Resolution Matters

http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml
Uploading any Image to a web site at a resolution that exceeds the display resolution of the intended viewing device will be deemed to be an attempt to redistribute the Image.

YOU MAY NOT: Use an Image together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content.

imagine you can't use a black pencil to draw racist anti-nigger cartoons and you have to sign a EULA, before you buy a set of colored pencils.

that exceeds the display resolution of the intended viewing device

This is the first time I see a good use of those goddamn-high-resolution displays.

YOU MAY NOT: Use an Image in a way that depicts any person therein in a way that a reasonable person might find offensive - this includes, but is not limited to the use of Images: a) in pornography, "adult videos" or the like; b) in ads for tobacco products; c) in ads or promotional materials for adult entertainment clubs or similar venues, or for escort, dating or similar services; d) in connection with political endorsements; e) in advertisements or promotional materials for pharmaceutical or healthcare, herbal or medical products or services, including, but not limited to dietary supplements, digestive aids, herbal supplements, personal hygiene or birth control products; and f) uses that are defamatory, or contain otherwise unlawful, offensive or immoral content. You may not use an Image containing the likeness of a person if such use implies that the model engages in any immoral or illegal activity or suffers from a physical or mental infirmity, ailment or condition. Shutterstock offers licenses that allow for certain "sensitive" uses prohibited by this Standard License. Please contact Shutterstock Support for more information.

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/11/help-sued-nearly-500000-model-photographed/
It seems that many of her pictures ended up on erotic book covers, escort ads, and strip club ads. To my understanding she is claiming I either sold these directly to these people or through Shutterstock. As for myself, I only sold her images through a stock agency with a terms of service that did not allow pornographic/defamatory use — I have never sold an image of hers directly to someone.

f they had not ignored my side of the story, here is what they would have reported: the model was an experienced lingerie model, appearing on a magazine cover in such apparel. I told her agent before the shoot it would be used for stock photography.

During the shoot I also told the model that the images would be for sale for stock photography and explained how stock photography works. I explained to her that these agencies prohibit pornographic use in their terms of service. Another person who often helped me from time to time was present during the shoot and witnessed everything.

I said nothing more and I didn’t lie. I did NOT promise her that her images would not be misused — that’s impossible in our right-click-save-as days. She saw the images before signing the model release, was happy with them and posted them herself on her Facebook page.

Some of you might remember that 4 years ago, I've had some unfortunate luck when few images from one model ended up in "bad usage". Well, she decided to sue me. She tried to say that she never agreed on being photographed for stock in first place.

Few of you guys sent me messages before asking me how it ended up since they were in similar situations... sadly....

Well, we pressed lawsuit against her in return. Yesterday, she finally decided to end things up, she is not going to sue me of I am not going to sue her. My lawyer clearly said that she would be the one actually losing the trial. I am finally happy this thing is over as the costs me huge amount of stress...

Fortunately the laywer didn't charge me for his service as my husband did some work for him and they exchanged services. However, I ended up with $900 bill in their expenses they had to do.. copies, mailing and such and such.

All I have to say. Thank you microstock for allowing our images being used in a bad way. We are not protected enough and the license you guys have when selling our images is for nothing. Secondly, I had to take down approx. 50% of my portfolio here to make sure this won't happen again. I only shoot business, medical and these kinds of stuff... Also, thanks to microstock this whole thing costs me stress and I have nice bill to pay for lawyer's expenses...

I have mixed feelings about all this. I know microstock is a huge industry and is successful in a way, but if new photographers enter into this, they have no clue what might happen to them in the future. I learned the hard way.

So here is the answer to my long battle.

Fear of misuse of a photograph is the thing that has kept me from having models in my images. I have ten gorgeous grandchildren that would likely increase my portfolio sales immensely, but no amount of money would ever be able to make up for them being misused, particularly in a predatory way. I'd be especially fearful of "innocent" or "vulnerable" images, like sleeping children, because that is what many of these creeps are drawn to.