, to work to get their funds up to payout amounts. That's probably not permitted I'd imagine. I'd imagine some smart person would be able use that. 

Further more there doesn't appear a way to confirm we are getting paid the correct amount. The terms we signed up to didnt state we had to accept payment regardless of accuracy. I'd imagine that's probably a breach of some law or ethical/financial code of conduct. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Scorsby said:

I think what he is trying to say is 1 of 2 things. 

1. Shutterstock are breaching their duty to pay us a fair amount for the level of work put in. Like 'minimum wage laws' for example. Something along those lines. Or ...

2. Shutterstock have committed to this new payment schedule. But in law they must make the terms of their payments to us clear. Any payment chart you have seen has been produced by other contributers. All Shutterstock have produced is a percentage based earnings scheme. I would imagine there is a law that they must abide by that states they must show how that percentage is arrived at. Which they certainly have not.

It has become abundantly clear that you cannot use their buyer plan terms to work it out because each country thus far has different pricing to each other. 

The option to "walk away if you dont like it" could be used as a defence if they had instantly paid everyone what was in their accumulated funds even if they hadn't yet reached payout. By not doing that it forced everyone to remain whether they liked it or not, to work to get their funds up to payout amounts. That's probably not permitted I'd imagine. I'd imagine some smart person would be able use that. 

Further more there doesn't appear a way to confirm we are getting paid the correct amount. The terms we signed up to didnt state we had to accept payment regardless of accuracy. I'd imagine that's probably a breach of some law or ethical/financial code of conduct. 

 

I remember someone in another topic called you "the master of words" which was just what I though before reading it :)
Very well put and yes, I definitely agree to all the above!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Scorsby said:

I would imagine there is a law that they must abide by that states they must show how that percentage is arrived at

Not in the US 

Since they are a public company, they have the obligation to make their P&L and Balance Sheet available to their shareholders, but that's about it.

Having said that, they do have the obligation though to make it clear what the percentage is based on, I.E: % of the gross sale, % of the gross profit, % of the net profit etc. 

They did that.

Quote

We are moving to a percentage based earnings model for all licensing plans. The amount contributors earn from each download is a percentage of the price paid by the customer for that license. 

This means your commission will always be a percent of what the customer paid for their license. The flat rate commissions (like 25¢) are going away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Scorsby said:

Judging by a few off the cuff comments here and there @Rudy Umans if SS dont become a bit more forthcoming with information I think they are going to get a nasty surprise shortly 😟

Possibly, but that's another story and has little to do with their legal obligations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scorsby said:

I think what he is trying to say is 1 of 2 things. 

1. Shutterstock are breaching their duty to pay us a fair amount for the level of work put in. Like 'minimum wage laws' for example. Something along those lines. Or ...

2. Shutterstock have committed to this new payment schedule. But in law they must make the terms of their payments to us clear. Any payment chart you have seen has been produced by other contributers. All Shutterstock have produced is a percentage based earnings scheme. I would imagine there is a law that they must abide by that states they must show how that percentage is arrived at. Which they certainly have not.

It has become abundantly clear that you cannot use their buyer plan terms to work it out because each country thus far has different pricing to each other. 

The option to "walk away if you dont like it" could be used as a defence if they had instantly paid everyone what was in their accumulated funds even if they hadn't yet reached payout. By not doing that it forced everyone to remain whether they liked it or not, to work to get their funds up to payout amounts. That's probably not permitted I'd imagine. I'd imagine some smart person would be able use that. 

Further more there doesn't appear a way to confirm we are getting paid the correct amount. The terms we signed up to didnt state we had to accept payment regardless of accuracy. I'd imagine that's probably a breach of some law or ethical/financial code of conduct. 

 

I like point 2. But there's point 3 (I mentioned that). Lifetime Earnings is what the SS team enthusiastically cleans up from the company's history. They even took it out of point 8 TOC 7. (acting when I joined) In my country it's called document forgery.

sten.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gtranquillity said:

 I don't understand what you are getting at

There is some difference in the public field between boycott and ban. If you're boycotting, you can count on it.If your strategy is to ban, you can count on it.

A some phrases about PR, nothing more.👥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fixazh said:

There is some difference in the public field between boycott and ban. If you're boycotting, you can count on it.If your strategy is to ban, you can count on it.

A some phrases about PR, nothing more.👥

Thank you for clarifying, I see what you are saying now :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...