From the terms and conditions on the new Mpix Pro service.

You certify that you own all intellectual property rights in Your Content. You hereby grant Miller’s, our affiliates, and our partners a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive, sub licensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute, and publish Your Content and subsequent versions of Your Content for the purposes of (i) displaying Your Content on our Site, (ii) distributing Your Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it, and/or (iii) storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge. This license shall apply to the distribution and the storage of Your Content in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed.

Wow but that's a blatent rights grab and from a supposedly pro service. They can sell your wedding pics to your clients or run off a thousand copies of a limited edition print and there's not a thing you can do about it.

Spread the word people, Facebook backed down soon enough.

Wow, they are crazy!

That is just for images you send them for printing? I see that for contests all of the time.

If that is true, they will not get any more of my business, for sure.

umm... isn't that just standard legal jargon to allow them to host your images on their site for viewing by clients

Beni wrote:
From the terms and conditions on the new Mpix Pro service.

Wow but that's a blatent rights grab and from a supposedly pro service. They can sell your wedding pics to your clients or run off a thousand copies of a limited edition print and there's not a thing you can do about it.

Spread the word people, Facebook backed down soon enough.

It's not a "blatant rights grab" considering they said that you own all the rights to your photos. Also, why would they sell your wedding pics to your clients or run off a thousand copies of a limited edition print? Is this actually within their best interests?

Zenfolio has a similar clause

"By transmitting images or any other media to Zenfolio, Photographers grant Zenfolio a nonexclusive right to use, reproduce, transmit, publicly display, and distribute the images or other media as deemed appropriate by Zenfolio"

And I imagine any other service that allows you to set up galleries to sell images to clients will have the same thing... as I stated above it's just legal jargon to cover their asses and allow them to display the images you've uploaded.

It's standard, but it overstretches too much. A better version of that license would be to have it revocable and be revoked upon ending the use of their services. As it sits now, they can technically sell and distribute your photos after you have ceased using their services.

Ryan Britton wrote:
It's standard, but it overstretches too much. A better version of that license would be to have it revocable and be revoked upon ending the use of their services. As it sits now, they can technically sell and distribute your photos after you have ceased using their services.


and the last part there reads like they could gather huge piles of stock photo's to sell... "storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge."

PyroDenny wrote:
Ryan Britton wrote:
It's standard, but it overstretches too much. A better version of that license would be to have it revocable and be revoked upon ending the use of their services. As it sits now, they can technically sell and distribute your photos after you have ceased using their services.


and the last part there reads like they could gather huge piles of stock photo's to sell... "storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge."


wouldn't that be for the case of you say, shooting a sporting event, then setting up a gallery where players and parents can go to after the event to purchase images?

"for the purposes of (i) displaying Your Content on our Site, (ii) distributing Your Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it, and/or (iii) storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge. This license shall apply to the distribution and the storage of Your Content in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed."

This says they will display it, distribute it and store it. "It" is "your content." The rest was lawyer talk. If they do more than display, distribute, and store, then they have violated the agreement. If they do less, then it seems that it's a wasted effort.

Josh Evilsizor wrote:
PyroDenny wrote:
Ryan Britton wrote:
It's standard, but it overstretches too much. A better version of that license would be to have it revocable and be revoked upon ending the use of their services. As it sits now, they can technically sell and distribute your photos after you have ceased using their services.


and the last part there reads like they could gather huge piles of stock photo's to sell... "storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge."


wouldn't that be for the case of you say, shooting a sporting event, then setting up a gallery where players and parents can go to after the event to purchase images?

not if Mpix sets up an account on shutterstock or something and dumps a huge amount of uploaded photo's from "us"

@Craig Gillette
okie dokie i just did not read the last line correctly

Thank you for your help in bringing this error to our attention.

The terms and conditions mentioned were copied from our Miller’s Professional Imaging website and were written for our web hosting application only. These terms should not have been included on the Mpix.com or MpixPro.com websites and have been removed.

Again, thank you for bringing this to our attention and for understanding our regret in this error.

Craig Gillette wrote:
"for the purposes of (i) displaying Your Content on our Site, (ii) distributing Your Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it, and/or (iii) storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge. This license shall apply to the distribution and the storage of Your Content in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed."

This says they will display it, distribute it and store it. "It" is "your content." The rest was lawyer talk. If they do more than display, distribute, and store, then they have violated the agreement. If they do less, then it seems that it's a wasted effort.

Mmmm, display, distribute and store are pretty broad. I'd say "selling" fits nicely under distributing. As I read this, there is nothing to stop them from selling your stuff on a stock site, or making prints from your files and selling those, etc.

Nice of them to quickly remove this language from the agreement though.

Wow - so mpixpro got the word and set up an account with FM just to post an apology and correction? Remarkable!

Craig Gillette wrote:
"for the purposes of (i) displaying Your Content on our Site, (ii) distributing Your Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it, and/or (iii) storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge. This license shall apply to the distribution and the storage of Your Content in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed."

This says they will display it, distribute it and store it. "It" is "your content." The rest was lawyer talk. If they do more than display, distribute, and store, then they have violated the agreement. If they do less, then it seems that it's a wasted effort.

The agreement allows them to do less, so it's not a wasted effort.

adogzlife wrote:
Wow - so mpixpro got the word and set up an account with FM just to post an apology and correction? Remarkable!
And great that they are sensitive and responsive to this issue.

.

pamkel wrote:
To set up an account at MPIX Pro you have to send them a number of 8x10's for them to determine if your quality is high enough.

is this sarcasm? You send them 5 files for them to print test prints so you can verify if you're colors are calibrated to their printers.

mpixpro wrote:
Again, thank you for bringing this to our attention and for understanding our regret in this error.


Thank you folks for being so responsive, and for taking the time to register and post!

Good to have you here.

Cheers,
Michael

pamkel wrote:
To set up an account at MPIX Pro you have to send them a number of 8x10's for them to determine if your quality is high enough. Shutterstock wants 10 full size images, non watermarked and with no copyright information in the exif fields. If they don't choose your first 10 they want 10 more in 30 days. To verify your identification they want either a copy of your passport or drivers license or use a credit card by charging .01 cent to the account. One cent identification verification alone gave them $176,000 bucks.

I'm glad that MPIX changed the wording.

For Shutterstock to make $176,000 off individual 1-cent charges, they would need to charge 17.6 million subscribers, but they only have about 180,000 active photographers, so the most they could probably make from 1-cent charges is $1800.

mdude85 wrote:
pamkel wrote:
To verify your identification they want either a copy of your passport or drivers license or use a credit card by charging .01 cent to the account. One cent identification verification alone gave them $176,000 bucks.

I'm glad that MPIX changed the wording.

For Shutterstock to make $176,000 off individual 1-cent charges, they would need to charge 17.6 million subscribers, but they only have about 180,000 active photographers, so the most they could probably make from 1-cent charges is $1800.


And that's BEFORE the credit card company's charges. They are most likely LOSING somewhere between $.25 and $.50 a transaction.

I doubt they are losing money, but my guess is that they are not making any money at all. The typical charge percentage for merchants is around 2-3%, so it would not make any sense that they would lose $.25-.50 on a $.01 charge. Maybe there is a special annual fee for those $.01 verification charges, since they are quite common these days.

.

mdude85 wrote:
I doubt they are losing money, but my guess is that they are not making any money at all. The typical charge percentage for merchants is around 2-3%, so it would not make any sense that they would lose $.25-.50 on a $.01 charge. Maybe there is a special annual fee for those $.01 verification charges, since they are quite common these days.

Many vendors get charged $.25-.50 per transaction, plus the 2-3% charge (these are always negotiated). This is why you often see smaller operations refuse to take credit cards for transactions of less than $10-$15. A $.50 + 3% charge on a $10 bill could easily eat up more than your profit margin.

pamkel wrote:
Oh, my gosh. I have terrible math don't I?? My apologies. OK, help me out with this one since I have such a problem with zeros.

40,000 photographers belong to a image hosting service.

If the cheapest monthly package is $30.00 how much are they taking in monthly and (since I'm bad with zeros) yearly?

How is this relevant to your prior mistatement/lie about their service?

.