Author Topic: Another photographer thinks he was taken advantage of (Read 7378 times)

tpack · « **on:** December 23, 2018, 03:07 »

This photographer never read Shutterstock’s terms and agreement and never checked his account again after uploading one photo that was legally licensed and ended up in Walmart stores

https://petapixel.com/2018/12/22/photog-shocked-after-his-1-88-stock-photo-shows-up-on-walmart-goods/

rushay · « **Reply #1 on:** December 23, 2018, 05:09 »

Rule number one, understand the terms and conditions.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** December 23, 2018, 05:33 »

I can't get over how he'd admit in public that he didn't read the T&C.

However, if it's true that this sort of use at that price is legal SS 'premiere' clients, SS is even worse than I've always thought.

NB, often contracts are deliberately fuzzy and couched in legalistic terms which mean they are much more open to interpretation on the company's side than we could ever imagine (and not a mm on our side). Also there can often be information hidden on other places on a site.

Let's be honest here: who knew that you could get as little via SS on a merchandise deal like this?

cathyslife · « **Reply #3 on:** December 23, 2018, 06:06 »

“ so he “randomly uploaded one picture” to the stock photo service Shutterstock.”
He uploads one photo and Walmart happens to find it out of millions of photos? Possible, but something smells fishy with this story. What rock did he live under that he didn’t understand what microstock is? Whether he read the t&c’s or not, he still should have had some idea of how microstock works. Sounds like fake news to gain attention.

Jens G · « **Reply #4 on:** December 23, 2018, 06:20 »

Since my native language isn't english, my understanding of the terms might not be correct, but wouldn't the big towel in one of the pictures be "merchandise"? And according to the license rules, an "enhanced" license is required for use in merchandise.

The $1.88 royalty looks like an OD sale in the lowest tier.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** December 23, 2018, 06:30 »

Quote from: cathyslife on December 23, 2018, 06:06

Sounds like fake news to gain attention.[/size][/font][/color]

I agree, but if so, SS should be clarifying.

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** December 23, 2018, 06:33 »

Quote from: Jens G on December 23, 2018, 06:20

Since my native language isn't english, my understanding of the terms might not be correct, but wouldn't the big towel in one of the pictures be "merchandise"? And according to the license rules, an "enhanced" license is required for use in merchandise.

The $1.88 royalty looks like an OD sale in the lowest tier.

There is a premier system (?like premium access, maybe?) which includes merchandise:
https://www.shutterstock.com/support/article/what-is-shutterstocks-premier-license
Like Getty's PA, it seems to be pretty difficult to find out the nitty gritty details without making a personal contact, it seems not to be in open view. Also even if someone had read the T&C before signing up, that info wouldn't have been available, and presumably many SS suppliers signed up before there was Premier.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 23, 2018, 06:39 »

His portfolio on shutterstock has one photo in it....of a waterfall. No bridge. So did he delete this photo but upload another one? The story seems fishy to me too.

Jens G · « **Reply #8 on:** December 23, 2018, 06:48 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2018, 06:33

Quote from: Jens G on December 23, 2018, 06:20
Since my native language isn't english, my understanding of the terms might not be correct, but wouldn't the big towel in one of the pictures be "merchandise"? And according to the license rules, an "enhanced" license is required for use in merchandise.

The $1.88 royalty looks like an OD sale in the lowest tier.

There is a premier system (?like premium access, maybe?) which includes merchandise:
https://www.shutterstock.com/support/article/what-is-shutterstocks-premier-license
Like Getty's PA, it seems to be pretty difficult to find out the nitty gritty details without making a personal contact, it seems not to be in open view. Also even if someone had read the T&C before signing up, that info wouldn't have been available, and presumably many SS suppliers signed up before there was Premier.

Thanks for the explanation :-)

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** December 23, 2018, 07:04 »

Quote from: Jens G on December 23, 2018, 06:48

Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2018, 06:33
Quote from: Jens G on December 23, 2018, 06:20
Since my native language isn't english, my understanding of the terms might not be correct, but wouldn't the big towel in one of the pictures be "merchandise"? And according to the license rules, an "enhanced" license is required for use in merchandise.

The $1.88 royalty looks like an OD sale in the lowest tier.

There is a premier system (?like premium access, maybe?) which includes merchandise:
https://www.shutterstock.com/support/article/what-is-shutterstocks-premier-license
Like Getty's PA, it seems to be pretty difficult to find out the nitty gritty details without making a personal contact, it seems not to be in open view. Also even if someone had read the T&C before signing up, that info wouldn't have been available, and presumably many SS suppliers signed up before there was Premier.
Thanks for the explanation :-)

But you see how it's not just 'reading the terms and conditions' which would let us know about all ways our images can be purchased.
These sites have us by the short and curlies, and squeeze as much as they can.

noodle · « **Reply #10 on:** December 23, 2018, 08:22 »

Crafty, devious, shifty, call it what you want it’s basically legal stealing.

Hansi · « **Reply #11 on:** December 23, 2018, 08:40 »

If only there was a way to avoid this when selling photos online. I can see how that could easily happen to everyone of us and there is nothing you can do about it.

cathyslife · « **Reply #12 on:** December 23, 2018, 09:26 »

Quote from: Hansi on December 23, 2018, 08:40

If only there was a way to avoid this when selling photos online. I can see how that could easily happen to everyone of us and there is nothing you can do about it.

It isn’t stealing if a person willingly enters into a contract (addressed to noodle’s comment). If that person chooses not to read the terms, that’s not on the agency. He still had to click an agree button (I think...it’s been about 14 years since I signed with SS) There is a way to avoid this happening...do not sell on microstock! Stick to traditional stock agencies. But does selling an image to a major company and getting peanuts suck? Yes indeed.

noodle · « **Reply #13 on:** December 23, 2018, 09:47 »

Quote from: cathyslife on December 23, 2018, 09:26

Quote from: Hansi on December 23, 2018, 08:40
If only there was a way to avoid this when selling photos online. I can see how that could easily happen to everyone of us and there is nothing you can do about it.

It isn’t stealing if a person willingly enters into a contract (addressed to noodle’s comment). If that person chooses not to read the terms, that’s not on the agency. He still had to click an agree button (I think...it’s been about 14 years since I signed with SS) There is a way to avoid this happening...do not sell on microstock! Stick to traditional stock agencies. But does selling an image to a major company and getting peanuts suck? Yes indeed.

That’s why I dubbed it legal stealing.
Of course everything is legal the way it’s carried out, and the image owner is culpable for entering into that agreement.
But make no mistake that big business operates on the thin end of the wedge, and as for ss we are not privy to all the details in their licences offerings and royalty splits with contributers.
As you said, the way to absolutely avoid this is simply not submit your content.

Ps. I found it interesting that Walmart tried to reach out to him. They plan to give him a $50 gift certificate? His video is not going to help Walmart dispel the picture of greedy corporate America anytime soon either

memakephoto · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2018, 12:00 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2018, 05:33

I can't get over how he'd admit in public that he didn't read the T&C.

However, if it's true that this sort of use at that price is legal SS 'premiere' clients, SS is even worse than I've always thought.

NB, often contracts are deliberately fuzzy and couched in legalistic terms which mean they are much more open to interpretation on the company's side than we could ever imagine (and not a mm on our side). Also there can often be information hidden on other places on a site.

Let's be honest here: who knew that you could get as little via SS on a merchandise deal like this?

NB: Nude Beach? New Brunswick? Not Binary? Naked Brunette? Numb Bum? New Basket? Nice Bucket? Never Blind? Natural Breasts?

mm: military maneuvers? masked marauder? munchkin massacre? midnight meal? made man? mystery meat?

Your short forms are hard to follow.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2018, 13:10 »

That story sounds bogus to me. It says he randomly uploaded one photo - don't you have to upload ten initially or is it down to just one now? It also says he couldn't withdraw the money because there is a $50 minimum payout, yet I think at SS you can make it $35 - why the discrepancy? It also says he uploaded it to social media before submitting it to SS so it could have been stolen from there - he has no way to know whether the single OD he got for the image was by the entity that made the items for sale. Too many inaccuracies to sound like a true story to me.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #16 on:** December 23, 2018, 13:57 »

The photographer says:

Quote

“Walmart is selling my picture without my permission throughout all New Brunswick,” Stemm writes in the description.

Which is a blatant lie, by uploading his photo he gave Shutterstock his implicit permission to sell this photo under certain licensing terms, and Walmart owns a license to use it legally. The fact that he didn't read the terms & conditions is entirely his fault. He blames Shutterstock and Walmart for his own mistake. If this story isn't made up.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** December 23, 2018, 13:57 »

Quote from: memakephoto on December 23, 2018, 12:00

Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2018, 05:33
I can't get over how he'd admit in public that he didn't read the T&C.

However, if it's true that this sort of use at that price is legal SS 'premiere' clients, SS is even worse than I've always thought.

NB, often contracts are deliberately fuzzy and couched in legalistic terms which mean they are much more open to interpretation on the company's side than we could ever imagine (and not a mm on our side). Also there can often be information hidden on other places on a site.

Let's be honest here: who knew that you could get as little via SS on a merchandise deal like this?

NB: Nude Beach? New Brunswick? Not Binary? Naked Brunette? Numb Bum? New Basket? Nice Bucket? Never Blind? Natural Breasts?

mm: military maneuvers? masked marauder? munchkin massacre? midnight meal? made man? mystery meat?

Your short forms are hard to follow.

Sorry to non English speakers.
NB = Nota bene = note well
Mm = millimetre

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** December 23, 2018, 13:59 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on December 23, 2018, 13:57

The photographer says:

Quote
“Walmart is selling my picture without my permission throughout all New Brunswick,” Stemm writes in the description.

Which is a blatant lie, by uploading his photo he gave Shutterstock his implicit permission to sell this photo under certain licensing terms, and Walmart owns a license to use it legally. The fact that he didn't read the terms & conditions is entirely his fault. He blames Shutterstock and Walmart for his own mistake. If this story isn't made up.

It's odd that SS isn't jumping in to clarify.
So far some possibilities are:
1. It's fake news
2. It hasn't been bought under the correct licence from SS
3. It has been correctly licensed, whether under a premier contract or some other 'how'.
4. It has nothing at all to do with SS but was lifted from another source.
Or ...

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** December 23, 2018, 15:35 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 23, 2018, 06:39

His portfolio on shutterstock has one photo in it....of a waterfall. No bridge. So did he delete this photo but upload another one? The story seems fishy to me too.

When I googled Michael Stemm Shutterstock, it seems the bridge pic (and others) must have been there at one time, but clicking on it just shows the one waterfall pic you mention.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gskcr6g4yxnx0ki/Michael%20Stemm.jpg?dl=0

kenwood · « **Reply #20 on:** December 23, 2018, 16:24 »

He is either an idiot for not reading/understanding the t&s, or a smart business man who just gained free publicity using a fishy story.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 23, 2018, 17:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2018, 15:35

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 23, 2018, 06:39
His portfolio on shutterstock has one photo in it....of a waterfall. No bridge. So did he delete this photo but upload another one? The story seems fishy to me too.
When I googled Michael Stemm Shutterstock, it seems the bridge pic (and others) must have been there at one time, but clicking on it just shows the one waterfall pic you mention.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gskcr6g4yxnx0ki/Michael%20Stemm.jpg?dl=0

Hmm. Yep, with an image search I see that he had a bunch of photos on SS at one time. So this whole story about uploading one photo is a bunch of hooey.

Not Today · « **Reply #22 on:** December 23, 2018, 17:40 »

Quote from: kenwood on December 23, 2018, 16:24

He is either an idiot for not reading/understanding the t&s, or a smart business man who just gained free publicity using a fishy story.

I'd say a business ploy, check this out, that's him right?

https://www.gofundme.com/wza5us5p-recovering-stolen-camera-gear

If he got something out of this in the past, he will probably get something again out of this news story, either from SS or Walmart.

PigsInSpace · « **Reply #23 on:** December 24, 2018, 14:36 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2018, 13:57

Quote from: memakephoto on December 23, 2018, 12:00
Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2018, 05:33
I can't get over how he'd admit in public that he didn't read the T&C.

However, if it's true that this sort of use at that price is legal SS 'premiere' clients, SS is even worse than I've always thought.

NB, often contracts are deliberately fuzzy and couched in legalistic terms which mean they are much more open to interpretation on the company's side than we could ever imagine (and not a mm on our side). Also there can often be information hidden on other places on a site.

Let's be honest here: who knew that you could get as little via SS on a merchandise deal like this?

NB: Nude Beach? New Brunswick? Not Binary? Naked Brunette? Numb Bum? New Basket? Nice Bucket? Never Blind? Natural Breasts?

mm: military maneuvers? masked marauder? munchkin massacre? midnight meal? made man? mystery meat?

Your short forms are hard to follow.

Sorry to non English speakers.
NB = Nota bene = note well
Mm = millimetre

I have only lived in English speaking places he have also wondered about N.B. before, but never thought to pull out my phone and look it up in the past. Thanks!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #24 on:** December 25, 2018, 09:25 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 23, 2018, 17:07

Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2018, 15:35
Quote from: Shelma1 on December 23, 2018, 06:39
His portfolio on shutterstock has one photo in it....of a waterfall. No bridge. So did he delete this photo but upload another one? The story seems fishy to me too.
When I googled Michael Stemm Shutterstock, it seems the bridge pic (and others) must have been there at one time, but clicking on it just shows the one waterfall pic you mention.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gskcr6g4yxnx0ki/Michael%20Stemm.jpg?dl=0

Hmm. Yep, with an image search I see that he had a bunch of photos on SS at one time. So this whole story about uploading one photo is a bunch of hooey.

That and your other discovery, he's just blowing up a normal license. It's pretty popular to attack Walmart and Shutterstock, look at all the people he got to agree, when they don't understand what Microstock is? One random photo my ass. He's trying to get page views.

Quote from: Noedelhap on December 23, 2018, 13:57

The photographer says:

Quote
“Walmart is selling my picture without my permission throughout all New Brunswick,” Stemm writes in the description.

Which is a blatant lie, by uploading his photo he gave Shutterstock his implicit permission to sell this photo under certain licensing terms, and Walmart owns a license to use it legally. The fact that he didn't read the terms & conditions is entirely his fault. He blames Shutterstock and Walmart for his own mistake. If this story isn't made up.

Correct except some calendar company bought the license and made the calendar, Islandwide Distributors (IWD) had licensed Stemm’s photo royalty-free from Shutterstock for just $1.88, and is selling it through Walmart. Walmart did nothing!

If I go to Walmart or Cosco or Shopco, there are "Wisconsin" calendars for sale. Same thing, local scenery, sold in a local market. The claim that he makes that they must have made over 500,000 of these, is also false. (unless they made playing cards and he counts each one?) Blankets, cards and the calendars. I'm not sure that one license covers all these, but he assumes the 500K number on his own.

Beyond all the details, publicity stunt, as people here have found that he uploaded more than one random photo.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another photographer thinks he was taken advantage of (Read 7378 times)

tpack

rushay

ShadySue

cathyslife

Jens G

ShadySue

ShadySue

Shelma1

Jens G

ShadySue

noodle

Hansi

cathyslife

noodle

memakephoto

sgoodwin4813

Noedelhap

ShadySue

ShadySue

ShadySue

kenwood

Shelma1

Not Today

PigsInSpace

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors