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 256383 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« Reply #550 on: January 14, 2013, 06:55 »
+2
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #551 on: January 14, 2013, 06:56 »
0
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one.
If you think that is universally true, you are either extremely young and uninformed, extremely naive, you live in a country which does not have a very high unemployment rate, somehow sheltered from the reality of the world at large,k or you have been suckered in by all the women's magazine 'live your dream' rubbish.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 06:59 by ShadySue »

« Reply #552 on: January 14, 2013, 07:04 »
+1
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.

It sounds like paranoid theory but it doesn't mean it can't be true. Who would believe few days ago that Getty will give their (our) images to Google for free.
I hope that explanation that they are "lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring" is right one.

rubyroo

« Reply #553 on: January 14, 2013, 07:10 »
0
I added two posts to the thread, but now I can't see a link to click to see the thread.
I'll try again later.

Thanks ShadySue :)  Yeah it's a pain that site isn't it?  Surprisingly awkward to get things to respond as they should.

@ Microbius - I would love to be a fly on the wall at the other agency HQs to hear how they are reacting to this latest development.  Thanks to Kelly at GL we've at least heard one very concerned voice.

Microbius

« Reply #554 on: January 14, 2013, 07:24 »
+1
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.

It sounds like paranoid theory but it doesn't mean it can't be true. Who would believe few days ago that Getty will give their (our) images to Google for free.
I hope that explanation that they are "lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring" is right one.

Yeah I'm getting into tin foil hat territory, but if you told me a few months ago that Getty would be offering unlimited numbers commercial licenses for our images for $12 and SS would be reinstating contributors' portfolios after they had been caught blatantly stealing other contributor's work several times I would have thought you were paranoid too!

rubyroo

« Reply #555 on: January 14, 2013, 07:29 »
+4
Certainly, the way things are going, the tin foil hat could become 'very 2013'.

aspp

« Reply #556 on: January 14, 2013, 07:36 »
+3
I would love to be a fly on the wall at the other agency HQs to hear how they are reacting to this latest development.

Probably amazed that the idiotic Istock Getty team have clumsily managed to make themselves seem even more untrustworthy. But it seems so obviously dumb and poorly handled that they are probably wondering whether it is some kind of clever trick.

The stupid stupid stupid thing is that they could have done a deal not so amazingly different and there would have been support and agreement.

« Reply #557 on: January 14, 2013, 07:55 »
+2
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.

Very plausible theory.  Also very worrisome.  I don't want to do anything rash and I want to give Istock a chance to make things right.  If there's no improvement in the situation by this weekend, I'll start the process of deactivating.  Really sad what Istock has become.

lisafx

« Reply #558 on: January 14, 2013, 07:59 »
+3
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one? 

Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post. 

I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.

« Reply #559 on: January 14, 2013, 08:04 »
+1
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one? 

Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post. 

I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.

If Feb. 2nd is going to be the agreed upon date for deactivation, I'll try to wait until then.

« Reply #560 on: January 14, 2013, 08:28 »
0
I am going to alert a few other photographers who may not have heard about this.

lisafx

« Reply #561 on: January 14, 2013, 08:30 »
0
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one? 

Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post. 

I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.

If Feb. 2nd is going to be the agreed upon date for deactivation, I'll try to wait until then.

It was too much for me, LOL.  Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images ;D

I will try and old off until Feb 2 to do the rest, or at least my best sellers...

They really had better watch out though.  Deleting them starts to get sort of addictive... 

« Reply #562 on: January 14, 2013, 08:41 »
+1
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one? 

Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post. 

I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.

If Feb. 2nd is going to be the agreed upon date for deactivation, I'll try to wait until then.

It was too much for me, LOL.  Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images ;D

I will try and old off until Feb 2 to do the rest, or at least my best sellers...

They really had better watch out though.  Deleting them starts to get sort of addictive...

Wow!  Sounds like fun.  Looking forward to Feb. 2nd now.  A deactivating orgy. 

« Reply #563 on: January 14, 2013, 08:50 »
0
They say "There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans" but it's kind of hard to trust them. I won't wait that long. I don't want to see ten or more thousand images added till Feb 2nd. I'm waiting for their announcement to see which way we go (I hope that some will appear today) and decide in two days.

« Reply #564 on: January 14, 2013, 08:50 »
0
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.

While that theory sounds possible, it doesn't seem to fully fit to the issue discussed here, as - IIRC - a high number of exclusive files (even from their higher priced collections) is included in the free giveaways...

Veneratio

« Reply #565 on: January 14, 2013, 08:52 »
+1
Bear with me whilst I summarise this thread, and also bring in a few others on the board at the moment....

I can access Google Drive and download - for free - thousands of high quality stock images which are best sellers for many contributors? These free images are big enough to be accepted by "most" stock agencies as above minimum file size requirements? The Google Drive deal allows me to use these images for commercial usage? I can blur these images and use them as a background and claim they are derivative works and I can then upload all thousands of these images to stock sites, knowing they won't be taken down for copyright infringement by the agencies because they will be bringing in too much money for the agencies? I can then continue accessing Google Drive for possibly more content to be added in the future?

And I can do all of this AT NO COST other than my time?

What a fantastic industry we work in  !!!!!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #566 on: January 14, 2013, 08:56 »
0
They say "There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans" but it's kind of hard to trust them.
Especially when in the very same post, MrErin said:
"Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors. This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume."

As Private Eye would say: "Just fancy that!"

« Reply #567 on: January 14, 2013, 09:00 »
+2
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. They might have other, possibly even bigger scams in the pipeline, and might speed them up. I am continuing to deactivate.

There is no statement they could make that would impress me. They would have to compensate the scammed artists with $ 5.000-20.000 per image, which will not happen.

This is nothing else but a scam, contributors are made to believe something but in the end they lose their property which is grabbed by the other party.

Pinocchio

« Reply #568 on: January 14, 2013, 09:16 »
0
Hope you folk don't mind, but I consider it worth repeating something I mentioned earlier, because of the length of this thread:  If you have images in the PP, it is going to take some time to get them deactivated.  If you are deactivating files, I suggest you monitor the PP sites, and e-mail contributor relations with PP image numbers to get them taken down before you close your account (if that's what you decide to do).  I deactivated an image 2012/10/28, and it was still active in the PP two months later.  To their credit, contributor relations removed the images when I contacted them.

Regards

lisafx

« Reply #569 on: January 14, 2013, 09:21 »
0
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. They might have other, possibly even bigger scams in the pipeline, and might speed them up. I am continuing to deactivate.


Fortunately, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want.  Personally, I think a coordinated effort sends more of a message.  You are of course free to do what pleases you.  :)

« Reply #570 on: January 14, 2013, 09:25 »
0
It was too much for me, LOL.  Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images ;D. 

L,
where is Sean's script?...This is taking forever..

lisafx

« Reply #571 on: January 14, 2013, 09:27 »
0
It was too much for me, LOL.  Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images ;D. 


L,
where is Sean's script?...This is taking forever..


http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #572 on: January 14, 2013, 09:33 »
0
IME, sales have ground to such an all-time low that I'd hardly be losing anything if I deactivated everything.

I just haven't worked out what to do with the files that have sold. Don't fancy any of the other micros.

« Reply #573 on: January 14, 2013, 09:47 »
+2
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. They might have other, possibly even bigger scams in the pipeline, and might speed them up. I am continuing to deactivate.


Fortunately, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want.  Personally, I think a coordinated effort sends more of a message.  You are of course free to do what pleases you.  :)

We need a community owned "co-op" Sean lead with large input from leading contributors.    Why Sean, he is smarter than istock lawyer for starters.  Now that istock was gutted there is no reason to be exclusive anymore.  But the other sites are not a good option for low payout.   Many istock exclusives are not producing images for the greedy losers at getty. 

I know of a few top exclusives who would be interested.  A co-op would eliminate the bruce, jon, getty selling the whole thing in five years and only them getting rich of others work.  It would make  selling images worth more than selling the website.

The contributors who build the site need to be protected.  This is the only real way!!

« Reply #574 on: January 14, 2013, 10:07 »
+1
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. [...]

Personally, I think a coordinated effort sends more of a message.  You are of course free to do what pleases you.  :)

IMHO a sudden attack sends a more powerful message. Surprise and fear are very powerful weapons. 2 weeks gives them plenty time to come up with some mischievous plan. They should have no time, they should act under pressure. They always drop bombs on us without any warning.

Giving 2 weeks time, is something that is done in diplomacy to achieve a goal. But these people are no diplomats, they are ruthless crooks that take advantage of any weakness that the other party shows. To be successful with this kind of people one must play really hard and show no weaknesses.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 10:16 by Snufkin »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25072 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
10966 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
25546 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