MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 76934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #950 on: March 14, 2014, 12:47 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:06 by tickstock »


« Reply #951 on: March 14, 2014, 12:52 »
+1
And that gives you the chance to pick up all his sales tickstock. Let us know when you earn more than him on istock. :)
I'm already earning more than him at iStock, remember he's not there anymore.

I'd be amazed if you were earning more than him now, never mind when he was at iStock.
Me too in all honesty.

Ha!

farbled

« Reply #952 on: March 14, 2014, 13:19 »
+1
I still haven't seen anything definitive about paying the contributors for use except some feel good statements here and there.

PDN: If you generate ad revenues from this initiative, will you share that revenue with contributors?
CP: The answer is yes. This is their content, and if we generate any revenue from that content, we not only have the obligation, but we have every intent to share that revenue.
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/03/gettys-greg-peters-on-why-free-images-are-good-for-photographers-and-for-the-photo-industry.html

Yep, probably ad revenue to put the quote into context (and you think subs are low?). As I said, nothing definitive. Yes they will share, how much? When will they generate ads? How does it work? You'd think they would have thought it out enough to say, yes, we will share X% of ad-based revenue with contributors or something similar.

Edit: re-reading, the question was about ad revenue, the answer was about contributor content. It is completely possible that they won't see a cent from ad revenue.

« Reply #953 on: March 14, 2014, 13:21 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:06 by tickstock »

farbled

« Reply #954 on: March 14, 2014, 13:25 »
+3
Yes they will share, how much? When will they generate ads? How does it work? You'd think they would have thought it out enough to say, yes, we will share X% of ad-based revenue with contributors or something similar.
The next question after the one I posted in the same article:

PDN: How might that be divvied up with contributors?
CP: We have contractual obligations back to our contributors that require us to pay certain royalty amounts to our contributors.

Check what your contract says, seems clear doesn't it?

Clear how? Royalty amounts based on sales of licences, isn't it? Does the contract specifically say ad revenue? As it is, I do not have a contract with Getty nor would I want one. And I haven't seen anything specific (and positive) from hardly anyone who does and is willing to put their name behind their opinion here. Anonymous opinions on the internet don't really carry a lot of weight. Just sayin.

« Reply #955 on: March 14, 2014, 13:26 »
+4
Have you ever seen a contract that was clear to anyone but a lawyer?

Just look at all these new definitions of "promotional use". Dont see anything in the contract that allows to embed files millions of times for free across the internet.

« Reply #956 on: March 14, 2014, 13:30 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:06 by tickstock »

ShadySue

« Reply #957 on: March 14, 2014, 13:33 »
+4
If you are on iStock you have a contract relating to this.  That's not anonymous opinion and neither is posting quotes from Getty officials.  If you want to ignore those things that's fine it's your choice.
That would be a totally obfuscatory, internally contradictory and ambiguous contract that they can interpret in whatever way they want to their own benefit.
No matter how often I asked for it to be drafted in Plain English, they deliberately chose not to do it.

Shelma1

« Reply #958 on: March 14, 2014, 13:35 »
+4
"Getty will get its pound of flesh one way or another," photography journalist Daniela Bowker told the BBC News website. "It has not gone into this blithely. It has got a plan."

She added many of her contacts were unhappy about the move.

"My Twitter feed has exploded with very angry photographers going 'I don't want Getty giving away my images for free'," she said.

"For some of them, it might mean their images are never used commercially and they'll never make a penny.

"They feel very strongly about that because photographers don't work for free and they don't work for exposure. They say: 'Exposure won't feed my children'. So a lot of people are very, very angry, and I sympathise with them.

"But at the same time, the genie is out of the bottle. There are so many images that are being shared and liked and tweeted and clicked on."

