A few months ago, in a major supermarket, I noticed one of my images being used on the packaging of one of their own-brand products (butter). I checked my EL sales and one for that image had been purchased at SS a few weeks earlier. Fine.

Back in the same supermarket the other day I noticed that they now have the same image on the packaging of another product (milk).

Is this allowed under the terms of the SS EL or should they have bought another EL? The wording of the license suggests to me it is intended for a single product not multiple products;

2. g) In the artwork for the packaging of any product without regard to the number of times an Image is reproduced;

Here's a link to Shutterstock's terms;

http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?type=enhanced

The word "any" is open ended - looks like usage allowable under the agreement.

Surely the agreement would have said "any products" if it was intended for multiple usage?

Are you sure it was from SS in the first place?

Technically speaking I'd assume that a product for sale with a different bar code should be considered a "different" product and therefore requires another EL license.

However, we have some really loose regular license terms as it is and one buyer can use one license for several of his clients, so I don't know what you can get away with in regards of an EL license...

I'd contact SS to let them figure this one out (or at least their legal department). SS wants their money too, although they might be able to offer the buyer an EL discount if using it on a range of products.

My 2 cents.

I would pursue this one Gostwick.  Over here a "major supermarket" is a MAJOR supermarket with tens of thousands of employees and hundreds of locations.  They can't afford the proper license?  I'm not sure about the different bar codes on different sizes of butter - but milk and butter are not the same at all even though a cow did have something to do with it.  (Unless it is actually margerine?)

I must agree with Gostwick, but laughing, they are both the same A Dairy - Product? 

What are they going to do, buy it once and use it on everything in the Dairy section, for one license? Maybe a really polite note from the agency to encourage them to buy the second license.

Why would you need an EL for packaging?

Standard license:
"In the artwork for the packaging of any product provided that the print and/ or manufacturing run does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) copies in the aggregate; "

Ok, maybe they made 250k things of butter, but maybe they have not arrived at 250k things of milk yet.

If they made 250K butter packages, they need to buy an EL if they make just 1 milk package, as that's 250,001 in the aggregate.
The problem for the seller's pov is that we have no way of knowing how many packages they made.
As someone else noted, the normal downside of the RF model for sellers.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 09, 2011, 08:10

Quote from: sjlocke on December 09, 2011, 08:01

Why would you need an EL for packaging?

Standard license:
"In the artwork for the packaging of any product provided that the print and/ or manufacturing run does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) copies in the aggregate; "

Ok, maybe they made 250k things of butter, but maybe they have not arrived at 250k things of milk yet.

If they made 250K butter packages, they need to buy an EL if they make just 1 milk package, as that's 250,001 in the aggregate.
The problem for the seller's pov is that we have no way of knowing how many packages they made.
As someone else noted, the normal downside of the RF model for sellers.

I read it as "for the packaging of any product, provided that the print run (for said product) does not exceed" .  So two items are two 250k limits, imo.  Same as a publisher can use the same image for multiple books.  Each can reach the limit.

Probably deliberate ambiguity in the legalese, just like at iStock.
Why would "in the aggregate" be needed in the phrase "provided that the print and/ or manufacturing run does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) copies in the aggregate" if it didn't mean that "all  your print runs added together should not exceed 250k"?

Another company that could do with the services of the Plain English Society. If they want to allow 1/4 million runs on each of a gazillion of occasions they should say that clearly, and in fact,consider dropping ELs. Because really, what's the difference between 1 million runs on milk cartons or 250K runs on each of butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, then there could be cream, creme fraiche, buttermilk, sour cream ...

I'm sure they keep these things deliberately vague or ambiguous (though neither you nor I seeit as amibiguous, just we have different 'definite' ways of reading it) to avoid any legal hassles from either side.

Thanks everyone for your help. With the ambiguous wording of the license the situation is unclear. I'll contact SS about it.

Probably deliberate ambiguity in the legalese, just like at iStock.
Why would "in the aggregate" be needed in the phrase "provided that the print and/ or manufacturing run does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) copies in the aggregate" if it didn't mean that "all  your print runs added together should not exceed 250k"?

Sorry for abbreviating this but things get lost in long multi replies.

Say someone prints a book cover, then a second edition, and third edition, but the book only comes out as 10,000 each use. Rather then make them buy a license for each edition, the "aggregate" applies. 30,000. I'd rather think they could pay for three licenses, but penny pinching.

Also it's saying the total is the total of all uses. Which is actually in our favor. 250,000 copies.

Somehow this seems to be two products to me, and simple enough that's two uses. However someone may argue the use is "dairy packaging" Or product packaging? (I know it's a stretch but is someone going to court and paying a lawyer $250 an hour to argue over a $5 use? that pays us 33 cents?)  I suppose the other side is, if challenged, the user might figure it's cheaper to pay for registration a second time and avoid their legal costs.

One way or another, what's legal and right, isn't always what happens, when it comes to financial considerations. It's cheaper to just buy another license from SS isn;t it?