I�m sorry to hear that.  But stock agencies have no way to track and monitor how our works are used.  So, no surprise.

A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:

Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate

https://www.shutterstock.com/license

Quote from: Brasilnut on March 15, 2024, 16:52

A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:

Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate

https://www.shutterstock.com/license

Brutal and I wondered why the heck no one is buying extended licenses for like 80 bucks anymore like in 2012 -2014.
10 cent for half a million prints.

One of my pasttimes is to go to book shops and flick through the first page after the cover to see where the image was taken.

I do see plenty of SS image used on covers (as well as Getty, less so AS), but it's usually as some part of composite with another image or more from the larger and more artistic agencies, Arcangel/Trevillion.

I don't think any serious publisher would use a SS or microstock image on its own knowing full well a competitor or even random business could start using it on let's say a toothpaste ad (or much worse) thus diminishing its uniqueness.

So, I think for a simple image it's OK to be paid little even for a book cover as it may not be strong enough to be used on its own. Plus it's RF subs and probably already sold 100s of times anyway (and buyers know this).

Quote from: Brasilnut on March 19, 2024, 11:10

One of my pasttimes is to go to book shops and flick through the first page after the cover to see where the image was taken.

I do see plenty of SS image used on covers (as well as Getty, less so AS), but it's usually as some part of composite with another image or more from the larger and more artistic agencies, Arcangel/Trevillion.

I don't think any serious publisher would use a SS or microstock image on its own knowing full well a competitor or even random business could start using it on let's say a toothpaste ad (or much worse) thus diminishing its uniqueness.

So, I think for a simple image it's OK to be paid little even for a book cover as it may not be strong enough to be used on its own. Plus it's RF subs and probably already sold 100s of times anyway (and buyers know this).

I find it difficult to justify it that way.
With an extended license, e.g. for print, the degree of commercial use is usually higher.

You have to distinguisch between an use for some random news / blog article as a gap filler or an use for print like a book cover.
A good book cover contributes significantly to a higher revenue amount, the commercial use aspect is much higher.
The same applies to print on demand stuff like t-shirts, etc.
So 10 cents are just extremely ridicilous low because the buyer will earn for sure thousand times more.

Ideally the extendend license would guarantee that the image is not used hundred of times but only the one buyer owns all rights.
The main problem is that no one is tracking the copyrights or the use restrictions (just like a half million prints, lol!), so such agencies just sell everything for some cents.

Quote from: Contemporary Dave on March 18, 2024, 09:03

Congratulations on getting $1.88. I once got paid 10 cents for an image that ended up on a classical music CD cover. Furthermore, it was an image that was classified as editorial, because it had IP content. Understandably, I was very unhappy about this and contacted SS complaining that an editorial image had been used for commercial purposes. They politely told me to sling my hook.

The legal decision whether an image is Editorial or can be used as commercial is up to the buyer.

Quote from: Roscoe on March 18, 2024, 08:44

Quote from: Brasilnut on March 15, 2024, 16:52

A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:

Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate

https://www.shutterstock.com/license

Alright, stupid question, but nevertheless, here I go.: what is considered as reproduction of an image. Less than 500.000 prints seems plausible. But what about views on webshops like Amazon? Every time someone sees your image (web page gets loaded) it's a reproduction? Every time a webshop adds the book it's a reproduction? More or less the same question for newspapers or magazines. Everytime someone reads the online article it's a "reproduction"?

Views are not printed impressions. But no surprise how the limitations have gone out the window and instead of 50,000 like the early years, it's 500,000 which is nearly impossible to reach in normal commercial use.

I still say, nice sale Lowls at least for bragging rights and someone appreciating your work, and if it was me, I wouldn't buy the book, but I'd try to find it on sale at a bookstore and take a photo of that. I have many book covers, and I don't own any of them, plus I've never seen one on sale anyplace except Amazon. Somewhere I sold a double wide, center image, double truck, for a magazine, and since it's just listed as sold, and where, I wonder who bought that one?

Quote from: Brasilnut on March 22, 2024, 11:25

Quote from: Andrej.S. on March 20, 2024, 07:41

Quote from: Brasilnut on March 19, 2024, 11:10

One of my pasttimes is to go to book shops and flick through the first page after the cover to see where the image was taken.

I do see plenty of SS image used on covers (as well as Getty, less so AS), but it's usually as some part of composite with another image or more from the larger and more artistic agencies, Arcangel/Trevillion.

I don't think any serious publisher would use a SS or microstock image on its own knowing full well a competitor or even random business could start using it on let's say a toothpaste ad (or much worse) thus diminishing its uniqueness.

So, I think for a simple image it's OK to be paid little even for a book cover as it may not be strong enough to be used on its own. Plus it's RF subs and probably already sold 100s of times anyway (and buyers know this).

I find it difficult to justify it that way.
With an extended license, e.g. for print, the degree of commercial use is usually higher.

You have to distinguisch between an use for some random news / blog article as a gap filler or an use for print like a book cover.
A good book cover contributes significantly to a higher revenue amount, the commercial use aspect is much higher.
The same applies to print on demand stuff like t-shirts, etc.
So 10 cents are just extremely ridicilous low because the buyer will earn for sure thousand times more.

Ideally the extendend license would guarantee that the image is not used hundred of times but only the one buyer owns all rights.
The main problem is that no one is tracking the copyrights or the use restrictions (just like a half million prints, lol!), so such agencies just sell everything for some cents.

I agree that the licensing terms are too broad and vague for micros RF. Once we upload our images to microstock it's almost impossible then to track the usages and go after infrigement. The cost outweights any potential benefit except for a few rare cases.

We don't have to upload our images to these micros, there's always the option of going Alamy RM exclusive, that way we get a nice report everytime there is a usage and a clear procedure to go through to tackle infrigements (where the contributor can also earn from claims).

I'm happy at Arcangel as I know that the minimum I'll earn from a book cover is $75 net and as high as 4 figures. Once there is a sale I receive a report with type of license, the book title and author.

Archangel were a fail for me. It was a little difficult to understand what they wanted you to send them. In one part of the process they asked for 20 images to be sent and then in another they asked for 10. I decided to leave it for that time and although book covers would be very much my wheelhouse I preferred doing what I was doing. But I could easily churn out book covers and to demand given criteria to follow. Personally I find that process quite easy. However last year I thought because personal circumstances had changed, that I would try harder to understand what Archangel wanted. And entry has changed. They just want your link to your portfolio now. Easier to understand. So I sent them the link and received a curt thanks but no thanks. Odd because a good chunk of my port look very book coverlike. But no idea who or what looks at the portfolio link. I just wasn't for them. It's a strange world ms. I have one photo that sells over and over to the same company as well as elsewhere. I assume they must use a limited license (not actually sure) but when we had the map it showed the same location each time. Its hilarious because its an item that isn't at all what they use it for on their website. Not even close and doesn't look like it at all but they keep purchasing it and they use it to sell their product.