pancakes

Please Donate To Bitcoin Address: [[address]]

Donation of [[value]] BTC Received. Thank You.
[[error]]

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256429 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aspp

« Reply #450 on: January 13, 2013, 11:28 »
+3
Jon Oringer replied to my tweet

On a weekend ? Working ? What an unusual approach to communications.


« Reply #451 on: January 13, 2013, 11:31 »
+7
Jon Oringer replied to my tweet

On a weekend ? Working ? What an unusual approach to communications.

RR did that too once. It was such an extraordinary event that she felt the need to tell us all about it!

aspp

« Reply #452 on: January 13, 2013, 11:32 »
+2
Jon Oringer replied to my tweet

On a weekend ? Working ? What an unusual approach to communications.

RR did that too once. It was such an extraordinary event that she felt the need to tell us all about it!

She probably got one of her skivvies to fax it in from the yacht.

rubyroo

« Reply #453 on: January 13, 2013, 11:34 »
0
RR did that too once. It was such an extraordinary event that she felt the need to tell us all about it!

ROFL!

lisafx

« Reply #454 on: January 13, 2013, 11:38 »
+2
Valued customer, thank you for purchasing one of my photos. It is the one that is an image of-------------.  Selling images is how I feed my family and customers like you who pay to legally license my images enables me to do so. Recently it has come to my attention that this image is one that is included in a "promotional package agreement" that Getty images has made with google. The result of this "agreement" is that this image is now being given away without any sort of appropriate compensation to me the copyright holder. Up until now I have trusted the agency to protect my image rights and the integrity of the image you paid to license. Now I believe that protection falls on me alone. I am currently in the process of tracking down all legal uses of this image as well as all illegal uses of this image. I have instructed my lawyer to seek damages for every single unauthorized use we can find. You can be assured that I take my profession seriously and protecting paying customers like you is a priority. Thank you for your time. Sincerely -------


This is what I will send to everyone using any images of mine associated with this deal or any other similar deal.

I think your initiative is great, and you are obviously a very articulate letter writer.  I worry, though, that alerting the paying customers to the fact the same image can be had for free elsewhere will hasten the devaluation of your image.  Not to mention resulting in a refund before they go and download it from Google for free. 

What effect are you hoping this will have on the buyer? 

« Reply #455 on: January 13, 2013, 11:59 »
+2
Quote
Don't be silly, did you miss the word "we"?

I didn't realise you meant 'we' as in everybody at iStock, rather than 'we', as in the 40 or 50 people who might read your post. Whichever 'we' you meant, they were both unrealistic expectations.

"I think it's the people earning a few thousand a month that need to leave the most."

They are the least likely to leave though ( and I am in that group). That is the problem. The hobbyists and amateurs may kick up a stink, shout a lot, maybe deactivate some images, no one cares, to be blunt. The ones who might, en masse, make a difference ( and there would have to be lots of them doing it, not just 10 or 20), are too reliant on the income.
They're reliant on an income that istock/Getty seem to be determined to destroy.  Isn't getting out of istock going to do more to protect their income?  It might not cost them as much as they think in the short term, as I'm sure buyers are using other sites and lots of those that aren't could be persuaded to.  Independents making thousands a month with istock will also be earning thousands from other sites and they should be able to survive for a few months without their istock earnings.  I know it wont happen though, so I might as well stop going on about it.

« Reply #456 on: January 13, 2013, 12:00 »
+1
ETA:  Nevermind.  I have removed the letter because apparently picking it apart is considered, by some, to be a better use of their time than actually doing something about this situation.

I have removed 100 of my image tonight (and will remove more) which I plan to upload to some mid stock agencies soon. I spent more time on that than pointing out what I considered a factually wrong statement.

I wasn't wasting my time picking your letter apart. I was just pointing out that something (actually there were others) in your letter were factually wrong. If that's okay for you for the sake of getting a point across, you can go ahead. But I'd think providing pure facts would sound bad enough, it doesn't need any effort or unfortunate wording to make it look worse.

With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.

But even in that case Getty still has the last word. They can bring all of their own RF stuff (stockbyte, etc.) to IS and convert IS to Thinkstock, which is their longterm goal I think.

« Reply #457 on: January 13, 2013, 12:13 »
+1
Lizafx, I don't intend to send this to paying customers. I intend to send it to the people who didn't pay. I just don't want to offend them if they did. Here is the idea. If I got this email and knew I had paid for it I would probably forget about it or respond that I paid for it and where. However, if I didn't pay for it I might wonder if I could be in for some trouble. I might delete the image or I might ignore the situation. Regardless of what the person does I have created some level of doubt in his mind about free images. Probably some time in the next couple of days he/she is having coffee or lunch and mentions the email. Now I have created doubt in two people. 2 people times 3 letters times 6000 images is 36000 people talking about this issue that weren't even aware it was a problem.

This is about perception not reality. Getty knows this and so does Google. They are counting on it. However, We can make a difference because if enough people are under the impression that this is not ok or even have some level of doubt it will not matter what the lawyers say.

lisafx

« Reply #458 on: January 13, 2013, 12:18 »
+1
Lizafx, I don't intend to send this to paying customers. I intend to send it to the people who didn't pay. I just don't want to offend them if they did. Here is the idea. If I got this email and knew I had paid for it I would probably forget about it or respond that I paid for it and where. However, if I didn't pay for it I might wonder if I could be in for some trouble. I might delete the image or I might ignore the situation. Regardless of what the person does I have created some level of doubt in his mind about free images. Probably some time in the next couple of days he/she is having coffee or lunch and mentions the email. Now I have created doubt in two people. 2 people times 3 letters times 6000 images is 36000 people talking about this issue that weren't even aware it was a problem.

This is about perception not reality. Getty knows this and so does Google. They are counting on it. However, We can make a difference because if enough people are under the impression that this is not ok or even have some level of doubt it will not matter what the lawyers say.

Ah, I didn't understand you were sending this to non-payers.  I think it is very clever then.  Creating doubt about the legitimacy of these free images is extremely important and we should all be doing it every chance or way we can. 

lisafx

« Reply #459 on: January 13, 2013, 12:22 »
+1

With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.


I was thinking something similar.  If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate.  Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.

I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here.  If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.   

« Reply #460 on: January 13, 2013, 12:26 »
+2

With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.


I was thinking something similar.  If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate.  Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.

I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here.  If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.

Yes, probably some of these contributors earnings (thus, their bread) are dependent on IS, so they may have some hesitation. But I think in the long run they will lose if they stay on IS. It seems to me that this website doesn't have any serious future prospect.

« Reply #461 on: January 13, 2013, 12:46 »
+10

With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.


I was thinking something similar.  If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate.  Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.

I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here.  If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.

I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community - it is surprising how many people don't see the gravity of it. I think disbelief is a big part of it. Just think about it - Getty allows for free re-distribution of our images that we entrusted them to sell. This is not cutting commissions or rising prices, this is violating artist-agent agreement.  So my point is, it shouldn't be about "I'll leave if others do", it's about do you want that kind of (scummy) agent to represent your work. If you're ok with it it's your choice, but this agent will grab some quick money off your work and will take off leaving you broke. It's not about "we'll show them". It's about firing them. They are just salespeople with questionable ethics that are screwing up sales of my product.
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 17:21 by Elenathewise »

« Reply #462 on: January 13, 2013, 13:20 »
0

With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.


I was thinking something similar.  If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate.  Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.

I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here.  If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.

Seems to me that Yuri would be in a prime position to lead such a thing.  He's got his site up and running and if he was ever thinking about expanding it to others the time is ripe.   I imagine it would make some news in the industry if he were to grab the top dozen IS photographers and migrate them to his site.  He's got the staffing and PR in place to promote it and gain a lot of attention. 

« Reply #463 on: January 13, 2013, 13:20 »
+1
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.

On IS,  I am the smallest of fish.   But I agree.  If this doesn't get rolled back, with a full apology, within a week or two - I'll get out, completely.  I won't passively support this sort of cr@p, and we need to do what we can to protect our income from other agencies. 

However, I doubt they will - or can - back out of this deal.  Google has huge legal and lobbying power and has no doubt held out even bigger deals in the future, if IS plays along.   This initial giveaway collection is probably deliberately small and just a 'pilot project'.


lisafx

« Reply #464 on: January 13, 2013, 13:28 »
+2

I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community - it is surprising how many people don't see the gravity of it. I think disbelief is a big part of it. Just think about it - Getty allows for free re-distribution of our images that we entrusted them to sell. This is not cutting commissions or rising prices, this is violating artist-agent agreement.  So my point is, it shouldn't be about "I'll leave if others do", it's about do you want that kind of (scummy) agent to represent your work. If you're ok with it it's your choice, but this agent will grab some quick money off your work and will take off leaving you broke. It's now about "we'll show them". It's about firing them. They are just salespeople with questionable ethics that are screwing up sales of my product.
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.

I completely agree with everything you say.  I was just agreeing with the suggestion that if a number of us make the individual decision to walk out, it might have more impact if those of us who are leaving do it together on a specific date. 

ETA:  From my perspective, I think the lawsuit route would be most effective and send the loudest message to others in the industry who may be considering the same types of deals.   Pretty sure two weeks is not enough time to put together a lawsuit.  But OTOH, some of the affected artists will have had time to consult attorneys. 
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 13:31 by lisafx »

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #465 on: January 13, 2013, 13:29 »
0
I think people are being very naive here. iStock are happy with their side of this deal, they have said so in the forums......
"Google licensed these images for use by Google users through the Google Drive platform; Users of this platform are granted rights to place this imagery in content created using Google Docs, Google Sites, and Google Presentations, which end uses can be for commercial purposes.
Users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside the context of Google Drive created content.
No rights are granted to Google users to redistribute image files outside of the context in which theyre used.
Googles license rights are not the same as the standard RF license rights. We have specifically given them the right to enable that content to be used by their end users within the confines of the Google programs. They have a bespoke EULA."
Do you really think they are going to apologise? That would admit some error on their part which they deny. If anyone is to blame, they would argue, it is Google.

« Reply #466 on: January 13, 2013, 13:31 »
+2
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.

I don't trust their statements at all. Their statements have no value to me. Even if they cancel the deal with Google (which probably can't happen), who knows if there are no other scams running or in the pipeline? 
They create some loopholes in the contract in order to pull off a scam some time later.

We have 2 choices now:

1. Legal measures
2. Deactivating images and portfolios

Going to the media and whining is useless, it is just providing free entertainment to Getty.
Also the general public wants free stuff, they may even see Getty as "the good guys".

I started deactivating images yesterday.

I suppose Getty might have financial problems and they needed cash really fast. Google is one of the few companies who could pay such a sum at once with no problems. Judging by the facts that we have, the deal is really stupid, it also hurts Getty. They might have been forced to do it.

« Reply #467 on: January 13, 2013, 13:36 »
0
I think people are being very naive here. iStock are happy with their side of this deal, they have said so in the forums......
How old are you? 10? 15?
No company would ever say that they are not happy with a deal that they just made, especially in a public forum.  ;D ;D ;D That's ridiculous, they would admit that they are a bunch of complete losers (which they probably are).
And WOW, you believe what iStock say in the forums  ;D ;D ;D

lisafx

« Reply #468 on: January 13, 2013, 13:37 »
0


We have 2 choices now:

1. Legal measures
2. Deactivating images and portfolios

Going to the media and whining is useless, it is just providing free entertainment to Getty.
Also the general public wants free stuff, they may even see Getty as "the good guys".


Those two options should both be pursued together, not either one or the other. 

I disagree that alerting the media is a waste of time.  Look what just happened with Instagram.  People didn't think giving their stuff away for free was so great at all.  And this coming so quickly on the heels of that disaster will seem like more of the same sort of abuse. 

I keep reading posts that compare different responses to this and want to discuss which one is best.  They should ALL be done together to be most effective. 

« Reply #469 on: January 13, 2013, 13:40 »
+5

I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community - it is surprising how many people don't see the gravity of it. I think disbelief is a big part of it. Just think about it - Getty allows for free re-distribution of our images that we entrusted them to sell. This is not cutting commissions or rising prices, this is violating artist-agent agreement.  So my point is, it shouldn't be about "I'll leave if others do", it's about do you want that kind of (scummy) agent to represent your work. If you're ok with it it's your choice, but this agent will grab some quick money off your work and will take off leaving you broke. It's now about "we'll show them". It's about firing them. They are just salespeople with questionable ethics that are screwing up sales of my product.
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.

I completely agree with everything you say.  I was just agreeing with the suggestion that if a number of us make the individual decision to walk out, it might have more impact if those of us who are leaving do it together on a specific date. 

ETA:  From my perspective, I think the lawsuit route would be most effective and send the loudest message to others in the industry who may be considering the same types of deals.   Pretty sure two weeks is not enough time to put together a lawsuit.  But OTOH, some of the affected artists will have had time to consult attorneys.

Unfortunately, lawsuits take years and are emotionally and financially draining. In addition, collecting on any judgement won is the second battle. It is an inherent problem with the legal system in the United States. That being said, I do think it should be strongly considered as a small part of a larger plan.

While I submitted to drop my crown in late December, I am currently debating taking a further step and deactivating my entire portfolio. I would do so not to make a statement, but rather to protect the integrity of my copyrights and the trust of my models. I am waiting for further details and will act to do so if need be.

It is a sad and frightening time for all stock artists.

ETA: I should clarify that I would deactivate my entire portfolio as part of a group initiative.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 13:45 by jbryson »

« Reply #470 on: January 13, 2013, 13:51 »
-1


We have 2 choices now:

1. Legal measures
2. Deactivating images and portfolios

Going to the media and whining is useless, it is just providing free entertainment to Getty.
Also the general public wants free stuff, they may even see Getty as "the good guys".


Those two options should both be pursued together, not either one or the other. 
I disagree that alerting the media is a waste of time.  Look what just happened with Instagram.  People didn't think giving their stuff away for free was so great at all.  And this coming so quickly on the heels of that disaster will seem like more of the same sort of abuse. 

Yes, I mean one option doesn't exclude the other.
Instagram case is different. It is a different business model, the number of their users is huge. I don't use Instagram and don't know how exactly they make money, but probably the size of their user base is their main asset and they cannot afford to lose too many. Getty doesn't care about individual contributors and there is a an oversupply of images. Compared to the Instagram case, the Getty scam affects a very small, specialized group of people. And Getty provides free stuff to the general public. Using media is wasting time and only informs the people that free stuff is available.

CD123

« Reply #471 on: January 13, 2013, 14:08 »
0
This is also something that does not only affect the iStock contributor, but the whole microstock industry. Every logical image buyer without a contract with an agency will obviously look out now for free (high quality professionally approved) content, before they go to their favorite stock site (SS, FT, DT or whoever) to buy an image.

« Reply #472 on: January 13, 2013, 14:09 »
+4
I think people are being very naive here. iStock are happy with their side of this deal, they have said so in the forums......
"Google licensed these images for use by Google users through the Google Drive platform; Users of this platform are granted rights to place this imagery in content created using Google Docs, Google Sites, and Google Presentations, which end uses can be for commercial purposes.
Users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside the context of Google Drive created content.
No rights are granted to Google users to redistribute image files outside of the context in which theyre used.
Googles license rights are not the same as the standard RF license rights. We have specifically given them the right to enable that content to be used by their end users within the confines of the Google programs. They have a bespoke EULA."
Do you really think they are going to apologise? That would admit some error on their part which they deny. If anyone is to blame, they would argue, it is Google.

Googles license rights are not the same as the standard RF license rights

You got it, Google license rights are not the same as RF....but wait a minute, I though I signed up for selling under the RF license. ...uh.what you're saying is.. all I have to do is to buy a bunch of photos under the RF license and redistribute them for free as long as I create a license that says it is ok.....wow...are you serious
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 14:12 by cybernesco »

« Reply #473 on: January 13, 2013, 14:11 »
0
Instead of the media, I was thinking about something else.
I am not from the US, but a very significant number of contributors are and Getty is a major US corporation. The number of US contributors doing stock full-time or part-time must be quite a few thousands. AFAIK the current situation on the job market in the US is not rosy. Stock royalties must be an important source of supplemental income for thousands of American families in tough times. For some it is the sole income. This source of income can be very seriously endangered in mid-term.
Also, many other agencies are based in the US and this and similar deals create unfair competition.
The losses to the American economy may be significant.

How about asking a congressman to look into this?
I presume this would create a really big stink and there would be no legal costs for the contributors, right?

I think it would be good to investigate if there was some additional payment from Google for this deal, apart from the image royalties. Should this be the case, should it be shared among the affected contributors or not?

« Reply #474 on: January 13, 2013, 14:16 »
+1
Snufkin, with an approval rating around 10%, plus Congress cannot get anything done as it is, I would have more faith in asking Getty directly. IMO.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25077 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
10967 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
25552 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
6845 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
5 Replies
5590 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 02:10
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors