Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Firn said:

And all it takes for Shutterstock is to file a lawsuit for breach of NDA

Oh please, be serious.

I haven't signed or even seen their NDA but we are neither SS's employees nor business partners. Freelancers (in their right mind) are not happy to sign any NDA, especially when they can't read it in advance. If I understood correctly, that is what happened here, first you click the button to sign, then they show you what you've signed for.

Anyway, now that the secret is out, everyone is off the hook.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

Well, I contributed less than 4 percent of my images to the free sites, images that had been heavily edited and downsized and that would never have been approved on a site like SS. And I did it because I saw this wave of freebie giveaways coming. Most months I made more money through donations on the free sites than I did on the lower tier agencies. I have also made more money through Instapay on wirestock than I have on most agencies.

And what does this have anything to do with what I'm saying here? I'm not criticizing the agencies for doing this. Hell, I opted in without batting an eyelid to the competitor's offer for giving images away. And if SS's offer were good, I would opt in there too. I'm merely questioning the logic behind having people sign NDA's.

Actually no, you very subtly elevated one agency over another by replying to Firn''s valid question about picking sides using terms like "theoretical hypocrisy" and  "but they were open enough to tell everyone"...in an attempt to downplay ones role over the other by criticizing something as unrelated to the big picture as strategy. Given your admitted support for all of this then what exactly was the point of that?

I've said it before, and rationalize it all you want but no matter what happens from here on in it's contributors like you who are to blame regardless of which direction or strategy the individual agencies employ in achieving the objective. That was my point way back when we all saw this coming but chose different paths. We are in agreement though in that at this point I'm not criticizing the agencies either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Actually no, you very subtly elevated one agency over another by replying to Firn''s valid question about picking sides using terms like "theoretical hypocrisy" and  "but they were open enough to tell everyone"...in an attempt to downplay ones role over the other by criticizing something as unrelated to the big picture as strategy. Given your admitted support for all of this then what exactly was the point of that?

Yes, it was a really subtle elevation but if you don't see the difference between how the two agencies did things, I don't think I can explain myself any further and would rather just bow myself out of this topic as a fellow "hypocrite" contributor.

And, oh please, do spare me the sanctimonious judgement. We are independent creators/contributors/whatever and do what we think is right for us individually. I don't judge you for the decisions you take with your work and respect the fact the you're a good photographer and a longtime contributor but repeatedly sniping at "contributors like me" for everything that's wrong with your industry is, well, disappointing to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, balajisrinivasan said:

Yes, it was a really subtle elevation but if you don't see the difference between how the two agencies did things, I don't think I can explain myself any further and would rather just bow myself out of this topic as a fellow "hypocrite" contributor.

And, oh please, do spare me the sanctimonious judgement. We are independent creators/contributors/whatever and do what we think is right for us individually. I don't judge you for the decisions you take with your work and respect the fact the you're a good photographer and a longtime contributor but sniping at "contributors like me" for everything that's wrong with your industry is, well, disappointing.

That's fair, and I deserve it. I completely understand why you are doing what you do, but just as I don't see the fundamental difference between what the agencies are doing I am equally perplexed as to why you cant see the long term harm to yourself with your complicity. Anyway, we have had this chat before.

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

 equally perplexed as to why you cant see the long term harm to yourself with your complicity.

That's easy to explain. I just don't see a long term future in selling stock images. So I'm squeezing every penny I can while there's still pennies to be made. The free sites serve a dual purpose, they pay through donations and they help me drive volume traffic to other things I do online, like my blog, my company, my youtube channel etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

That's easy to explain. I just don't see a long term future in selling stock images. So I'm squeezing every penny I can while there's still pennies to be made. The free sites serve a dual purpose, they pay through donations and they help me drive volume traffic to other things I do online, like my blog, my company, my youtube channel etc.

Cool, sounds like you're very busy...me I just like to take pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Foodio said:

I find myself asking the same question. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you nominate a few of your images that weren't selling well elsewhere?

 

Yes, and do you see me bashing SS for their deal at the same time?

3 hours ago, Whiteaster said:

Oh please, be serious.

I haven't signed or even seen their NDA but we are neither SS's employees nor business partners. Freelancers (in their right mind) are not happy to sign any NDA, especially when they can't read it in advance. If I understood correctly, that is what happened here, first you click the button to sign, then they show you what you've signed for.

Anyway, now that the secret is out, everyone is off the hook.


Of course you get to read a NDA before signing it.

If you are not happy to sign a NDA as a freelancer, then don't sign it.

And no, why would everyone be of the hook?  A NDA does not contain a clause saying "If someone else spilled the beans, you are no longer bound by this agreement".

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Firn said:

Of course you get to read the NDA before signing it and can decide not to sign it if you don't like the content of the NDA. Why would anyone even think that you have to sign a legal paper before getting to see what you sign? Or why that would even be legal?

There is something I don't understand, you said in the other thread:

On 7/2/2021 at 8:53 AM, Firn said:

Just sign the NDA and you will be told what this is about.

Which one is it now?

1 hour ago, Firn said:

And no, why would everyone be of the hook?  I can tell you this much: A NDA does not contain a clause saying "If someone else spilled the beans, you are no longer bound by this agreement".

You seem to know a lot about this stuff, I just know what I've learned on the web. You can search for the answer yourself.

Anyway, a less harsh language would be nice. We are not in the army!

Now, I will follow @balajisrinivasan's example and bow myself out of this topic as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Firn said:

Yes, but I am not agreeing to one deal on one agency and bashing another agency for a similar one at the same time, which is what some people are doing.
My  complain about Adobe was that they selected a lot of my bestsellers and I was not willing to compromise their sales by offering them for free somewhere. So I did not nominate them, simply as that. Some people are measuring some agencies with double standards. Adobe does something and it's great, SS does something remote similar and it's shit? (And why do people even seem to assume that SS is  paying contributors for images to give them away for free like Adobe? No one said anything about that.)

I understand that part Firn, it's the other bit about agreeing to the deal in the first place knowing full well how it will/is/has affected the industry that I can't get my head around.

I guess my first mistake was in thinking that this forum was a microstock forum - where more or less likeminded people had an interest in the business of microstock and its long term success. Not one where they argue and defend their circular reasoning for facilitating its destruction. 

Anyway, other than the fact that it is actually my business it's really none of my business so I promise not to get involved anymore. Good luck y'all. I'm off to start a YouTube channel, or a blog, or a company, etc....or anything else I think I can make stick. FFS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Foodio said:

I guess my first mistake was in thinking that this forum was a microstock forum - where more or less likeminded people had an interest in the business of microstock and its long term success. Not one where they argue and defend their circular reasoning for facilitating its destruction. 

Anyway, other than the fact that it is actually my business it's really none of my business so I promise not to get involved anymore. Good luck y'all. I'm off to start a YouTube channel, or a blog, or a company, etc....or anything else I think I can make stick. FFS.

Well, since people like myself who have their fingers in many pies the reason you're so angry, I apologize. Keep the snipes coming. I hope it's doing some good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Whiteaster said:

"Of course you get to read the NDA before signing it"
There is something I don't understand, you said in the other thread:
"Just sign the NDA and you will be told what this is about. "

Which one is it now?

 

If you sign the NDA - which you get to see before signing -  you get told what the "new opportunity" is. You can then, after signing the NDA,  agree to the new opportunity or not.

At this point I am not even sure whether you are trolling?
A NDA - Non Disclosure Agreement  - is a legal document that, summed up very shortly,  basically says "I agree to not talk about what I am being told after this". It's not telling you what it is that you will not be allowed to talk about, otherwise you would see it without having to agree to keeping silent about it first. So the thing you are not allowed to talk about is only shown to you after you sign the NDA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, when an agency absolutely wants nothing to leak out about what they are doing, my gut and my experience tells me: watch out!!!!

If it was something very harmless, like the possibility that shutterstock contributors now have a new opportunity to sell more images and make more money, then the opposite would be true: they would publicize and advertise it everywhere to attract even more contributors.

But when you act like this, it sounds to me like you're trying to cover something up.

I find the procedure very strange!

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

 Also, I wonder why some contributors got this e-mail and others didn't - like me, for example.

Could it be to do with percentage of portfolio sold?

Assuming it's another kind of sale they are offering, similar to Adobe's offer, ie an amount of money for images that haven't sold very well .. for onward transmission wherever ..

then I seem to remember that a large percentage of your portolio is sold, at the very least a few (hundred 🙂) times.

All supposition of course 😈

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Firn said:

And all it takes for Shutterstock is to file a lawsuit for breach of NDA, get the contributor's IP address on that other forum in that process and find out who he is to have him face consequences.

Good luck trying to get that IP address from most of the forums host countries.

And even more good luck trying to prosecute anyone from any of the usual suspect countries.  Let's face it, SS cant even stop vast quantities of stolen material on their own servers yet alone go after people where laws are impossible to enforce.

The NDA is laughable though.  I haven't signed it so haven't been "told" what the "opportunity" is but from 2 mins reading the internet im fairly sure i know what it is.

 

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

Good luck trying to get that IP address from most of the forums host countries.

And even more good luck trying to prosecute anyone from any of the usual suspect countries.  Let's face it, SS cant even stop vast quantities of stolen material on their own servers yet alone go after people where laws are impossible to enforce.

The NDA is laughable though.  I haven't signed it so haven't been "told" what the "opportunity" is but from 2 mins reading the internet im fairly sure i know what it is.

 

Why are we even talking about this?
Someone signed a NDA, why are people here encouraging or defending someone breaking a legal binding agreement?
It's never right, no matter with what company, in what context. No wonder the internet is full of our stolen images, with what little morality and absolutely no regard for law some people have.Saying "the person who broke the NDA won't face consequences" and somehow justifying (?!) this behavior with the lack of consequences equals to "the person stealing image on the internet won't face consequences ". Because that's exactly why thiefs keep doing this - no consequences. Is it therefore right to do it?
I am disgusted by some of the things I read here. Indeed, what a horrible place this forum has become. I am out of here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called realism.

Shutterstock doesn't really care about stolen images and portfolios -a sale is a sale.  It won't start caring until its taken to court and loses.

Most people doing the stealing are in countries that have little or no IP protection and are effectively impossible to prosecute in.  That's why they do it.

Morals and ethics have nothing to do with it - that's the reality of the situation.
 

As for NDAs, we have no idea if someone DID break an agreement.  Its not as if there aren't other ways for information to leak out.  NDAs rarely work even in countries with proper functioning legal systems, they have no chance outside there.

You seem very reluctant to engage with reality and want to live in a sheltered ideological bubble.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2021 at 8:35 AM, Reimar said:

I got an NDA email ostensibly from Shutterstock about "a new content licensing opportunity".  Is this legit?

I want to sell my images and get money. That's it. I don't want to keep somebodies secrets, it's not my business and I don't play spy games.

I would simply ask these organizers, who sent me a letter to sign: What do you want from me, leave me alone and don't bother me anymore. But the problem is that whoever signs such a piece of paper will expose himself to a huge risk of being punished for something that he does not fully gaze over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine came from a contracts email @shutterstock.com and a separate one through docusign.  Genuine enough - its the principle about strict NDAs with absolutely no detail as to what it could involve i find sinister.

Normally with NDAs you at least get a subject outline before signing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Studio 2 said:

They rejected my latest 15 (below) so for the first time I have written to them.  I wondered if they thought these weren't acceptable because they are sculptures where in fact they are from 19th century gravestones in a public place.  I've seen similar types of images in their collection but perhaps these just aren't good enough/suitable.

Anyway, they seem to have stopped the 'weekly challenge' which was a good way of knowing what they are lacking in their collection, so I asked if they could share this information with us in some other way. 

(Apologies to anyone not interested in this.  Arcangel don't have a forum).

 

Screenshot_20210714-150024_Firefox.jpg

Going to publish an interview soon with Michael Mascaro, Arcangel Director, who will hopefully shed some light on their review process. It's often as mysterious as the covers themselves!

I had, what I thought, was a nice batch rejected by them - see below. My thoughts are that they just simply lack copy space...am shooting with the 105mm so need to get further away from the subject.

As for your statues, I believe it's perhaps a more saturated market (who am I to advise since I'm shooting window facades nonstop lol):

https://www.arcangel.com/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2U1HZOW4FZ60G&SMLS=1&RW=1920&RH=942

Another advice that I've received is to go easy on the filters. I see some appear to be slightly over-processed. 

Good luck!

antiques.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Changing my strategy a bit with Arcangel...picked up some props at a local flea-market and experimenting with my 105mm macro lens...

Latest two accepted (still many rejected). Anybody else having some success with images accepted at Arcangel?

AA.jpg

Alex, it's understandable that you inadvertently hijacked my thread about a SS "opportunity".  I should have titled mine differently.

Your thread about Arcangel is called

New Opportunities Thread

You might want to keep to that one so all the feedback is in one place.

Cheers.


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
×
×
  • Create New...