Author Topic: comp license to full license? (Read 10209 times)

cathyslife · « **on:** July 21, 2017, 14:13 »

Just got an email from SS that says:

"We are writing to let you know that a comp license to your image with Shutterstock ID #### is being converted to a full license, per the Shutterstock Contributor Terms of Service. If there is a legal issue with doing so, please respond back to us within 2 days. Please note that this license will appear as a royalty in your Shutterstock account in the amount of $."

In all the years, I havent gotten an email like this before. I think it just means that someone downloaded a comp image and now is buying a license to actually use it but why would they be asking me if there is a legal issue? Its a food image, no people, no logos.

Anyone else ever gotten one of these?

Artist · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2017, 00:43 »

What does this mean?

dpimborough · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2017, 01:41 »

Quote from: Artist on July 22, 2017, 00:43

What does this mean?

Cathy was asking whether anyone had the same or similar

Brasilnut · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2017, 05:09 »

Quote

Anyone else ever gotten one of these?

Not sure if it's similar but SS asked me recently to clarify the exact location of one of my commercial pics - it was a roof in a shopping centre.

I can only think that it's perhaps one of the legal requirements of one of SS's affiliates.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2017, 06:55 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 22, 2017, 05:09

Quote
Anyone else ever gotten one of these?

Not sure if it's similar but SS asked me recently to clarify the exact location of one of my commercial pics - it was a roof in a shopping centre.

I can only think that it's perhaps one of the legal requirements of one of SS's affiliates.

Funnily enough I had one....hoping a huge sale will follow...nothing as yet. Did wonder if it might be a Property Rights issue....I guess a roof in a shopping centre might have been taken on private land. Mine was a fairly anonymous building in a park.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2017, 08:34 »

The whole idea that they're still doing comps in the age of subscriptions is annoying. If someone is paying hundreds per image, then allowing comps makes sense - even though it is not right to use a photographer's image for free, I can at least understand the concept. But nowadays with subscriptions it makes no sense at all - photographers should get something when their images are used in layouts even if they are not in the chosen design.

I hope you will at least get a decent payout with your image going from comp to paid. Makes you wonder how many other times your images are used for free without your knowledge so someone else can make money - that just is not right nowadays, designers can at least use a subscription to cheaply obtain images for use in sample layouts. The whole concept of comps should be ended.

cathyslife · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2017, 11:01 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on July 22, 2017, 08:34

The whole idea that they're still doing comps in the age of subscriptions is annoying. If someone is paying hundreds per image, then allowing comps makes sense - even though it is not right to use a photographer's image for free, I can at least understand the concept. But nowadays with subscriptions it makes no sense at all - photographers should get something when their images are used in layouts even if they are not in the chosen design.

I hope you will at least get a decent payout with your image going from comp to paid. Makes you wonder how many other times your images are used for free without your knowledge so someone else can make money - that just is not right nowadays, designers can at least use a subscription to cheaply obtain images for use in sample layouts. The whole concept of comps should be ended.

Yes, the royalty looks to be for an extended license, so yes, good payout. I will check on monday on my computer to make sure it shows.

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2017, 11:03 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 22, 2017, 06:55

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 22, 2017, 05:09
Quote
Anyone else ever gotten one of these?

Not sure if it's similar but SS asked me recently to clarify the exact location of one of my commercial pics - it was a roof in a shopping centre.

I can only think that it's perhaps one of the legal requirements of one of SS's affiliates.
Funnily enough I had one....hoping a huge sale will follow...nothing as yet. Did wonder if it might be a Property Rights issue....I guess a roof in a shopping centre might have been taken on private land. Mine was a fairly anonymous building in a park.

So maybe just a new procedure for images that are extended licenses or that cost more? Makes sense they would want to make sure everything is kosher.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2017, 11:39 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on July 22, 2017, 08:34

The whole idea that they're still doing comps in the age of subscriptions is annoying. If someone is paying hundreds per image, then allowing comps makes sense - even though it is not right to use a photographer's image for free, I can at least understand the concept. But nowadays with subscriptions it makes no sense at all - photographers should get something when their images are used in layouts even if they are not in the chosen design.

I hope you will at least get a decent payout with your image going from comp to paid. Makes you wonder how many other times your images are used for free without your knowledge so someone else can make money - that just is not right nowadays, designers can at least use a subscription to cheaply obtain images for use in sample layouts. The whole concept of comps should be ended.

Comp images are offered to large enterprises who make large purchases (which is where we get the large but dwindling SODs). Designers and art directors in those companies don't pay for images themselves...their clients do, once the concept is approved.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 22, 2017, 20:46 »

I'm aware of how it works. I just think that a large enterprise can afford a subscription so their designers can use images in concepts - that way the artist gets something, even if their image is not in the chosen design. Comps made sense when images were very expensive, but now they are just an annoying anachronism.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2017, 01:36 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on July 22, 2017, 20:46

I'm aware of how it works. I just think that a large enterprise can afford a subscription so their designers can use images in concepts - that way the artist gets something, even if their image is not in the chosen design. Comps made sense when images were very expensive, but now they are just an annoying anachronism.

As so often the photographer is expected to bear all the risk

Shelma1 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2017, 03:01 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on July 22, 2017, 20:46

I'm aware of how it works. I just think that a large enterprise can afford a subscription so their designers can use images in concepts - that way the artist gets something, even if their image is not in the chosen design. Comps made sense when images were very expensive, but now they are just an annoying anachronism.

Free comps have been around much longer than Shutterstock has existed. SS started offering them to compete with Getty et al for larger sales. That's the reason we have large SODs. You'd rather get a 38 cent subscription royalty than a $100 SOD?

I'm not very happy with SS right now, but this was one thing they did that made sense and brought us large royalties, at least for a little while.

If you were with Getty your images were being used (and are still being used) for free comps all along.

cathyslife · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2017, 20:20 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 22, 2017, 06:55

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 22, 2017, 05:09
Quote
Anyone else ever gotten one of these?

Not sure if it's similar but SS asked me recently to clarify the exact location of one of my commercial pics - it was a roof in a shopping centre.

I can only think that it's perhaps one of the legal requirements of one of SS's affiliates.
Funnily enough I had one....hoping a huge sale will follow...nothing as yet. Did wonder if it might be a Property Rights issue....I guess a roof in a shopping centre might have been taken on private land. Mine was a fairly anonymous building in a park.

Thanks guys, so maybe SS or affiliate just confirming because it's a larger sale.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2017, 23:07 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 23, 2017, 03:01

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on July 22, 2017, 20:46
I'm aware of how it works. I just think that a large enterprise can afford a subscription so their designers can use images in concepts - that way the artist gets something, even if their image is not in the chosen design. Comps made sense when images were very expensive, but now they are just an annoying anachronism.

Free comps have been around much longer than Shutterstock has existed. SS started offering them to compete with Getty et al for larger sales. That's the reason we have large SODs. You'd rather get a 38 cent subscription royalty than a $100 SOD?

I'm not very happy with SS right now, but this was one thing they did that made sense and brought us large royalties, at least for a little while.

If you were with Getty your images were being used (and are still being used) for free comps all along.

I'm fully aware of how long comps have been around - and they made a lot of sense when someone was making layouts from images that would cost hundreds of dollars or more each. But they make no sense when a designer can get access to all the images they want for less than a dollar each to use in concepts. They should pay us 38 cents every times one of our images is used in a layout by the design firm and then a large SOD for every image chosen by the client. That is fair to the photographer and reflects the current availability of cheap images.

cathyslife · « **Reply #14 on:** July 24, 2017, 05:14 »

Quote from: cathyslife on July 23, 2017, 20:20

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 22, 2017, 06:55
Quote from: Brasilnut on July 22, 2017, 05:09
Quote
Anyone else ever gotten one of these?

Not sure if it's similar but SS asked me recently to clarify the exact location of one of my commercial pics - it was a roof in a shopping centre.

I can only think that it's perhaps one of the legal requirements of one of SS's affiliates.
Funnily enough I had one....hoping a huge sale will follow...nothing as yet. Did wonder if it might be a Property Rights issue....I guess a roof in a shopping centre might have been taken on private land. Mine was a fairly anonymous building in a park.

Thanks guys, so maybe SS or affiliate just confirming because it's a larger sale.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 24, 2017, 05:27 »

Quote from: cathyslife on July 24, 2017, 05:14

Quote from: cathyslife on July 23, 2017, 20:20
Quote from: Pauws99 on July 22, 2017, 06:55
Quote from: Brasilnut on July 22, 2017, 05:09
Quote
Anyone else ever gotten one of these?