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26463886



« Reply #959 on: March 14, 2014, 13:36 »
+7
Yes they will share, how much? When will they generate ads? How does it work? You'd think they would have thought it out enough to say, yes, we will share X% of ad-based revenue with contributors or something similar.
The next question after the one I posted in the same article:

PDN: How might that be divvied up with contributors?
CP: We have contractual obligations back to our contributors that require us to pay certain royalty amounts to our contributors.

Check what your contract says, seems clear doesn't it?

Dear tickstock, you are making so much efforts to praise Getty no matter what they do.
Why?

« Reply #960 on: March 14, 2014, 13:38 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:05 by tickstock »

« Reply #961 on: March 14, 2014, 13:40 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:05 by tickstock »

farbled

« Reply #962 on: March 14, 2014, 13:40 »
+2
Yes they will share, how much? When will they generate ads? How does it work? You'd think they would have thought it out enough to say, yes, we will share X% of ad-based revenue with contributors or something similar.
The next question after the one I posted in the same article:

PDN: How might that be divvied up with contributors?
CP: We have contractual obligations back to our contributors that require us to pay certain royalty amounts to our contributors.

Check what your contract says, seems clear doesn't it?

Clear how? Royalty amounts based on sales of licences, isn't it? Does the contract specifically say ad revenue? As it is, I do not have a contract with Getty nor would I want one. And I haven't seen anything specific (and positive) from hardly anyone who does and is willing to put their name behind their opinion here. Anonymous opinions on the internet don't really carry a lot of weight. Just sayin.
If you are on iStock you have a contract relating to this.  That's not anonymous opinion (it's not opinion) and neither is posting quotes from Getty officials.  If you want to ignore those things that's fine it's your choice.

I'm not on iStock anymore (because they don't inspire any trust in me). If you actually read my comment you'd see that I said opinions on this forum (bolded for ya above). And as far as posting GI quotes goes, he didn't specifically say how anyone except Getty would make any money from this. And the way he said it leaves room for it to be interpreted a myriad of ways, including leaving the contributor out of ad based revenue.

« Reply #963 on: March 14, 2014, 13:44 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:05 by tickstock »

farbled

« Reply #964 on: March 14, 2014, 13:46 »
+6
And the way he said it leaves room for it to be interpreted a myriad of ways, including leaving the contributor out of ad based revenue.
Sorry I don't see that at all, care to explain?
PDN: If you generate ad revenues from this initiative, will you share that revenue with contributors?
CP: The answer is yes.  This is their content, and if we generate any revenue from that content, we not only have the obligation, but we have every intent to share that revenue.

This is the part that stood out for me:
This is their content, and if we generate any revenue from that content, we not only have the obligation, but we have every intent to share that revenue.

Content to me does not equal ads. So he's said two things, and even if they do share ad revenue, when? How much? under what circumstances? Pretty easy questions I would think....

ShadySue

« Reply #965 on: March 14, 2014, 13:50 »
+2
And the way he said it leaves room for it to be interpreted a myriad of ways, including leaving the contributor out of ad based revenue.
Sorry I don't see that at all, care to explain?
PDN: If you generate ad revenues from this initiative, will you share that revenue with contributors?
CP: The answer is yes.  This is their content, and if we generate any revenue from that content, we not only have the obligation, but we have every intent to share that revenue.
I found it odd that he didn't just say yes, without qualifying the answer.
Why say 'we have the obligation', as if he wished they didn't?
Why say, 'we have every intent to share ..."? I have lots of 'good intentions' that I don't always live up to  :-[.

« Reply #966 on: March 14, 2014, 13:51 »
+4
And that gives you the chance to pick up all his sales tickstock. Let us know when you earn more than him on istock. :)
I'm already earning more than him at iStock, remember he's not there anymore.

I got it.  Ba dum bump.


