Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rob Hainer

CNN uses my pic and I get 23 cents :(

Recommended Posts

It seems that Shutterstock changed the license terms - I thought that TV use required an enhanced license, but just looked it up, and evidently this is not the case. Standard license now covers unlimited web use (including online publications) and unlimited TV viewership. No wonder ELs have become so rare - as publications move from physical print copies into an online format, they no longer need anything bigger than the standard license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Milo J said:

Standard license now covers unlimited web use (including online publications) and unlimited TV viewership. No wonder ELs have become so rare - as publications move from physical print copies into an online format, they no longer need anything bigger than the standard license.

A further reason to distance myself from SS as a contributor. After I reach my next payout, I'll doubt I'll be a contributor here anymore. 

Oh and Rob, nice image by the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cristian Storto said:

Couple of years ago, BBC used one of my images from Istock. I get 0.10 for that. You get double :D

At least you got paid for it! The BBC once contacted me through youtube about using one of my videos on there for some kind of childrens TV program. Though they wanted to use my video for free. And to add insult to injury, they also wanted me to hand over my rights to the footage. That deal did not go through. 

Actually, Ive heard the BBC do that a fair bit on youtube. They send out scouts to contact various youtubers with regards to footage that they're interested in and ask them if they could use the videos for free. Certainly saves them a lot of cash from paying for stock footage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patrick Cooper said:

Certainly saves them a lot of cash from paying for stock footage. 

And using stock footage saves them A LOT of cash from the old way of getting their stock footage, and/or searching through their own huge database of footage. 

Seeing as it is the BBC, I presume they are under the same reduced budgets year after year like the ABC in Australia... but salaries go up for the top people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Steven Tritton said:

Media companies can be the biggest users of freelancers, often compensating with 'exposure' and pay nothing. But I hadn't heard of anything like Patrick mentioned which sounds even worse. Parasites. 

Pure exploitation. I just hope enough people stand up to these practises and say "No." Though sadly, I bet many folks are lured in and give up their content (and their rights too.)

Reminds of that guy who recorded footage of two male kangaroos fighting in the street in an Australian suburb. Some media company acquired the rights from him and the footage became quite well known. I did see it on TV once (as well as youtube.) And of course the guy who recorded it can never receive a cent from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patrick Cooper said:

Pure exploitation. I just hope enough people stand up to these practises and say "No." Though sadly, I bet many folks are lured in and give up their content (and their rights too.)

Reminds of that guy who recorded footage of two male kangaroos fighting in the street in an Australian suburb. Some media company acquired the rights from him and the footage became quite well known. I did see it on TV once (as well as youtube.) And of course the guy who recorded it can never receive a cent from it. 

I remember that footage very well. The media companies take advantage of those who don't know any better. Off topic - I use to do a bit of freelance writing and I guess one reason I've been able to remain a bit more motivated with microstock despite the mediocre commissions is because i spent well over two or three years trying to get traction with freelance writing and it was a complete rort, earning some $250 over that time. I've always been skeptical but thought I will put that aside and give this a good go, as the so called practitioners of this industry teach wannabe writers with their freelance writing courses. You were jumping through major hoops and more often than not being ignored even as you offered to write for free for these media outfits while trying to build your 'social proof'. Just goes to show that if there are thousands willing to give their work away for nothing then these companies will only happily oblige and take advantage of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember once, my photo was used on the Bill Mahr show. I called them and they paid. the EL license next day. I've had a photo used on Good Morning America. They paid me an EL. How can these companies not afford at least that much while they're raking in tens of millions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob Hainer said:

I remember once, my photo was used on the Bill Mahr show. I called them and they paid. the EL license next day. I've had a photo used on Good Morning America. They paid me an EL. How can these companies not afford at least that much while they're raking in tens of millions? 

It’s not the big companies who can’t afford it, but what micro stock companies are making available with their licence terms and prices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, I'd be utterly interested if and if so how much revenue the guy received who'd photographed that huge Fisherman's Wharf fire in San Francisco the other day. I'd read through his Twitter timeline and he was hit up by all kinds of news corporations asking for permission to use his images and they were all over the place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Milo J said:

It seems that Shutterstock changed the license terms - I thought that TV use required an enhanced license, but just looked it up, and evidently this is not the case. Standard license now covers unlimited web use (including online publications) and unlimited TV viewership. No wonder ELs have become so rare - as publications move from physical print copies into an online format, they no longer need anything bigger than the standard license.

was this used on TV, or just on their website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jean-francois me said:

was this used on TV, or just on their website?

It actually doesn't even matter. Unlimited viewership for TV is included in standard license now, the only limiting factor is the production budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2020 at 8:44 PM, Milo J said:

It seems that Shutterstock changed the license terms - I thought that TV use required an enhanced license, but just looked it up, and evidently this is not the case. Standard license now covers unlimited web use (including online publications) and unlimited TV viewership. No wonder ELs have become so rare - as publications move from physical print copies into an online format, they no longer need anything bigger than the standard license.

Well if that makes you unhappy, don't read the terms on the other sites, like the ones that allow for prints. 😟

The high-resolution Media that you download under the regular Royalty Free (RF) license may be used to make fine art prints, to illustrate and visually enhance website pages and headers, magazine pages and articles, newspapers, books, ebooks and booklets, book/ebook covers, flyers, blog articles, newsletters, documentaries and motion pictures, application software (apps), social media posts, audio and video productions such as commercials, tv shows, radio shows, live performances, podcasts and any other advertising and promotional material, in either printed or electronic media, as long as the item in which the Media appears does not contradict any of the restrictions below.

  

On 7/6/2020 at 6:04 PM, Milo J said:

It actually doesn't even matter. Unlimited viewership for TV is included in standard license now, the only limiting factor is the production budget.


Yes it seems that way, everywhere.

 

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...