Not sure if it's similar but SS asked me recently to clarify the exact location of one of my commercial pics - it was a roof in a shopping centre.

I can only think that it's perhaps one of the legal requirements of one of SS's affiliates.
Funnily enough I had one....hoping a huge sale will follow...nothing as yet. Did wonder if it might be a Property Rights issue....I guess a roof in a shopping centre might have been taken on private land. Mine was a fairly anonymous building in a park.

Thanks guys, so maybe SS or affiliate just confirming because it's a larger sale.

No signs of a sale yet maybe its not where they hoped ;-)

cathyslife · « **Reply #16 on:** July 24, 2017, 07:45 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 24, 2017, 05:27

Quote from: cathyslife on July 24, 2017, 05:14
Quote from: cathyslife on July 23, 2017, 20:20
Quote from: Pauws99 on July 22, 2017, 06:55
Quote from: Brasilnut on July 22, 2017, 05:09
Quote
Anyone else ever gotten one of these?

Not sure if it's similar but SS asked me recently to clarify the exact location of one of my commercial pics - it was a roof in a shopping centre.

I can only think that it's perhaps one of the legal requirements of one of SS's affiliates.
Funnily enough I had one....hoping a huge sale will follow...nothing as yet. Did wonder if it might be a Property Rights issue....I guess a roof in a shopping centre might have been taken on private land. Mine was a fairly anonymous building in a park.

Thanks guys, so maybe SS or affiliate just confirming because it's a larger sale.
No signs of a sale yet maybe its not where they hoped ;-)

i checked on mine, nothing yet, but I got the email on Fri. and they said I should let them know within 2 days if there was a legal problem, so by Wed. It should show in my sales.

Dumc · « **Reply #17 on:** July 24, 2017, 09:08 »

And in the end, you'll get like five bucks

Shelma1 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 24, 2017, 10:13 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on July 23, 2017, 23:07

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 23, 2017, 03:01
Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on July 22, 2017, 20:46
I'm aware of how it works. I just think that a large enterprise can afford a subscription so their designers can use images in concepts - that way the artist gets something, even if their image is not in the chosen design. Comps made sense when images were very expensive, but now they are just an annoying anachronism.

Free comps have been around much longer than Shutterstock has existed. SS started offering them to compete with Getty et al for larger sales. That's the reason we have large SODs. You'd rather get a 38 cent subscription royalty than a $100 SOD?

I'm not very happy with SS right now, but this was one thing they did that made sense and brought us large royalties, at least for a little while.

If you were with Getty your images were being used (and are still being used) for free comps all along.

I'm fully aware of how long comps have been around - and they made a lot of sense when someone was making layouts from images that would cost hundreds of dollars or more each. But they make no sense when a designer can get access to all the images they want for less than a dollar each to use in concepts. They should pay us 38 cents every times one of our images is used in a layout by the design firm and then a large SOD for every image chosen by the client. That is fair to the photographer and reflects the current availability of cheap images.

It'll never happen. No art director (or design firm) will pay for a monthly subscription at SS when they get access to free comp images at Getty. They'll just look exclusively at Getty.

cathyslife · « **Reply #19 on:** July 24, 2017, 10:14 »

Quote from: Dumc on July 24, 2017, 09:08

And in the end, you'll get like five bucks

No, they have already told me what the royalty will be, and substantially more than that. The question is, will I get it at all.

cathyslife · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2017, 15:58 »

The license showed in my sales today...wooyay! It is in the Subscriptions column, not in enhanced, as I thought. That makes my day.

angelawaye · « **Reply #21 on:** July 26, 2017, 21:56 »

Congrats! Glad you weren't left hanging on the deal. Drinks on you?

cathyslife · « **Reply #22 on:** July 27, 2017, 14:57 »

Quote from: angelawaye on July 26, 2017, 21:56

Congrats! Glad you weren't left hanging on the deal. Drinks on you?

Thanks. 😃

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: comp license to full license? (Read 10209 times)

cathyslife

Artist

dpimborough

Brasilnut

Pauws99

sgoodwin4813

cathyslife

cathyslife

Shelma1

sgoodwin4813

Pauws99

Shelma1

cathyslife

sgoodwin4813

cathyslife

Pauws99

cathyslife

Dumc

Shelma1

cathyslife

cathyslife

angelawaye

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors