Amazing Productions wrote:
Five sets and you only get a $60 check months later? $12 per set. Sounds like peanuts. It doesn't seem like a viable business model for photographers. So no one is making $1000 per photoset or $3000 per month or any meaningful amount of money?

Can you show me any site where a photographer can make $3,000 a month by simply uploading sets of their own volition?

Sites like Met Art and other more-explicit pay sites exert significant editorial control and getting sets up is non-trivial, and $3,000 a month is still generally not going to happen except for a very few staff photographers, if even that.

If there is a non-constrained site that offers that kind of money, I've not heard of them. Have you?

Sophistocles wrote:

Can you show me any site where a photographer can make $3,000 a month by simply uploading sets of their own volition?

cough private wedding portrait sessions print sales cough

But no type of pay website will pay that.

Sockpuppet Studios  wrote:

cough private wedding portrait sessions print sales cough

But no type of pay website will pay that.

Sure, but that's not a web site, as you point out :-)

Zivity provides, as you put it, pizza money for almost no additional work. Everyone wins.

alysse wrote:
I have tons of shoots that is just sitting in my harddrive.  by uploading to the site, i could possibly make a few bucks off it.  why not.  it's not like it is additional work for me.

Your photographer has to upload the sets. If you are the photographer then yes, go for it.

Mootz Imaging wrote:

They may not "demand" copyright but having sublicense clause in the terms that is almost the same thing...see para 2:

"The license to the Zivity Photographs is sublicensable and worldwide, to use, publish, publicly display, reproduce, modify and distribute the Zivity Photographs in any digital medium now known or hereafter devised."

Yes, the photog get a less than fair share of the votes $$$ but what is worst is either the model nor photog get any income from the sublicensing (assuming the terms are correct).  There are several things in the terms that photog need to also know, such as required to have documented proof of age (2257 ring a bell) even if there is no nudity.

You also cannot withdraw the images except in a very, very narrow window:

"At the end of each two-year term for a Zivity Photograph (whether the initial term or any subsequent term), You may elect to not renew such license for a subsequent two-year term through Zivity’s then-current non-renewal process between 10 and 90 days prior to the expiration of such term. If you do not so provide notice, then the license to such Zivity Photograph pursuant to this Agreement shall automatically be renewed for another two-year term."

Good eye for legal fine print!

Mootz Imaging wrote:
They may not "demand" copyright but having sublicense clause in the terms that is almost the same thing...see para 2:

"The license to the Zivity Photographs is sublicensable and worldwide, to use, publish, publicly display, reproduce, modify and distribute the Zivity Photographs in any digital medium now known or hereafter devised."

Yes, the photog get a less than fair share of the votes $$$ but what is worst is either the model nor photog get any income from the sublicensing (assuming the terms are correct).  There are several things in the terms that photog need to also know, such as required to have documented proof of age (2257 ring a bell) even if there is no nudity.

You also cannot withdraw the images except in a very, very narrow window:

"At the end of each two-year term for a Zivity Photograph (whether the initial term or any subsequent term), You may elect to not renew such license for a subsequent two-year term through Zivity’s then-current non-renewal process between 10 and 90 days prior to the expiration of such term. If you do not so provide notice, then the license to such Zivity Photograph pursuant to this Agreement shall automatically be renewed for another two-year term."

Isn't this basically the same sublicensing clause MM has, in order to allow them to display pics on the Net worldwide?

EDIT: here's MM's clause:

When you post content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the content on the Site. Through the action of posting such content (images, text, video, etc) you are also granting the Site a non-exclusive worldwide license to use, copy, publicly display, publicly perform, reformat, translate such User content (in whole or in part) and distribute such content in connection with operation of the Site. This limited license does not grant Model Mayhem the right to sell or otherwise distribute your Content outside of the Model Mayhem Services without the express permission of the rights holder(s).

Mootz Imaging wrote:

They may not "demand" copyright but having sublicense clause in the terms that is almost the same thing...see para 2:

"The license to the Zivity Photographs is sublicensable and worldwide, to use, publish, publicly display, reproduce, modify and distribute the Zivity Photographs in any digital medium now known or hereafter devised."

Yes, the photog get a less than fair share of the votes $$$ but what is worst is either the model nor photog get any income from the sublicensing (assuming the terms are correct).  There are several things in the terms that photog need to also know, such as required to have documented proof of age (2257 ring a bell) even if there is no nudity.

You also cannot withdraw the images except in a very, very narrow window:

"At the end of each two-year term for a Zivity Photograph (whether the initial term or any subsequent term), You may elect to not renew such license for a subsequent two-year term through Zivity’s then-current non-renewal process between 10 and 90 days prior to the expiration of such term. If you do not so provide notice, then the license to such Zivity Photograph pursuant to this Agreement shall automatically be renewed for another two-year term."

Sophistocles wrote:
The sublicensing allows for such things as outsourcing prints, for example. If Zivity went that route, do you honestly think they'd do it without revenue-sharing? Seriously?

As for the renewal, it seems pretty easy to me to decline during the window if you want. Me, I'd not want to - that means two more years of vote income.

If zivity.com is willing to share other revenue…SHOW IT TO ME IN WRITING.  When zivity.com is selling prints directly, it cuts off another source of revenue for the model/photog.  Someone needs to come clean on their relationship with zivity.

This is crap, the one example; the photog got $40 for the quarter…not even enough money to but a roll of seamless.  All while zivity.com is selling our images to others.

Mootz Imaging wrote:
If zivity.com is willing to share other revenue…SHOW IT TO ME IN WRITING.  When zivity.com is selling prints directly, it cuts off another source of revenue for the model/photog.  Someone needs to come clean on their relationship with zivity.

This is crap, the one example; the photog got $40 for the quarter…not even enough money to but a roll of seamless.  All while zivity.com is selling our images to others.

But they're not selling prints directly. That was an example I made up to show what it might be used for. If they decided to do such a thing, do you think they'd just do it without a policy in place?

Zivity is not selling anyone's images to others. Where do you get that from? You're imagining made-up harms and then railing against them. They don't exist.

Look, it's simple, as has been stated - if the amount of income that such a system provides isn't enough to make you want to participate, then don't participate. Nobody's forcing you to. Why the acrimony?

Sophistocles wrote:

But they're not selling prints directly. That was an example I made up to show what it might be used for. If they decided to do such a thing, do you think they'd just do it without a policy in place?

Zivity is not selling anyone's images to others. Where do you get that from? You're imagining made-up harms and then railing against them. They don't exist.

Look, it's simple, as has been stated - if the amount of income that such a system provides isn't enough to make you want to participate, then don't participate. Nobody's forcing you to. Why the acrimony?

The license the photg is signing over to zivity.com allows for them to resell the images (it in writing and they call it sublicense).

NOTE TO ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS, the current terms that zivity.com requires you to sign allows them to resell the pictures without paying you a DIME.  Read the fine print and do not listen to BS.

Mootz Imaging wrote:
NOTE TO ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS, the current terms that zivity.com requires you to sign allows them to resell the pictures without paying you a DIME.  Read the fine print and do not listen to BS.

Wow, why the venom? I'm not so sure you're correct. Are you an attorney? Is this legal advice?

Sophistocles wrote:

Wow, why the venom? I'm not so sure you're correct. Are you an attorney? Is this legal advice?

Read parpagrah 2 of the terms.

Mootz Imaging wrote:

Read parpagrah 2 of the terms.

Yes, I have. I'm not so sure your correct for two reasons. First, such sublicensing agreements are common in this industry and allow for such things like cross-promotion.

Second, even if it did allow for selling of content elsewhere without remuneration, that would suggest the question as to whether Zivity has done this. Indeed, has ANY site ever done this? To my knowledge, only one site has ever actually done that: Suicide Girls.

Zivity has not. No other site has, to my knowledge. Can you name one that has?

So, again, it's industry standard and has never been used for the nefarious purpose you call-out by Zivity or any other site save SG (and we all know how that turned out).

If you don't like the business model or amount of money you can make, you're wearing the big-boy pants, you can decline to play. Clearly there are plenty of people who disagree.

So again, I ask, why the venom? And is your legal advice based on your status as an attorney, or are you just stating your opinion?

Sophistocles wrote:
Yes, I have. I'm not so sure your correct for two reasons. First, such sublicensing agreements are common in this industry and allow for such things like cross-promotion.ite save SG (and we all know how that turned out).

Ok photographers, please read the terms yourself:  terms.  Paragraph 2 allows zivity.com to resell your images without having to make any payment to you (they only have to pay “user votes,” which can change without notice- see para 4). 

What is even more scary is paragraph 9: “ZIVITY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR CONNECTED WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT.”  Is so important that it is the ONLY paragraph using caps.  I read this to mean that if they do violate your copyright, you cannot go after them or any sublicense client.  That totally SUCKS.

If you read paragraph 10: “Under no circumstances will You be entitled to seek to enjoin the reproduction, distribution or exploitation of any Zivity Photograph, for any reason, it being understood that Your sole remedy shall be the right to recover damages with respect to any such breach.”  If I read this right, you cannot even show or use YOUR own pictures.  Read carefully.  It does not say you cannot use other photog images.  It states you cannot use ANY images that zivity.com uses (“…of any Zivity Photograph”)

Also in paragraph 10: “Zivity may assign this Agreement, in whole or in part, to any third party. You may not assign this Agreement to any third party without the prior written consent of Zivity.”  To me, this means that they can sell the primary license to a 3rd party without you having to agree to it.  Why do I thing this is bad?  Because they can change how you are paid: "The use of the term 'User Votes' shall also refer to any successor or replacement program to the user vote system defined above, regardless of the terminology employed. You agree that zivity.com contains the current description of the “user vote” system, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which the operators of zivity.com may modify at any time in their reasonable discretion.” (para 4)  If they sell the license, you have to wait under the 2 year period is over - the whole time they could be selling your images to others without paying a dime.

I can write more on my understanding of the terms and conditions but I thing each photographer should read them and makeup their own minds.  The terms are NOT standard in the industry (please read the ASMP standard terms, asmp, contact APA, or any photographer other than someone contact to zivity.com). 

No venom.  The terms just SUCK.

Mootz Imaging wrote:
It's just my personal understanding of the terms and conditions.  No opinion. 

Every photographer should read them and make their own mind.

Then you should probably state it as such instead of passing it off as fact.

FotoMark wrote:

Your photographer has to upload the sets. If you are the photographer then yes, go for it.

I wish you could just upload shoots sitting on my drive. The problem is you have to first track down the models and get them to sign up for zivity.

Sophistocles wrote:
Mootz, you are treading dangerous ground here - you're interpreting a legal document (and now you're doing so incorrectly, when it comes to the damages and usage clauses).

I ask again, are you an attorney? Is this legal advice?

Seriously, you're drawing legal conclusions that are wrong. Were I Zivity's legal department, I'd be VERY concerned at the misinformation you are spreading.

You seem to be awfully passionate about this. May I ask why? You're railing against industry standard practice, demonstrating a lack of understanding of common legal terms and their meaning, all towards a business with which you need not interact nor have any interest in doing so.

I simply must question why? I mean, I don't like Jack-in-the-box burgers. As such, I don't eat there. I don't spend so much time and effort to convince others, much less misinterpret their offerings in an attempt to get my point across.

Interesting response to what is clearly just his thoughts on the contract..

Since we are questioning motives, can we ask why you have an interest in taking a defense of Zivity? Full disclosure here?

Mickle Design Werks wrote:
Interesting response to what is clearly just his thoughts on the contract..

Since we are questioning motives, can we ask why you have an interest in taking a defense of Zivity? Full disclosure here?

I've given it. I'm on their artists advisory board. I'm a satisfied photographer on the site.

His thoughts are one thing - expressing incorrect information as fact is another. I'm fine with his opinion, just not inaccurate information put forth as factual.

25inches wrote:
& it's no way possible to break that contract. it's like basically saying even if the site were to shut down, if they find out. they'll still come after you for the infraction of using your own image somewhere else.

No, that's not what it says. If you do not understand it, please seek the advice of an attorney. But with all due respect, I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

Sophistocles wrote:
Can you show me any site where a photographer can make $3,000 a month by simply uploading sets of their own volition?

Sites like Met Art and other more-explicit pay sites exert significant editorial control and getting sets up is non-trivial, and $3,000 a month is still generally not going to happen except for a very few staff photographers, if even that.

If there is a non-constrained site that offers that kind of money, I've not heard of them. Have you?

You do not work with Met-Art and you are wrong.  How many of your other posts are false and misleading?

Anyway, seems everyone skipped reading the "master llama release" Zivity needs which grants them the right to copyright the images in their name.  You don't need to be a lawyer to know this is a raw deal. 

Last time I checked, the photographer with the most votes had 6,000 * $0.20 =  20% - $1200 - Photographer
60% - $3600 - llamas
20% - $1200 - Zivity

except that's what Zivity wants everyone to believe, but they are only dividing profits from votes they value at $1 each.  Each new paying member gets 5 votes a month for $10 ($2 per vote) so zivity is pocketing 100% right off the bat and REALLY paying out 10% for the photographer and 30% for the llama.  Zivity insidiously keeps nearly 60% of their profits since members have no incentive or motivation to buy additional votes.  From the 6,000 votes above, Zivity made 7,200 at 60%

But all the rights and math aside, this is just another feminist run site aimed at empowering female llamas.  This is a horrible business decision for photographers male or female.

Giving away 90% of the profits is pure charity.

Brett Michael Nelson wrote:

You do not work with Met-Art and you are wrong.  How many of your other posts are false and misleading?

Anyway, seems everyone skipped reading the "master model release" Zivity needs which grants them the right to copyright the images in their name.  You don't need to be a lawyer to know this is a raw deal. 

Last time I checked, the photographer with the most votes had 6,000 * $0.20 =  20% - $1200 - Photographer
60% - $3600 - Models
20% - $1200 - Zivity

except that's what Zivity wants everyone to believe, but they are only dividing profits from votes they value at $1 each.  Each new paying member gets 5 votes a month for $10 ($2 per vote) so zivity is pocketing 100% right off the bat and REALLY paying out 10% for the photographer and 30% for the model.  Zivity insidiously keeps nearly 60% of their profits since members have no incentive or motivation to buy additional votes.  From the 6,000 votes above, Zivity made 7,200 at 60%

But all the rights and math aside, this is just another feminist run site aimed at empowering female models.  This is a horrible business decision for photographers male or female.

Giving away 90% of the profits is pure charity.

Hi Brett,
How are you monetizing your nude shoots?
Thanks,
Chuck

Sophistocles wrote:
Wow, why the venom? I'm not so sure you're correct. Are you an attorney? Is this legal advice?

And "God forbid!" if I am critical of Zivity!  Is your defensiveness of Zivity because you are very much invested in the site?  Members of ModelMayhem have been able to calmly express concerns about terms and conditions of use and other issues of this "ModelMayhem" site without being told that their expressed concern is venom or attacked by questions as to if they are an "attorney?" and if they are giving "legal advise!"   I happen to be very interested in what he has to say AND what you say in return.   So instead of attacking him as giving some sort of "legal advise" ... (which by the way, he is not!) why can't you instead explain where it is that he is wrong?

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:

this is partially wrong I used to have a free photographer account  when they started and no one knew who the heck they were and it expired.  I contacted them and they said that I have to sign up for membership first and put my card info anyways.  I still have the email from them if you dont believe me.

When I first joined was by a invite from a member thats how it used to be before but they changed everything now.

So you have to give them your credit ard or debit card information as so to enter you in their database?  Reasoning behind this is it allows them to verify you, pay you or charge you accordingly.  Makes sense.

alysse wrote:
I have tons of shoots that is just sitting in my harddrive.  by uploading to the site, i could possibly make a few bucks off it.  why not.  it's not like it is additional work for me.

Do you have ownership of these images?  If not, are you able to get the photographer(s) to join Zivity as so they get their cut? 

If a photographer and model who shoot many tfp sets are in agreement to joining the site, it can work.  My issue with joining is what sets would I put up?  When it comes to nudes, I pay the models.  I never shoot nudes "tfp" ... therefore I'm not going to be willing to sign a release where the models get more percentage AND I've already paid them.  As for other sets like glamour, implied, bikini, swim wear, or anything else eye catching, if it's good enough to be worth money on my site, I'd still want to pay the model at the time of the shoot rather than have her waiting for money that might not even come in. 

So that limits me to TFP sets that I might have "laying around" on my hard drive, and that means I need to get the model to sign on to Zivity.  It's still possible, but what about old sets where I can't find the model?  Those are a no go!  Or what if the model doesn't want to sign a release?  This means more work, or planning in advance, unless one is fortunate to have past sets as well as cooperation from the models.  The method of operations for this site seem to have flaws!  At the very least, Zivity is just not for every one.

Mickle Design Werks wrote:
Interesting response to what is clearly just his thoughts on the contract..

Since we are questioning motives, can we ask why you have an interest in taking a defense of Zivity? Full disclosure here?

Interesting that once I posted, no one has come back to this thread?  I have nothing vested in Zivity, and I don't know all that much about the site with the exception of what has been posted in the forums here on Model Mayhem.  As an avid user of the forums, I know that misinformation is possible, and for the most part, I've stayed out of these threads about Zivity.  I really hate to see this thread sink without a response to the questions asked though.

Brett Michael Nelson wrote:
You do not work with Met-Art and you are wrong.  How many of your other posts are false and misleading?

Anyway, seems everyone skipped reading the "master model release" Zivity needs which grants them the right to copyright the images in their name.  You don't need to be a lawyer to know this is a raw deal. 

Last time I checked, the photographer with the most votes had 6,000 * $0.20 =  20% - $1200 - Photographer
60% - $3600 - Models
20% - $1200 - Zivity

except that's what Zivity wants everyone to believe, but they are only dividing profits from votes they value at $1 each.  Each new paying member gets 5 votes a month for $10 ($2 per vote) so zivity is pocketing 100% right off the bat and REALLY paying out 10% for the photographer and 30% for the model.  Zivity insidiously keeps nearly 60% of their profits since members have no incentive or motivation to buy additional votes.  From the 6,000 votes above, Zivity made 7,200 at 60%

But all the rights and math aside, this is just another feminist run site aimed at empowering female models.  This is a horrible business decision for photographers male or female.

Giving away 90% of the profits is pure charity.

Brett,  Ok, forget Met Art for a moment ... I want to know what do you mean by "feminist run site?"  And if zivity is indeed run by female models, what is so bad about "empowering female models" anyway?  I don't really have a problem with a website that is promoted by or puts female models out front.  What I do have a problem with is a site that promotes itself as an "easy" money site, when the splits in the percentages actually sound a bit complicated and tipped in favor of the site administration.  Let's have some honesty here! 

How about this?  We have a site here where photographers and models can make a little pocket change with their unused glamour model sets.   You might make enough to buy something ... but don't hold your breath, as it might be about the same amount if you went digging in your sofa cushions.  You post your pictures, we collect money from members who join and vote for your pictures.  You make a little bit, and we make more.  That's the truth, isin't it? 

So is this a fun site?  Are there other advantages to being a member?  What makes it worth while for regular members to join ... besides looking at images?

Mootz Imaging wrote:

The license the photg is signing over to zivity.com allows for them to resell the images (it in writing and they call it sublicense).

NOTE TO ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS, the current terms that zivity.com requires you to sign allows them to resell the pictures without paying you a DIME.  Read the fine print and do not listen to BS.

So far, no one has provided a rebuttal to your statement.     
Perhaps someone is checking with lawyers?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
I'd love to hear from anybody that has made any money from this . . .

Comments anyone ?



KM

Well Ken, I would love to hear more about how people are making money on it too.  I keep trying to get someone to come back to this thread, but it's been abandoned. 

TKellond wrote:
This site and the rest of the web has a bunch of interesting comments about Zivity.  Unfortunately none of them are glowing endorsements of anything other than the people who came up with the concept, and are making money off the original content of others.  I for one do not intend to have one image uploaded to their site.  I am not interested in finding models who think it's cool to shoot this way unless they want to pay me up front for the images they want.  What they do with them after that is their business as long as I get paid.  If they get ten bucks for a set they paid me fifty for I don't think they'll be doing too many more Zivity shoots.  Too bad, because I think it would be a great way for me to make money:-))!

your outlook is so wrong...