Jump to content

Sensitive use removal Models will get angry


Recommended Posts

@HodagMedia

This part here you quoted from Shutterstock license terms is now outdated.

"Images With Recognizable People:
There are additional restrictions if the image depicts a person who is recognizable:

    tobacco promotions

    ads for adult entertainment or similar clubs and escort or dating services

    political ads

    implying that a model is sick or took medication

    defamatory, unlawful, offensive or immoral content--for example implying that a model is a criminal or suffers from a physical or mental infirmity."

 

Those types of uses were ONLY allowed when a contributor had the "sensitive use" option turned on. That's what the "additional restrictions" meant. But now the option to turn it off has been taken away, so any model released shot is fair game for these applications. As @Kate Shutterstock said earlier in the thread:

Sensitive use is specifically limited to: 

 - promotion of tobacco products

 - implying mental or physical impairment (like for advertising legal medications)

 - or use in political contexts

And now we're all opted in for sensitive use. No more choice. So, unless you want to chance your friends and relatives being featured in an ad for foot fungus cream, head lice spray or STD treatments, better delete the image.

Vs. Adobe still prohibits such use, period. And iS and Alamy at least require that a disclaimer is visibly attached to the ad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The new contract will eliminate our capacity to decide that our images cannot be used in a sensitive use. For those that shoot models or family this is extremely important as I dont think any of you w

Yes, very disrespectful and will bring lots of problems down the road once clients start to use the image in those sensitive uses.  I still think that the model release clause that protects again

Agreed - I spent 12+ hours this weekend purging over 3500 of my images...one....shot...at....a...time. I will be sending an invoice for my time to Shutterstock. 

Posted Images

4 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

Just trying to understand has any other site, Microstock, ever offered Opt Out for Sensitive Use License. All of them have the same language, roughly, for any use, that says isn't allowed. You can try to divert the question into something that's not actually true about people reading terms or "stronger language", but that's not the question and the language is similar on all of the major sites.

Did any other site ever offer a Sensitive Use license, or opt out? Seems odd in the first place, kind of outside the restrictions but still allowed, if someone paid more?

For example:

iStock

"3 Restricted Uses.
    a No Unlawful Use. You may not use content in a pornographic, defamatory or other unlawful manner.
...
    b Sensitive Use Disclaimer Required. If you use content that features models or property in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person (for example, sexually transmitted diseases), you must indicate: (1) that the content is being used for illustrative purposes only, and (2) any person depicted in the content is a model. For example, you could say: "Stock photo. Posed by model." No disclaimer is required for "editorial use only" content that is used in an editorial manner."

Adobe: You must not

(d) use the Work in a pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful manner;

(e)use the Work in a way that depicts models and/or property in connection with a subject that a reasonable person could consider unflattering, immoral, or controversial, taking into account the nature of the Work, examples of which could include, without limitation, ads for tobacco; adult entertainment clubs or similar venues or services; endorsements of political parties or other opinion-based movements; or implying mental or physical impairment;

Alamy:

  • You may not use the Image(s)/Footage in a pornographic, defamatory, fraudulent, lewd, obscene or otherwise illegal manner, including but not limited to infringing any third party Intellectual Property or privacy rights, whether directly or in context or by juxtaposition with other materials.
  • If any Image(s)/Footage featuring a model is used in (i) a manner that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the model personally uses or endorses a product or service, or (ii) if the depiction of the model in the Image(s)/Footage would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, you must accompany each such use with a statement indicating that the person is a model and the Image(s)/Footage is being used for illustrative purposes only.

Shutterstock:

All Images:
Shutterstock images may not be used together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content. Using images may also not be used in a way that infringes upon any third party's trademark or intellectual property.

Images With Recognizable People:
There are additional restrictions if the image depicts a person who is recognizable:

    tobacco promotions

    ads for adult entertainment or similar clubs and escort or dating services

    political ads

    implying that a model is sick or took medication

    defamatory, unlawful, offensive or immoral content--for example implying that a model is a criminal or suffers from a physical or mental infirmity.

However, you may use images that do not depict a recognizable person.

 

 

Your post actually illustrates the differences. IStock allows liberal use - I don not upload most model based content there. Adobe has language that basically covers what you can no longer opt out of. The problem is that with two weeks'ish notice, SS changed the rules and made the change retroactive. That is, all shots submitted while I was opting out are now in. Had they said effective March 3, any future shots accepted will be opted in - ok - I can just choose AND more importantly I can check with the people I am shooting with. Just a D- move by SS.

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

Not that I've seen, maybe an action or script? Best way I found was delete, back up, find the next one, delete, back up. (back a page) If you go forward, everything re-loads and that takes much more time, than going back. I might be wrong, but best I could come up with when I was doing some revisions. One at a time.

Also since the system has changed, maybe there's a better way now. That was some years ago.

 

Thank you - that is what I was afraid of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GregDPhotos said:

Reading the relevant section of the license agreement itself might clarify some confusion (though my preference to be able to opt out stands): https://www.shutterstock.com/license

Obsolete as of the effective date of the opt out change. they have specifically allowed, through the information released, many of of the previously objectionable content to be used. And again, applied it retroactively. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aspen Photo said:

Obsolete as of the effective date of the opt out change. they have specifically allowed, through the information released, many of of the previously objectionable content to be used. And again, applied it retroactively. 

I should add that this is a license that shouldn't exist.

I was just comparing the restrictions which are essentially the same everywhere. After that and a different question, there should be no special licenses for Sensitive Use without the model or artist approving that. Bottom line, I do agree with you and others about that part. However the change doesn't change the other terms which are the same everywhere.

No other site needs an opt out, because they don't allow the use. 👍

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 10:23 AM, Evelyn de Waard said:

I am a bit confused...

So the restriction on Sensitive Use still applies to above three situations (- promotion of...) on all images, eventhough we are no longer able to tick the box ? And the only change in the list is the sentence below - this is now allowed ? 

  • ads for adult entertainment or similar clubs and escort or dating services

Am I mistaken ? 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Quote

 

RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF VISUAL CONTENT

YOU MAY NOT:

  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.

 

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

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.)

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

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.

I would think there is not a single license agreement. You are reading the regular license agreement. Large clients that need a sensitive use might get another one. But it is clear that sensitive use has been in use at shutterstock for a long time so those special licenses are broader than the regular one. The only difference is that you cannot opt out of those licenses now and tobacco, medicine for stds or a friends face supporting a ultra right wing party is not more off limits if you don't agree with such uses.....

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

The only difference is that you cannot opt out of those licenses now and tobacco, medicine for stds or a friends face supporting a ultra right wing party is not more off limits if you don't agree with such uses.....

What makes you think that your option was taken in account until now each and every time? Let's be serious, money talks.

I think it is just now that they realized not being covered enough for these cases and they took some supplementary action with these changes in the TOS.

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

What makes you think that your option was taken in account until now each and every time? Let's be serious, money talks.

I think it is just now that they realized not being covered enough for these cases and they took some supplementary action with these changes in the TOS.

It was taken into account because when somebody was interested in licensing one of my media for such use a Shutterstock staff worker contacted me if I would be interested to such use for that particular file (as I had my media deactivated for such uses) when there were no persons in that image I always agreed on such uses. With people no.

I would not care if we could decide which images we could include in such uses. No people images would be alright with me and models that I know would no care. But there are many people I have worked with that would be extremely upset if their image would be used in such a campaign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a port of 5000 images not online as I had to deactivate for sale  when I went photo exclusive at another known agency, but this may well change in the future months as sales are crashing in that agency so I might activate again those images and upload 15000 more images, a great proportion of those being model released shots. So my big interest in this subject. One of the few advantages nowadays of exclusivity was that if something goes wrong with a model image you can track down the customer and know that the only license applied is the one of the agency. Once you have the images on sale on half a dozen option this gets a lot more complicated. 

Sensitive uses is NEVER worth the hassle for a little more money. It can ruin your reputation as a photographer plus put a lot of distress on models. With over 20k images I have never had such a problem in the past nor would I want one in the future. Sensitive uses should not be applied without our permission. Models trust us when they sign a release that NO defamatory uses will be allowed. Twisting this and saying that the use of an image in a tobacco ad, implying a disease or a strip club is legal and able to use by clients is not right. it might be legal but still defamatory. Once a few cases go to court and the judge confirms this is defamatory all this sensitive use will blow away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kate Shutterstock would you be so kind to post a clear statement what is now allowed and what is not allowed under the license agreement?

My understanding is that now all of our images CAN be used for advertising:

- tobacco products

- legal medications (including for diseases like STD's, mental health, and other things a model would likely rather not be associated with)

- political ads

- ads for dating and escort services

 

Please correct if this is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2020 at 6:01 AM, Aspen Photo said:

Obsolete as of the effective date of the opt out change. they have specifically allowed, through the information released, many of of the previously objectionable content to be used. And again, applied it retroactively. 

My impression, which I realize may be incorrect, is that the standard and sensitive use licenses will remain exactly the same; the change is that we can't exclude our photos from being sold under a sensitive use license. Perhaps @Kate Shutterstock would provide us with a copy of the standard sensitive use license?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

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.
 

 

I'm talking about changing the contract on the models, not us. Since a lot of shutterstock models are family and friends, who wouldn't have agreed to these new terms.  The shutterstock staff just posted that they are changing that policy and we can't 'not allow' sensitive use any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really upset with this. I have to remove almost all of my images now. It is very saddening. I think they should have had an option that states any NEW images uploaded after March 3rd. This really is a horrible decision that SS is making.

So apparently my images can be used for abortion too.

"Many people are concerned about the Sensitive Use changes Angela, there is no guarantee from Shutterstock that your images would not be used for abortion images."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Haywiremedia said:

I'm really upset with this. I have to remove almost all of my images now. It is very saddening. I think they should have had an option that states any NEW images uploaded after March 3rd. This really is a horrible decision that SS is making.

I have a lot of pregnancy and baby photos. What if people use it for an abortion or planned parenthood concept?

Agreed - I spent 12+ hours this weekend purging over 3500 of my images...one....shot...at....a...time. I will be sending an invoice for my time to Shutterstock. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This could have a devastating impact! My understanding like others have mentioned is that any models can now be used in tobacco ads, ads that show mental/physical impairment, or in political ads. Besides deleting images, contributors have no alternative but to accept the risk of their photos being used in these ways. I expect big time repercussions, and probably legal battles. Long time successful contributors with huge ports will be the most susceptible just by sheer numbers.The first time one of them shows up on an election campaign, std, or a cigarette ad, I expect there will be very angry models.

 I just can't believe Shutterstock would risk the damage to their reputation and angst this will undoubtedly provoke. 

At the very least they should require a disclaimer, and one that's easy to read without a magnifying glass.

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...