« Reply #967 on: March 14, 2014, 13:59 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:05 by tickstock »

« Reply #968 on: March 14, 2014, 14:02 »
-6
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:05 by tickstock »

« Reply #969 on: March 14, 2014, 14:02 »
+4
Photographers and illustrators tend to have above average IQ levels - give us some credit for realizing 39 pages ago this is a deliberate strategy by Getty to undermine the market, spin more money from our imagery whilst paying as little as possible (if anything) to the creators and an attempt to add false value through becoming a data mining and push marketing business to patch up their leaky finances.

Everything else is a sham.

« Reply #970 on: March 14, 2014, 14:05 »
+1
According to Bruce, in an interview, Stocksy is giving an RPI of about 1,4 $/month (60.000 files, 85.000 dollars payed to contributors in February). Although sometime I got more than that at IS, now I don't reach this mark. On the other hand, however, it doesn't appear easy to get a significant number of files through the Stocksy inspection process, because they are looking for a very specific type of file.

farbled

« Reply #971 on: March 14, 2014, 14:06 »
+3
Those things were answered in the interview.  Will you share ad revenue from the embed program with contributors?  Yes.  How much?  The amount that is agreed to in their contracts.  When?  When ad revenue is made.  That's the basic summary.
I did not know there was a specific part of the Getty contract about ad-revenue sharing from embedded images. Can anyone with an actual with an account confirm this? Sorry Tickstock, you sound knowledgeable and quite clever, but you could be anyone at GI, Istock, contributor, Lobo?, some random person who likes to argue, etc, etc...)....

« Reply #972 on: March 14, 2014, 15:10 »
+4
This is interesting:

On Roberts German Blog where he writes about Getty embed, there  is a comment by an admin from Zoonar. He says that Getty wrote to them per mail if they want to be part of the Getty embed program, but they declined. So getty does ask partner agencies, but refuses to offer an opt in or opt out for their own artists.

The sad news is that when Zoonar talks about sending files to Getty, they mean Thinkstock. I guess this means the free files are also coming to thinkstock and probably istock.

Then we will all be part of the click data stream...:(


To all those who think this Getty experiment is such brilliant news - why are partners like Blendimages, Zoonar etc...all refusing to take part?? Why are they not "excited"?

And why dont the regular artists, those with direct contracts with getty, get an opt out like them??

Zoonar is treated with a lot more respect and professionalism than the Getty House contributors and the istock exclusives (but they dont have much value anyway or there files would still be moving to Getty).



http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2014/03/10/getty-images-verschenkt-millionen-bilder-mit-kostenlosen-streaming-service-embed/#comments

"Michael Krabs
11. Mrz 2014 at 16:45
Liebe Fotografen,
da wir heute aufgrund des Beitrags einige Mails erhalten haben, weil wir Getty innerhalb der Zoonar-Distributorenverwaltung anbieten (genauer gesagt: Thinkstock) mchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass wir dem Vertrieb ber den neuen Streaming-Service Embed nicht zugestimmt. Wir wurden vorher per Mail gefragt, ob wir teilnehmen mchten. Das bedeutet im Klartext: Ihre ber Zoonar an Getty Images gelieferten Fotos drfen nicht dabei sein.

Wir haben die neue Belieferung von Bildern an Getty Ende 2013 eingestellt, weil das Keyword-Verfahren (Getty Keyword Guidelines) zu kompliziert war und sich fr uns nicht rechnete. Neu eingereichte Fotos sind daher sowieso nicht betroffen, auch dann nicht, wenn Sie diese fr Getty bereits freigeschaltet haben.

Dies nur als Info, bevor Panik ausbricht ;-)

Viele Gre,
Michael Krabs"
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 15:23 by cobalt »

« Reply #973 on: March 14, 2014, 15:13 »
+6
Quote
Dear tickstock, you are making so much efforts to praise Getty no matter what they do.
Why?

Gullibility, codependency with the devil, or simply a delusion.


« Reply #974 on: March 14, 2014, 15:16 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:04 by tickstock »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
9450 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
2503 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
1345 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
2307 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 06:11
by emicristea
107 Replies
27059 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors