I wouldn�t bank on it. google has more money than gawd to squash this stuff, payoff judges, etc.

Quote from: cthoman on April 01, 2018, 15:58

So... do we get X% of whatever they win?

X% of nothing is still nothing. But maybe if you pay for the lawyers, you can insure you get a cut. 

Filing a lawsuit is proof of nothing, just that Dreamstime is unhappy. I like the jury trial, that's a smart move. We'll have to see, but I can understand why DT has filed at this point. Sales down, income down, rank down, the future isn't looking to prosperous. If the next quote, from their claim, is true, even more reason to go all in.

"47. Google also plans to enter the online stock photography business segment directly..." That should be interesting if true.

Partnership - adwords with Shutterstock: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/280120/google-shutterstock-licensing-deal-automatically.html Down at the bottom, "Google joins AOL, Salesforce and Sprinklr in integrating Shutterstock search capabilities directly into their products." Shouldn't we be seeing an income increase?

Basically, DT is claiming that Google cooks the results to benefit SS and IS and adds Adobe to the group, even though Adobe doesn't pay for the advantage. DT's main market is discounted images. Called "competitive pricing" in the lawsuit. DT says there's a monopoly and anti-trust violations involved because of the way Google treats Dreamstime, because Google profits from the others higher rank. DT says new buyers have declined 30% since the "manipulated" drop in the search ranking. DT's drop from page one and further down has in effect reduced their clicks from the search, 95%. Also "low cost per acquisition advertisements were being removed" for non-compliance while higher cost, similar ads were allowed to stay.

The antitrust part is pretty much general ways that Google is in violation. DT also asserts that "overcharged and over delivered AdWords to
Dreamstime" which isn't the first time I've read a complaint from an advertiser about AdWords costs and contracts. Amusing, if any of this can be that, DT claims unfair removal of ads when SS ran similar ads. When DT wrote to Google to complain, they were ignored. Hey how does that feel? 

I use Bing for my default search. I enjoy the points and can get gift cards for places, just for doing what I do anyway, which is search the web.



How's SS doing? Some people have noticed that the drop in sales for us has been connected to the drop in the rank.
SS

DT


I don't know how much to base on Alexa graphs and I don't have an account, so that's about all I can see.

Already happened (sort of) with their fast growing Audio Library in Youtube.
They put the space and say: free to promote your work artists (music industry)
Free legal music to you customers (call them creators or whatever you believe...)
Google knows one thing for sure to first offer for free and then collect on a payed basis.

As a newbie in stock footage  I know nothing, especially on images and profit.
But as an average user, i know this. Google first gatheres and then sell (by giving a cut).
If all those backup cloud pictures in Google account reach a possible milestone,
Why not google send a generic: profit from your pictures in Photos!
Select and sell those that you want! With face recognitions, here are some suggested
Clients that might be interested: schoolmates, the bar you posed, your vacation climbing clip..

Etc. Google as a compliment does a really good work on human analysis.
I remember using Picasa ages ago and clearly face detected 97-98% persons in the picture.
Nowadays, guess that they can do better. Way much more better! (For them, not us...)


Edit, i wanted to quote the Google entering stock phrase! Silly me!
As a second thought, if Google connect me with the bar owner I shot a selfie,
Send him a sample and suggest him/her to make an offer?
No need to be a contributor or anything.
Instant profit, automated and with no "i am shamed to ask if my photo values anything..."

Where there is extra offer, a saturated market, automation enters.
Kind of industrie. If we produced 10 tomatoes we make them dinner.
If we produce 10tons a day we need automation. And Google is the king on that...

This isn't done, or is it?

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/06/contract-breach-claims-against-google-survive-first-amendment-defense-dreamstime-v-google.htm

Cutting to the end: "I�m pretty sure the DOJ won�t be investigating Dreamstime�s problem. Instead, this case reminds me a lot of the e-Ventures case, also involving allegations of competitive downranking/de-indexing. e-Ventures survived Google�s motion to dismiss but then got shut down on summary judgment. I think it�s pretty clear Dreamstime will suffer the same fate, especially given the low odds it will find anything close to the smoking gun it seeks. Unfortunately, it will take lots of money on discovery to reach this seemingly inevitable outcome."

Just to add who wrote this opinion, Eric Goldman is a Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law. He also co-directs the school�s High Tech Law Institute and supervises the school�s Privacy Law Certificate. Previously, he was an Assistant Professor at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, WI. Before that, I was General Counsel of Epinions, Inc. in Brisbane, CA and, before that, a technology transactions and Internet lawyer at Cooley Godward LLP in Palo Alto, CA.

Somehow I lean towards, his opinion might be right?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 15, 2019, 09:34

This isn't done, or is it?

It's done now.

Verdict in Favor of Google leaves Dreamstime looking bad

Thanks for keeping up on this, I was wondering how that went.

"After successive rulings whittled the case down, all that was left was a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing plus associated 17200 claims on the theory that �Google fraudulently concealed the reasons for Dreamstime�s search ranking drop in order to boost its advertising revenue.� Unsurprisingly, discovery did not produce anything damning.�"

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2018cv01910/324533/184/

The big ones almost always crush the weakest ones.

Did you read the decision from the judge?

"Dreamstime�s fraud claims fail for one simple reason.  Nobody at Google, either on the advertising or the organic side, ever believed that Dreamstime�s ranking dropped as a result of the update to Google�s salient terms algorithm."

Try page 11:

Although both sides now agree that Google did not deliberately demote Dreamstime�s search ranking, Dreamstime insists that a late 2015 update to one of Google�s algorithms did cause Dreamstime�s search-ranking drop.  For its part, Google insists that the update is extremely unlikely to be the explanation for any ranking changes Dreamstime may have experienced.

So DT should win because he's the little guy or because there's no case and no law was broken?

I wouldn�t bank on it. google has more money than gawd to squash this stuff, payoff judges, etc.

Yeah, that's it, the judge was paid off. 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2018cv01910/324533/184/

Quote

  Yeah, that's it, the judge was paid off.       

You say that like it never happens. 

Never say never?

Better yet, DTs argument was "they changed the algorithm". 

For the Cliff Notes version: DT said they changed the search, to favor the competition. G says, the DT website and organic search was what caused the rank to drop. DT spent millions in adwords and still didn't recover the rank.

I think the number was 12.6 million dollars. That doesn't sound small to me when DT pays me 35c for a sub download?

or they aren't paying contributors what they ought to be paying them. How do we find out anyway? Unlike SS, where there's a quarterly circus where you know how much they made and how little they paid you, all of DT's sales statistics are under wraps.

People would find their images being used, online or in the real world, without seeing the sales reflected in their Dreamstime dashboard.
And that didn't happen until now, I think they play that quite fair.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 10, 2020, 10:01

I think the number was 12.6 million dollars. That doesn't sound small to me when DT pays me 35c for a sub download?

I wonder where they got that kind of money to both pay for these adwords and for this expensive lawsuit. Fighting google in court certainly wasn't going to be cheap?

The conspiracy theorist in me wants to suspect if DT misreports sales to contributors. Because clearly it's a pretty widespread consensus that people aren't making a lot of money there. Which means DT isn't making a lot of money either. But they're still up and haven't gone under (yet) and that must cost a lot of money too. So either they have a lot of highly generous benefactors funding them or they aren't paying contributors what they ought to be paying them. How do we find out anyway? Unlike SS, where there's a quarterly circus where you know how much they made and how little they paid you, all of DT's sales statistics are under wraps.

None of ever got paid what we should, that's without the fraud. Agency takes 80% we get 20% (that's a big number, overall) DT paid us, on average, 35c-85c a DL and what did they license them for?

More like this. Say I made $100 on DT? They made $400. Now take that and monthly and thousands of good contributors, the numbers get pretty big.

After reading every document, from DT and the court cases, it appears that DT was dropping and dropping in the search. He spent millions to bring that back up, but the agency was losing rank. DT hired a SEO specialist, to bring them back, and that still didn't work. Maybe the big agencies and the market had changed? But his answer was, Google got more money from the top agencies, so they conspired to lower DT.

The claims were not shown to be true. He lost. Better Call Saul... DT went for the injury claim, and could have won big. I sure hope his lawyers worked on a contingency basis?