MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 90517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #100 on: March 06, 2014, 06:04 »
+3
They're not offering full size, StockPhotosArt, only very low resolution versions.

Someone said Getty is promising to pay commission on advertising revenue. If so one can only wonder how they will track the millions of clicks that will be needed by each individual to get to a payout.

We know that they are not offering hi-res images, but the problem is that they are COMPLETELY killing a source of revenue we have, since in alamy we have a good amount of sales that are part of the Newspaper Scheme (that had reeeeeally low prices already) and now these are dead because newspapers can get free images for editorial purposes.

Plus, we have many blog size sales too, and we doubt that they are all meant for commercial purposes. Many are of editorial nature. These will be gone too!

And how long do you think it will take that more pressure will be put over the commercial uses and prices drop even more?

As for the clicks, we'll see if we get any of it... imagine 20% at best of $0.05c per click or something like it...

One thing is for sure, if we decide to make our whole collection free, we'll kill the travel segment for Lisbon - one of the most awarded travel destinations in Europe in recent years - and a large part of Portugal...

Since we have a few images on Getty and they sell, and on our websites we get a lot of hits coming from google, meaning there's  a need for them, we think we can make a little dent in their profits if we offer thousands of high quality images for free in hi-res...

And I'm just an ant. Imagine if thousands of photographers decide to do the same when the returns becomes unsustainable for the work needed? The agencies will simply crash. Let's see what will they do next...
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 09:18 by StockPhotosArt »


« Reply #101 on: March 06, 2014, 06:14 »
+2
only 35 million? that is only 10 years of hardcore uploading by the slaves (contributors), I wonder about the following 10 years... oh in the meantime keep uploading to the one agency we all know, I am sure they won't give images for free, don't think shareholders would be happy ;D

« Reply #102 on: March 06, 2014, 06:16 »
+4
Someone said Getty is promising to pay commission on advertising revenue.

Someone said - Getty is promising... seriously - does anyone still believe any Getty promises? When they come via someone or directly from Getty??

I'm just trying to provide information. Someone who has been in on the Getty-only forums said they have stated that IF they use this for advertising they will pay 20% to exclusives and 15% to independents on the Getty 360 scheme.  I've no reason to doubt that, and since it means worse terms than ever for both exclusives and independents it sounds about right.

« Reply #103 on: March 06, 2014, 06:19 »
+8
From BJP FB: The British Journal of Photography We'll publish industry reactions later today, asking rival stock agencies, photographers representatives and others for their opinion. Stay tuned.

Quite curios about the reactions :)

Ron

« Reply #104 on: March 06, 2014, 06:20 »
+1
There is only one reason behind all of this. Kill off the microstock competition. Who will be hit hardest by this are middle and bottom tier agencies.

to me this argument does not make sense. By fostering a "images should be free mentality" - for everyone (because seriously the line between commercial and non-commercial usage here is soo blurry that lots of usages fall under their terms - they do not just kill microstock competition, they also put pressure on higher tier price segments. Images generally speaking have just lost further value.
They are betting on bloggers, web builders and other small business getting their images for cheap at the micros, cheap credit or subscription sales. They just wiped that business out. Big ads are not created from 400x500px images. This will hit the micros harder then it will Getty. When the micros fall over, there is only one way to get images, from Getty.

Only thing I can think of why this wont work is that I personally dont want to see the big Getty banner at the bottom of the image with the social media buttons if I were to use it on my blog or website.

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #105 on: March 06, 2014, 06:28 »
+1
Only thing I can think of why this wont work is that I personally dont want to see the big Getty banner at the bottom of the image with the social media buttons if I were to use it on my blog or website.

All it takes is for Getty to make it a bit more discreet and elegant. Not hard.

Shelma1

« Reply #106 on: March 06, 2014, 06:39 »
+1
Only thing I can think of why this wont work is that I personally dont want to see the big Getty banner at the bottom of the image with the social media buttons if I were to use it on my blog or website.

All it takes is for Getty to make it a bit more discreet and elegant. Not hard.

All you need to do is constrain the image box to cut off the bottom. Already done in article linked to above.

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #107 on: March 06, 2014, 06:53 »
0
Only thing I can think of why this wont work is that I personally dont want to see the big Getty banner at the bottom of the image with the social media buttons if I were to use it on my blog or website.

All it takes is for Getty to make it a bit more discreet and elegant. Not hard.

All you need to do is constrain the image box to cut off the bottom. Already done in article linked to above.

That could be eventually considered a breach of the license and the user could receive a bill in the mail from Getty.

If the bottom bar becomes an impediment to many users, I'm sure Getty will make it more discreet.

« Reply #108 on: March 06, 2014, 06:55 »
+2
Someone said Getty is promising to pay commission on advertising revenue.

Someone said - Getty is promising... seriously - does anyone still believe any Getty promises? When they come via someone or directly from Getty??

I'm just trying to provide information. Someone who has been in on the Getty-only forums said they have stated that IF they use this for advertising they will pay 20% to exclusives and 15% to independents on the Getty 360 scheme.  I've no reason to doubt that, and since it means worse terms than ever for both exclusives and independents it sounds about right.

I know BaldricksTrousers and my remark was not intented to discredit you in any way. Sorry if it came across that way.  Whenever I read Getty promises... I get sarcastic, because they seem to be dragging the ethics of the industry down and lower. And any promise they give is bound to be broken the next minute. Whenever one thought it was rockbottom in ethics, they made sure to prove one wrong. I am not directly affected as I left Istock years ago, but as I said elsewhere, this is devaluing images generally plus I worry about community members who are dependent on income from this source.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #109 on: March 06, 2014, 06:55 »
+13
I don't even know where to start with this.

I've been saying for a while now we need a new licensing model. I guess I should have been more specific that I need to earn money from the new model.

So the message here is... if you continue to steal enough eventually you will get it for free(?)

And why should personal use be free? Everything in my house is for personal use and I still need to pay for it.

So what about personal bloggers who post about their cat but have ads on their blog that make them money? Or have referral links to cat food? They make $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000 per year and we get nothing? How many personal bloggers blog without making a penny? And how is that tracked?

And there's no income now but may be from future advertising. Kind of hard to plan my business around "maybe". So far that Getty Connect or whatever it's called has earned me 5-10 cents in the past year.

And so when you give away images for free it generates more traffic? Traffic of paying customers? Or just traffic of people who want free images?

I think the biggest issue I have is that Getty/IS continues to introduce more programs that benefit them and the end users but there's no measurable result for me the content producer. Just hollow marketing BS while I keep seeing control and earning potential of my images slip away.

I'm glad that over a year ago I started selling my work through non-stock channels and began focusing on driving sales to my own website. I only wish I would have started that a year or two earlier.


« Reply #110 on: March 06, 2014, 07:02 »
0
There is only one reason behind all of this. Kill off the microstock competition. Who will be hit hardest by this are middle and bottom tier agencies.

to me this argument does not make sense. By fostering a "images should be free mentality" - for everyone (because seriously the line between commercial and non-commercial usage here is soo blurry that lots of usages fall under their terms - they do not just kill microstock competition, they also put pressure on higher tier price segments. Images generally speaking have just lost further value.
They are betting on bloggers, web builders and other small business getting their images for cheap at the micros, cheap credit or subscription sales. They just wiped that business out. Big ads are not created from 400x500px images. This will hit the micros harder then it will Getty. When the micros fall over, there is only one way to get images, from Getty.

Only thing I can think of why this wont work is that I personally dont want to see the big Getty banner at the bottom of the image with the social media buttons if I were to use it on my blog or website.

that may be what they are betting on, the longer term consequence though is that buyers, small and big in the future will think that a certain price of an image will be too high, specifically if you can get web usage i"non-commercial" mages for free - then why should you pay a massive amount for book cover images, print images etc. It is not about the market segment they are wiping out that i am immediately concerned about - it is what it does to the value of an image that i am worried about.

ShadySue

« Reply #111 on: March 06, 2014, 07:05 »
+4
This author gives a personal take on this issue.
http://thedambook.com/getty-did-what
I wonder if his images are embedded under this scheme?
I clicked on the images and they took me to Getty.
I right-clicked on the minibus pic, and it allowed me to save it out, and when copied into Photoshop, there is no copyright notice, contact information or any other metadata.
If they're hoping to catch people out by entrapment, they clearly haven't studied a wide enough range of European national laws.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 07:30 by ShadySue »

« Reply #112 on: March 06, 2014, 07:06 »
0
From BJP FB: The British Journal of Photography We'll publish industry reactions later today, asking rival stock agencies, photographers representatives and others for their opinion. Stay tuned.

Quite curios about the reactions :)

Maybe Photographers should react on BJP FB's page!

Ron

« Reply #113 on: March 06, 2014, 07:06 »
0
There is only one reason behind all of this. Kill off the microstock competition. Who will be hit hardest by this are middle and bottom tier agencies.

to me this argument does not make sense. By fostering a "images should be free mentality" - for everyone (because seriously the line between commercial and non-commercial usage here is soo blurry that lots of usages fall under their terms - they do not just kill microstock competition, they also put pressure on higher tier price segments. Images generally speaking have just lost further value.
They are betting on bloggers, web builders and other small business getting their images for cheap at the micros, cheap credit or subscription sales. They just wiped that business out. Big ads are not created from 400x500px images. This will hit the micros harder then it will Getty. When the micros fall over, there is only one way to get images, from Getty.

Only thing I can think of why this wont work is that I personally dont want to see the big Getty banner at the bottom of the image with the social media buttons if I were to use it on my blog or website.

that may be what they are betting on, the longer term consequence though is that buyers, small and big in the future will think that a certain price of an image will be too high, specifically if you can get web usage i"non-commercial" mages for free - then why should you pay a massive amount for book cover images, print images etc. It is not about the market segment they are wiping out that i am immediately concerned about - it is what it does to the value of an image that i am worried about.
Value of images is not a concern for micro stock agencies, they are already offering images for pennies. If Getty lowered the value by this, it is the value or Macro RF or RM (as you pointed out correctly), their own bread and butter. In that case they just wiped out the entire photography business.

« Reply #114 on: March 06, 2014, 07:15 »
+8
And if we stopped upload files to ALL agencies for a month? It would be a major announcement, what we can do together.

« Reply #115 on: March 06, 2014, 07:20 »
+3
And if we stopped upload files to ALL agencies for a month? It would be a major announcement, what we can do together.

you know that is impossible right?

« Reply #116 on: March 06, 2014, 07:24 »
+1
This author gives a personal take on this issue.
http://thedambook.com/getty-did-what
I wonder if his images are embedded under this scheme?
I clicked on the images and they took me to Getty.
I right-clicked on the minibus pic, and it allowed me to save it out, and when copied into Photoshop, there is no copyright notice, contact information or any other metadata.
If they're hoping to catch people out by entrapment, they clearly haven't studied a wide enough range of European national laws.


This is an excellent analysis, best article I have seen so far.

It has a lot of information, please read it carefully and draw your own conclusions on what your future will bring.


ShadySue

« Reply #117 on: March 06, 2014, 07:36 »
+4
And if we stopped upload files to ALL agencies for a month? It would be a major announcement, what we can do together.
We are a very tiny percentage of all submitters; possibly the big factories, with their faux-exclusive deals may have managed to get out of these scams whoops, schemes; and in any case they show no solidarity with οἱ πολλοί, only dropping in here if they want to boast or have a personal issue they want us to take an interest in with no reciprocity.

« Reply #118 on: March 06, 2014, 07:39 »
0
in only 2 hours Getty tweeted 5 times regarding this announcement

« Reply #119 on: March 06, 2014, 07:54 »
+2
Of course. Expect to be flooded with the announcement. They need to spread the viewers.

Millions of trojan horses for data mining and advertising revenue.

« Reply #120 on: March 06, 2014, 07:56 »
0
Of course. Expect to be flooded with the announcement. They need to spread the viewers.

Millions of trojan horses for data mining and advertising revenue.

just massive, people don't stop tweeting about it

https://twitter.com/search?q=getty%20images%20embed&src=typd&f=realtime


« Reply #122 on: March 06, 2014, 08:16 »
+8
This was not inevitable! This is the low road and will put good people out of a job. We need to rally here and now we need to take to twitter and tweet more than Getty dose. You see you don't need the stupid viewer just right click the image and bam it's stripped of data and you are free to use it now any way you like! Oh they are going to police this yeah right!! Where dose this leave SS?

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #123 on: March 06, 2014, 08:18 »
+2
It's a huge gamble for Getty, no one knows what the impact will for their business. Potentially it could be a big money spinner or it could drive them into bankruptcy.

The photographers who supply the content are an important wildcard, if they see an earnings crash they'll just pull their ports en masse. If it makes money for everyone it will be the future of image licensing.

It does make think if my earnings crash across all site because of this I may as well pull my port and give my images away for free off my own site and squeeze out some advertising revenue for myself.


PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #124 on: March 06, 2014, 08:31 »
+20
I thought the race to the bottom is when we're no longer earning money.

No, the bottom is when we're no longer earning any money but continue to allow agencies, social media sites and end users to use our images to earn money.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
10487 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
2906 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
1562 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
2665 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 06:11
by emicristea
107 Replies
32010 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results