MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 80322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 05, 2014, 18:21 »
0
http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringement/

I am trying to imagine Sony music offering a free online stream for half their music library or disney most of their videos.

I know some TV stations offer select content for free or with advertising, but I have a difficult time seeing it work with photos in the same way.

Or do you think this will have no effect on our sales??

And of course...there is no opt out.


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2014, 18:23 »
+12
Do they think people don't know how to screendump and crop?

People steal pics on Flickr which have watermarks and are right click protected. How is putting our unwatermarked work out there going to prevent copyright infringement.

It's just one piece of sh*t after another. Knock us down, hold us down, and kick us while we're down.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 18:34 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2014, 18:38 »
+18
Not sure if what they say is the real reason or if they're just trying to cut off a the knees all the licenses sold via other agencies for blog and other editorial use.

And the lack of an opt out shows they know that the people who created the images won't be happy with this.

And if there are any fees paid, I'll bet it will be for use of their embed player meaning Getty gets all the money and photographers zip.

The are such slime.

Our best hope is that the embed player is a pain in the butt to use and people don't want to deal with it and keep licensing blog sizes from other agencies.

I do agree that it's a problem when one user licenses an image and then their blog is picked up by others who also get the image with the story and it's never paid for on the additional uses. I don't think this embed player is the right solution though

« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2014, 18:41 »
0
This means a designer can work for a magazine or non profit website, design everything and set it up. he or she gets paid for their work, but the artist doesnt?

I mean, wouldt all newspapers now be able to include images for free? With the exception of fresh reportage on current news?

« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2014, 18:48 »
+2
And they also say that photos.com will be offering prints in a month or two and there's a new referral program coming...

Today must be idea day

http://links.mkt2173.com/servlet/MailView?ms=NjE5NTk2NwS2&r=NjAwNTIxMjEyMzgS1&j=NDAwNTExNDM5S0&mt=1&rt=0

« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2014, 18:56 »
+11
I don't get this one either. Even if it is for personal work, shouldn't the artist be compensated something? If I mail a personal letter, the post office will no longer charge me because it's personal? Too bad everyone can't be persuaded to do a wholesale move out of anything Getty. Geez...

shudderstok

« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2014, 18:57 »
+13
normally i am a GI supporter, but this goes a bit too far.
my only thoughts are "class action" as i don't recall signing anything in a contract that says they can give my images away for free. promotional use yes i agreed to that, but this is not promotional use.
this is complete bu!!sh!t.

« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2014, 19:01 »
+10
It sounds like they are trying to monetise our content like youtube does. Our images will illustrate the blog article or newspaper,but we no longer get properly paid. Just the "hope" someone uses the link to go to the website to buy the content.

They are renting out the content for free and making THEIR money in other ways while we live on hope??

Is this the new "getty connect"?

they really must think the stock artists are like the people who upload to flickr or youtube.

Who will invest in production for having their images rented out for free?

ETA. the poor istock exclusives. No opt out from the new subscription program. No opt out from the "viewer".

Ill have to look at my content again. Getting low subs royalties is one thing. Being used by a magazine for free is something else.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 19:04 by cobalt »

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2014, 19:04 »
+4
normally i am a GI supporter, but this goes a bit too far.
my only thoughts are "class action" as i don't recall signing anything in a contract that says they can give my images away for free. promotional use yes i agreed to that, but this is not promotional use.
this is complete bu!!sh!t.
I'm sure iStockLawyer will be able to spin it as 'promotional use'.  >:(

« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2014, 19:05 »
+1
They claim that in future embedded images will serve adds as it is done on YouTube:
Quote
YouTube and other services encourage embedded content sharing because it promotes their brand, drives traffic back to their site, and provides a revenue stream from advertising. This is an approach that has been followed successfully by Instagram, Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, Photobucket, and many other leading digital platforms. Once use of our embedded viewer has grown sufficiently and can be monetized successfully, we will explore these options as well and will pay contributors/partners a royalty at contract rates on any revenue-generating activity that takes place within the embedded viewer.


I got only 3 images on Flickr collection but I can mark my calendar to check in couple months if they really going to pay their share from advertising

I can see some interesting comments on Flickr group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/gettyimagescontributors/discuss/72157641924624974/

I cannot find my images from iS on GI site so not all their stuff is included in this deal.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 19:14 by melastmohican »

« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2014, 19:14 »
-13
I disagree.  I think this is a great idea and will encourage many more customers to the Getty web site.  I hope they promote it actively in which case it could be a great success.  As they rightly point out in their announcement, infringement of copyright has gone mad and is out of control.  There's no way to police it properly.  What they are doing is trying to replace that with a properly designed method of using images through their own embedded player.  Millions of online images are viewed every day, and I want as many of those views as possible directed to my work at Getty.  The embedded player will include attribution and a direct link to the image buying page.  I already make very good money from my portfolio at Getty, and I think this initiative will increase my sales further. 

« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2014, 19:17 »
+1
Not sure if what they say is the real reason or if they're just trying to cut off a the knees all the licenses sold via other agencies for blog and other editorial use.

And the lack of an opt out shows they know that the people who created the images won't be happy with this.

And if there are any fees paid, I'll bet it will be for use of their embed player meaning Getty gets all the money and photographers zip.

The are such slime.

Our best hope is that the embed player is a pain in the butt to use and people don't want to deal with it and keep licensing blog sizes from other agencies.

I do agree that it's a problem when one user licenses an image and then their blog is picked up by others who also get the image with the story and it's never paid for on the additional uses. I don't think this embed player is the right solution though

Stronger words than slime come to mind

Snip
Getty Images will also look to draw additional revenues from its player through advertising. We reserve the right to monetise that footprint, Peters explains. YouTube implemented a very similar capability, which allows people to embed videos on a website, with the company generating revenue by serving advertising on that video. And while Getty Images has yet to determine how these ads will appear, Peters is confident that this capability will be introduced in the near future.

« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2014, 19:19 »
+5
I see a lot of potential for getty to make money, but i am afraid I really dont see it for the artists.

But good luck to those who look forward to having their files included.

« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2014, 19:21 »
+29
Naw, encouraging people to freely use content with no cost is just dumb.

« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2014, 19:23 »
+10
The content will not be free. It will be paid for by the advertisers. But to Getty, not the artists.

They are just building the platform and hope many people use the player.

It is another step towards trying to "automate" dealing with stock. Mass uploads, mass distribution of images and then monetising it in individual deals with the advertisers in private that the artists never see.


« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 19:30 by cobalt »

« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2014, 19:29 »
+11
All the agencies are looking for ways to make money off of an image without calling it a "sale", because if it's a sale they have to pay a commission.   Any sort of up-front fee (subscription, "membership", etc) isn't subject to commission - even if, in reality, those fees are where the real money changes hands.

And they want to keep eroding the idea of a "license" for a "usage". So, it's "personal", or it's "temporary" (i.e. a "comp", that someone uses to sell a deal or develop a concept).   Or it's just in a "viewer", or via an "API".  No one is really using your image.  They're just looking at it. 

One way or another, the agency makes more money from your image, and you don't.  Best case for them is that you never know how much is really being paid for an image, where, when or in what form.

Getty is bad.  But IMHO - SS, being the most technically advanced of these agencies, will come up with the slipperiest ways to monetize our images while making only token royalty payments. 

« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2014, 19:33 »
+5
As an artist if you really want to benefit from this you will need to upload images suitable for mass distribution,especially via social media.

Grumpy cats,cute babies,funny or bizarre things people like to share. Nude people images probably as well.

Niche content,highly advanced specialised and expensive shootings...not so much...

ETA: Just wanted to highlight this

"All the agencies are looking for ways to make money off of an image without calling it a "sale", because if it's a sale they have to pay a commission."
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 19:36 by cobalt »


« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2014, 19:35 »
+10
Naw, encouraging people to freely use content with no cost is just dumb.


Think about the chess game from Getty's point of view.

They see their "real" business as the high end images at high prices. Microstock was an irritant that they hoped would go away, then they hoped they could buy into. Having totally mismanaged their acquisition - and the only worse management of microstock by an old-line agency is Corbis with SnapVillage (to me always known as CrapHamlet, a moniker I wish I'd thought up).

Other competitors who they thought they could push out of the way innovated while Getty just tried to hold on to the old line businesses and minimize the impact of microstock on their earnings. So now having failed to put Shutterstock on the ropes with Thinkstock, they're looking for another way to demolish the competition.

If Getty (erroneously) thinks that the bread and butter of their competitors is bloggers and small non commercial uses in high volumes, they could imagine that by giving away what the competitor sells they can deliver a real blow to earnings while leaving their own high-end uses untouched. Think of all the other cases where a deep-pocketed company has tried to undo competition by giving away what the competitor used to charge for

http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/browserwars.html

I think Getty misunderstands its competition, particularly Shutterstock, so I'm not sure this tactic would work even if it become popular - Shutterstock's going after Getty's bread and butter and I would imagine is now big enough not to fold under a little pressure.

I also think it's highly unlikely that Getty will make this embedding process easy and appealing for bloggers to use and that's a must if this initiative is to succeed. If past is prologue, their existing software doesn't bode well for simplicity and ease of use for bloggers.

« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2014, 19:41 »
+2
True, this involves the use of reliable technology...hm...no, they have no track record in that. So the amazing masterplan will probably fold onto itself anyway.

Back to shoot, upload, repeat and all the other agencies that are in the business of selling my files, not renting them out for free and then charging advertisers for the "service".

The talk about the copyright infringers is probably the buzzline to get people to help them build the platform. Especially to get the artists to help them build a platform that will in the end probably not pay them.

I mean, what other argument could they use to make people look forward to this?? 

But it might be enough to get wall street investors excited and spend millions of other peoples money...I mean..it does sound all internety and cool...
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 19:46 by cobalt »

shudderstok

« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2014, 19:45 »
+6
Naw, encouraging people to freely use content with no cost is just dumb.

it's beyond dumb.

« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2014, 19:45 »
+8
...But IMHO - SS, being the most technically advanced of these agencies, will come up with the slipperiest ways to monetize our images while making only token royalty payments.


I've been fussing about the lack of transparency in the SOD licenses since they started it - they will not tell us what the buyer is getting or paying for the amount we receive. It could be a great deal or a crappy one, but we have no way to judge. It is definitely a concern.

When Shutterstock first introduced extended licenses we received $20 of $40 and they have since decreased our share of totals even though the royalty is now $28. They clearly have an interest in increasing their share of the gross wherever possible

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-pricing/msg47584/#msg47584

(I was jsnover in an earlier life here). A number of people have raised questions about the Facebook deal and whether there were fees paid to SS that contributors saw no part of.

The big difference thus far is that Getty has shafted its contributors over and over again whereas there's just a worry about Shutterstock doing the same if it gets big and powerful enough

« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2014, 20:05 »
+4
@ David

Dont you think your excellent results on Getty are related to their careful advertising and marketing of what is in essence their flagship store?

You didnt see a Valentines day image being carelessly left on the front page of Gettyimages, did you?

A business will only grow if it is given a lot of focus and attention. istock really didnt get much love. They drove customers actively away - to Thinkstock or Getty, they stopped investing in staff, technology and offices.

istock didnt grow because they didnt want it to grow.

Getty itself is improving because of their attention to it.

At least, this is the way I see it.

But if you believe that having your files rented out in a viewer will drive your sales, best of luck.

I remember one file that was available in the Microsoft deal - it had 660 000 free downloads and not a single sale on istock. It definitely brought benefit to Microsoft office, because people enjoyed using it for their projects.

So I doubt that many random eyes will increase my sales. The Microsoft deal gives me 1.3 million free downloads of proof that it wasnt working for me.

« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2014, 20:10 »
-4
normally i am a GI supporter, but this goes a bit too far.

Well done for being "a GI supporter". Look where it got you. When Klein said "We are not the photographers' friend" ... he certainly meant it.

And you dare criticise SS and Oringer!

" ... but this goes a bit too far". Did you actually say that in the 'silly girly voice' that I can only imagine it being opined? Pathetic. A bit too far???

Su*king up to Getty got you exactly what you deserve. In this case ... absolutely nothing.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 20:13 by gostwyck »

« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2014, 20:12 »
+3
Notice not ALL of the collections are included here they are aware it's not good for the artist but great to throw some adverts on the viewer and make some cash. Humm lets stop people from stealing our images....OK give them away that will fix it. How will you ever police this? so I embed a image on my blog am I going to now turn around and buy it?? Ahhh sure oh please let me pay NOT! oh I need and image for a corporate presentation bam that is easy it's free!! NOTICE oh its Non-commercial use? sure are you ready to send out millions of letters asking for payments the artist will never see? probably

« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2014, 20:12 »
+1
I take it this includes iStock "from Getty".


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
9704 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
2581 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
1385 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
2376 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 06:11
by emicristea
107 Replies
28884 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors