MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 76927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #975 on: March 14, 2014, 15:21 »
+1
Interesting timeline up to the Getty freebies from Pickerell.
http://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JMP6130


« Reply #976 on: March 14, 2014, 16:18 »
+1
I saw that - a Facebook friend posted a link. Not a happy picture.

And these links are to very funny jabs at Getty, about the giveaway

http://newcameranews.com/2014/03/06/getty-images-giving-away-old-crap-that-nobody-wants/

and also about the accounting problem with the partner program

http://newcameranews.com/2014/03/02/getty-deems-itself-not-evil-enough-tries-harder/

And looking at Getty's alexa rankings over the last 10 days (lower is better)  ...

Global Mar 4 / Mar 9 / Mar 14
3,003  / 2,858 / 2,665

USA Mar 4 / Mar 9 / Mar 14
1,107 / 932 / 768
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 16:30 by Jo Ann Snover »

mlwinphoto

« Reply #977 on: March 14, 2014, 16:27 »
+5
While Getty is busy trying to corner the market on non-paying bloggers, I just sold several extended licenses at Stocksy which pay out 100% to the artist. :)
Congrats, it's good to see that you are making a lot more money now that you aren't with iStock/Getty.

Get turned down by Stocksy, did you?  (I did, BTW.... ;))

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #978 on: March 14, 2014, 16:56 »
+7
after ten years in this industry, the only thing I know for sure is that it's never as clean as just heroes and villains. the industry winners are those working with contributors, listening to them and cultivating them. promoting new models, growing new ideas, involving and encouraging active members. there's no place for bottomline greed at the expense of artists, nor for blinding egotism and only a handful of agencies today seem to get that. sometimes the grass is greener where we least expect it to be.


« Reply #979 on: March 14, 2014, 17:17 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:04 by tickstock »

« Reply #980 on: March 14, 2014, 17:21 »
+1

« Reply #981 on: March 14, 2014, 17:33 »
0
They must have made some changes how the embedded images are displayed.
Looking at the above article, I see the Getty notice underneath each image, the only difference being that the second image is smaller in both dimensions.


ShadySue

« Reply #982 on: March 14, 2014, 17:40 »
+2
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?
I didn't sign the Getty contract when offered; my contract with them covering my images on Getty is my iStock contract, which will be the same for a proportion of iStockers.

« Reply #983 on: March 14, 2014, 17:55 »
0
They must have made some changes how the embedded images are displayed.
Looking at the above article, I see the Getty notice underneath each image, the only difference being that the second image is smaller in both dimensions.

yeah but the credit line is still outside the picture

Shelma1

« Reply #984 on: March 14, 2014, 17:57 »
+5
They must have made some changes how the embedded images are displayed.
Looking at the above article, I see the Getty notice underneath each image, the only difference being that the second image is smaller in both dimensions.


Getty changed things in response to this article, but someone else figured out how to circumvent things again: http://checkyourexposure.com/p/184/getty-free-images-attribution-still-susceptible-to-circumvention

« Reply #985 on: March 15, 2014, 07:48 »
+2
To be honest: The longer I look at it, the more sense the whole thing makes. And quite frankly, the less I'm scared about the impact this might have on paid licenses.

When I go through the Embed Homepage on the Getty site, I now get almost 33 million search results of images that are embeddable. Of those, only 2.8 million (less than 10%) are from the Creative section. Most embeddable pictures are newsworthy stuff, sports, prominent people. This also makes sense in the context: There are much more posts about Obama or the Oscar's than those on business topics needing a gold fish image. At least in the non-commercial sector.

And I doubt there is as much harm to the photographer community overall. My guess is that most photographers shooting sports, red carpets, news event are hired pro. Either on payroll or on contract. They won't suffer if Getty decides not to charge for the use of those images.

Yes, I still believe that Getty should ask their contributors before makings such decisions: An opt-in solution. Plus feed back the data they gathered with my images. Then I wouldn't see any reason to complain at all.

KB

« Reply #986 on: March 15, 2014, 10:35 »
+3
Most embeddable pictures are newsworthy stuff, sports, prominent people.

Yes, I still believe that Getty should ask their contributors before makings such decisions: An opt-in solution. Plus feed back the data they gathered with my images. Then I wouldn't see any reason to complain at all.
I certainly agree with your last paragraph. But I will wait and see how much impact this has on my portfolio. I have only a few hundred files at Getty, all of which are embeddable, many of which make sense only in an editorial context (even though they are not editorial files themselves). They add about 10% - 20% to my IS income, so not a huge deal by itself but with IS sales dropping like they have been, every bit helps. If my GI sales disappear, it will hurt.

ShadySue

« Reply #987 on: March 15, 2014, 14:06 »
+1
When I go through the Embed Homepage on the Getty site, I now get almost 33 million search results of images that are embeddable. Of those, only 2.8 million (less than 10%) are from the Creative section. Most embeddable pictures are newsworthy stuff, sports, prominent people.
Surprising, as the original announcement (which hasn't been amended) specifically says
"What content is included?
Comp-sized creative and editorial stills files on gettyimages.com (excluding certain restricted collections such as Premium Archive, Contour and Reportage) are available for embed, as well as exclusive iStock photos and vectors on gettyimages.com."

Shelma1

« Reply #988 on: March 18, 2014, 08:10 »
+6
APA stands against Getty embedding:

http://www.prleap.com/pr/220442/

« Reply #989 on: March 18, 2014, 08:32 »
0
Nice atypical and true.


My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com


 

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
27058 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors