Comments on: Next to Guarantee Photos is Shutterstock http://www.microstockdiaries.com/next-to-guarantee-photos-is-shutterstock.html For People Selling Photos Online Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:17:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Stock photo blog http://www.microstockdiaries.com/next-to-guarantee-photos-is-shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-47329 Stock photo blog Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:07 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/?p=955#comment-47329 I pretty much agree with Don; the primary benefit of this is as a marketing tool for the agencies. No doubt the other major micros will have to rush out something similar simply to be not seen as offering a below par product. It is interesting this move has come after the big players in the world of traditional stock bought into microstock, bringing with them their ideas and knowledge of what buyers not yet using microstock might want to get tempted? I pretty much agree with Don; the primary benefit of this is as a marketing tool for the agencies. No doubt the other major micros will have to rush out something similar simply to be not seen as offering a below par product. It is interesting this move has come after the big players in the world of traditional stock bought into microstock, bringing with them their ideas and knowledge of what buyers not yet using microstock might want to get tempted?

]]> By: Don Farrall http://www.microstockdiaries.com/next-to-guarantee-photos-is-shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-47083 Don Farrall Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:16:42 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/?p=955#comment-47083 None of this means that there won't be stolen images on microstock sites, it just means that the Agencies will fork up some money to defend suites against end users. HOWEVER, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), (a poorly written set of laws) already protects everyone involved except the creators of the original works. Put simply, it's a marketing gimmick. These are simply insurance policies based on the odds that given the poor laws in place the likely hood of an end user being sued for unauthorized use are non-existent. If an image is sold with a phony release the responsible party (by law) is not the agency, it is the contributor, who may be in Belarus... good luck with any prosecution in that case. It is my understanding that agencies that are doing this have thrown out some old images that were accepted without much scrutiny regarding property and talent releases, and that is a good step. However, the underlying issue that there is no verification of copyright ownership in the "Crowd-sourced" marketplace continues. In the end I suppose buyers don't really care as long as they are off the hook, and because of DMCA the most they risk is being told to stop using an image, and there is no evidence that when these issues have come up that agencies have even done this. Even with these guarantees in place, microstock sites are not free from pirated content. Look up DMCA and read it yourself. It sounds good at first, but it is in place to protect content distributors, not content creators. An excerpt: “the DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries”. Translation in a court is “Agency gets protection” under claim that “we didn’t know it was stolen, or falsified.” end user is protected under same, and true content owner is screwed. All this being said, it is clear that this "benefit" did little to put Vivozoom on the map, very little indeed. None of this means that there won’t be stolen images on microstock sites, it just means that the Agencies will fork up some money to defend suites against end users. HOWEVER, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), (a poorly written set of laws) already protects everyone involved except the creators of the original works. Put simply, it’s a marketing gimmick. These are simply insurance policies based on the odds that given the poor laws in place the likely hood of an end user being sued for unauthorized use are non-existent. If an image is sold with a phony release the responsible party (by law) is not the agency, it is the contributor, who may be in Belarus… good luck with any prosecution in that case. It is my understanding that agencies that are doing this have thrown out some old images that were accepted without much scrutiny regarding property and talent releases, and that is a good step. However, the underlying issue that there is no verification of copyright ownership in the “Crowd-sourced” marketplace continues. In the end I suppose buyers don’t really care as long as they are off the hook, and because of DMCA the most they risk is being told to stop using an image, and there is no evidence that when these issues have come up that agencies have even done this. Even with these guarantees in place, microstock sites are not free from pirated content. Look up DMCA and read it yourself. It sounds good at first, but it is in place to protect content distributors, not content creators. An excerpt: “the DMCA’s principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries”. Translation in a court is “Agency gets protection” under claim that “we didn’t know it was stolen, or falsified.” end user is protected under same, and true content owner is screwed. All this being said, it is clear that this “benefit” did little to put Vivozoom on the map, very little indeed.

]]> By: Lee Torrens http://www.microstockdiaries.com/next-to-guarantee-photos-is-shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-46737 Lee Torrens Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:52:39 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/?p=955#comment-46737 Hi Rod, I'm not sure that detail was part of the announcement. Before the announcement was released I asked if the $10,000 was per file or per case and they responded with: "Shutterstock will pay up to $10,000 in indemnification per subscriber." That's probably why you can't find it. Feel free to ask questions about other specifics of the announcemet. I'll make everything clear for you. -Lee Hi Rod, I’m not sure that detail was part of the announcement. Before the announcement was released I asked if the $10,000 was per file or per case and they responded with: “Shutterstock will pay up to $10,000 in indemnification per subscriber.” That’s probably why you can’t find it.

Feel free to ask questions about other specifics of the announcemet. I’ll make everything clear for you.

-Lee

]]> By: rod http://www.microstockdiaries.com/next-to-guarantee-photos-is-shutterstock.html/comment-page-1#comment-46727 rod Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:28:15 +0000 http://www.microstockdiaries.com/?p=955#comment-46727 Hi,Lee, Guarantees for 'per subscriber' ? I can't find this in SS announcement. For a non native english speaker, it's a little complicated to understand the announcement clear :( :( :( rod. Hi,Lee,

Guarantees for ‘per subscriber’ ? I can’t find this in SS announcement. For a non native english speaker, it’s a little complicated to understand the announcement clear :( :( :(

rod.

]]>