MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 92419 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: March 06, 2014, 09:32 »
+8
The question is what comes next?

Here's just a guess:

1) Of the 80 or so microstock agencies out there worldwide, probably half of them fail within a year of this move.  Getty no doubt has this outcome as one that they anticipate happening
2) The value of an image used online goes from something to nothing - permanently.  Free web usage becomes commonplace and Getty is hailed as a great company for leading the charge.
3) Getty's advertising vehicle - the embedded image ad that they give away for free - helps them become an internet success story and the Carlisle Group sells Getty for $10 billion to Facebook or Yahoo or Google
4) Photographer's photos are devalued further - online and in the rapidly declining print market
5) Whoever thought of this scheme at Getty gets promoted and is awarded a nice bonus


« Reply #151 on: March 06, 2014, 09:34 »
+5
As this could totally destroy small agencies, how about to file a complain against unfair competition in EU ;)

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/contacts_en.html#1 - follow step 2A :)

Not sure if anything like that is in US.

I sent mine today :) lets see if they notice
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 09:48 by Toopy »

ShadySue

« Reply #152 on: March 06, 2014, 09:34 »
+2
If you just want the image for your blog then it is really easy to rip it out of the viewer.
A simple right click save as will do it, and once it arrives in Photoshop, all metadata is gone.
Since when did someone who wanted to lift an image from the internet ever 'click' on it? Everyone knows to right-click, and there it is, unless protected, which these aren't.
Getty is officially putting our images out there and positively inviting theft.

Ron

« Reply #153 on: March 06, 2014, 09:35 »
+12
Forget it, the more I read about this, the more I am convinced its over. It really is done and dusted. Getty killed stock photography.

« Reply #154 on: March 06, 2014, 09:37 »
+2
If you just want the image for your blog then it is really easy to rip it out of the viewer.
A simple right click save as will do it, and once it arrives in Photoshop, all metadata is gone.
Since when did someone who wanted to lift an image from the internet ever 'click' on it? Everyone knows to right-click, and there it is, unless protected, which these aren't.
Getty is officially putting our images out there and positively inviting theft.

Yes - that they are....and at the same time, they are creating an environment where the competition can't compete and will fail because the value of all images online will be reduced to zero.

ShadySue

« Reply #155 on: March 06, 2014, 09:37 »
+12
Forget it, the more I read about this, the more I am convinced its over. It really is done and dusted. Getty killed stock photography.
Worse, Getty killed stock photography while still managing to monetise it for themselves.
RIP.

« Reply #156 on: March 06, 2014, 09:46 »
+4
Is Getty extending a model release to the users of the viewer/embedder?

I'd guess so, but I'm kinda cloudy on that detail. I know I have a release from a model, and I can assign it to an agent who can assign it to a buyer who properly licenses a file. But in a case were a photographer is not paid at all for the use, and the image is displayed outside of the agent's website for a purpose other than displaying a catalog of images available for licensing, how is the model release extended? Are bloggers at risk using these images because they haven't procured a release as part of the licensing process?

« Reply #157 on: March 06, 2014, 09:48 »
+8
Interesting that Getty rarely files a lawsuit about copyrights - only 7 in five years according to this Business Week article online:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/since-it-cant-sue-us-all-getty-images-embraces-embedded-photos

So - another example of their narrative ("we go after copyright infringement big time") being more of a boast than a fact.

« Reply #158 on: March 06, 2014, 09:52 »
+1
So images are to be 'free for non-commercial use' to bloggers, etc. So, if a blogger has links/click throughs/adverts on their blog, designed to earn them some sort of commission/income, would the use of an image be commercial or non-commercial?


Grafix04

« Reply #159 on: March 06, 2014, 09:54 »
0
.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 10:04 by Grafix04 »

Ron

« Reply #160 on: March 06, 2014, 09:55 »
0
So images are to be 'free for non-commercial use' to bloggers, etc. So, if a blogger has links/click throughs/adverts on their blog, designed to earn them some sort of commission/income, would the use of an image be commercial or non-commercial?
Apparently that is allowed, and considered to be non commercial use.

« Reply #161 on: March 06, 2014, 09:55 »
+3
The question is what comes next?

Here's just a guess:

1) Of the 80 or so microstock agencies out there worldwide, probably half of them fail within a year of this move.  Getty no doubt has this outcome as one that they anticipate happening
2) The value of an image used online goes from something to nothing - permanently.  Free web usage becomes commonplace and Getty is hailed as a great company for leading the charge.
3) Getty's advertising vehicle - the embedded image ad that they give away for free - helps them become an internet success story and the Carlisle Group sells Getty for $10 billion to Facebook or Yahoo or Google
4) Photographer's photos are devalued further - online and in the rapidly declining print market
5) Whoever thought of this scheme at Getty gets promoted and is awarded a nice bonus

guess we will quit after that, looking forward to see what will really happen but it ain't going to be pretty for sure

« Reply #162 on: March 06, 2014, 09:56 »
0
Interesting that Getty rarely files a lawsuit about copyrights - only 7 in five years according to this Business Week article online:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/since-it-cant-sue-us-all-getty-images-embraces-embedded-photos

So - another example of their narrative ("we go after copyright infringement big time") being more of a boast than a fact.


That's because infringers  often accept fines to avoid lawsuits.

« Reply #163 on: March 06, 2014, 10:01 »
+19
Getty to Crook: Hey you stole our image. Crook: No it was free! Getty: You ripped it off our viewer. Crook: What viewer?? I just saw it online and I know Getty just gave away 35million images so this is "fair use" for my business Getty: You didn't pay the artist  Crook:Neither did you so I guess we are even.

« Reply #164 on: March 06, 2014, 10:03 »
+5
So images are to be 'free for non-commercial use' to bloggers, etc. So, if a blogger has links/click throughs/adverts on their blog, designed to earn them some sort of commission/income, would the use of an image be commercial or non-commercial?
Apparently that is allowed, and considered to be non commercial use.

Really? So the blogger can get paid, and it's non-commercial but the commercial photographer gets zip?

Hmmm, great business strategy...

« Reply #165 on: March 06, 2014, 10:08 »
+10
http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/embed-support-getty-images/

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/agency-news/getty-allows-use-of-images-for-free/

One of the problems here, is that "the people" aren't going to care enough to discern between "I have to use the Getty embedded player" and "every image on the interwebz is now free for any use!!!".

ShadySue

« Reply #166 on: March 06, 2014, 10:08 »
+1
So images are to be 'free for non-commercial use' to bloggers, etc. So, if a blogger has links/click throughs/adverts on their blog, designed to earn them some sort of commission/income, would the use of an image be commercial or non-commercial?
Apparently that is allowed, and considered to be non commercial use.


Really? So the blogger can get paid, and it's non-commercial but the commercial photographer gets zip?

Hmmm, great business strategy...


"4 But what if a personal blog uses Google Ads to draw revenues from its traffic?
We would not consider this commercial use, says Craig Peters, senior vice president at Getty Images. The fact today that a website is generating revenue would not limit the use of the embed. This opens up Gettys imagery to hundreds of thousands of blogs and websites."

http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/10-facts-you-need-to-know-about-getty-images-embed-feature
The sports team pic is an example of the technology, so you can see for yourself how easy it is to reapporpriate an image, in total contrast to what it says above the image: "The embed player has a width of  594 pixels and a height of 465 pixels. It cannot be resized. It includes the image, without a watermark, with the name of the photographer and the collection, plus Getty Images logo. This information cannot be removed. " Did no-one actually try right-clicking?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 10:10 by ShadySue »


« Reply #167 on: March 06, 2014, 10:08 »
+1
In the end it is very simple: if Getty believed the freebie embed code would increase licensing sales, they would have given us an opt in.

They are only forcing artists, because they know they will not benefit.

Instagram tried to monetise the image of private users and lost 50% of people in one month. They had to take back their changes.

Facebook tried to monetise private images and got a huge backlash. Now they have a very professional agreement with Shutterstock.

There are interviews out there where Jonathan Klein said that he would love to see Getty connected with Google so their images are included in their adwords system. But I guess after the big drama and public shitstorm over the Getty Google deal...that never happened, did it?

So now they are trying to do it directly - offer the embed code with excellent content from getty, much better than what any other platform can offer because this is high quality, expensively produced, commercial content.

I guess they are hoping that if they get enough freebie users, they can still connect their system to Google. Because this will mean, they dont even have to look for advertising customers themselves.

They could then just set up an automated system - Images for free from naive and trusting artists who believe that one day in the distant future they will make amazing money from image views, bloggers and naive newspaper editors who dont mind spreading the trojan horse files for free and then a connection with Google adwords and their ad revenue stream and Getty doest even have to go looking for advertising customers.

which is exactly why they said this as Sue posted: "4 But what if a personal blog uses Google Ads to draw revenues from its traffic?
We would not consider this commercial use, says Craig Peters, senior vice president at Getty Images. The fact today that a website is generating revenue would not limit the use of the embed. This opens up Gettys imagery to hundreds of thousands of blogs and websites."
"

It makes sense if you want to get connected to the google adwords revenue stream. Of course they dont mind if there are ads on the page.

Voila a beautiful,perfect automated system, where Getty can just sit back in a small office counting money.

Meanwhile in the real world....

Shutterstock, stocksy and all others that work directly with a commercial client base and want to build longterm relationships will be quietly picking up customers who dont want files that are floating free on the internet.

On Getty itself the embed icon will probably be the kiss of death for many projects. Even RM content is included or Photographers Choice files. The people who have paid 50 dollars for every file they place on Getty - how do they feel?

It is not the fault of the artists if Getty has decided to change their business model.

You just have to understand it and see how you deal with it.

Might be a wonderful new world for artist with a large portfolio of grumpy cats.

« Reply #168 on: March 06, 2014, 10:13 »
+14
Question to Yuri: Do you still think you made right decision by moving subscription sites to Getty? Everyone can make a mistake. I would really appreciate your opinion of this Getty's decision. Do you still think you port worth more on Getty than on sub. sites?

« Reply #169 on: March 06, 2014, 10:19 »
0
I assume it's just a matter of time until SS does the equivalent - dumps all their images into an ad-supported "viewer" - and I'll have to close my account there, and be done with microstock for good.

"FREE" has been coming down the road for a long time.  Here it is. 
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 10:24 by stockastic »

« Reply #170 on: March 06, 2014, 10:22 »
+4
What peeves me is that Getty arbitrarily decided to give their contributor's photos away for free online.  I didn't have any say in the matter.  They claim its for promotion - but it really is a an out and out giveaway.

An analogy:

 I'm an author as well.  If Amazon decided to give my book away for free, as a "promotion", then I could yank my book or at least threaten to sue them.  I can't do either with Getty.

They "own" my images for the next year.  By the time the contract is up, I'm sure my Getty photos will be all over the internet for perpetuity - even if I finally get them off the Getty site.

Said another way - Getty has come into my house (because I allowed them to do so) and pulled the photos off my walls and put them on the street for people to use.  They can't resell them - but they can use them since it is a Getty promotion.  And Getty tells me that somehow this is good for me.

I give them five stars for audacious behavior.  Truly audacious. 

EmberMike

« Reply #171 on: March 06, 2014, 10:25 »
+5
I keep reading stuff about this being a game-changer, killing stock, etc. Sure it's bad, but can Getty really kill stock? Or microstock? I doubt it.

Microstock is bigger than Getty. Much as I'm sure some will disagree with that idea, really, I think it is. Especially from my perspective, being a vector artist. The Getty mothership doesn't deal directly in vectors. They leave that to iStock. So they have no real means to kill that part of their business, nor would they want to since vectors make up a pretty huge chunk of their income.

And then there's pricing. Getty has been grossly disconnected from the reality of pricing in recent years, as is evidenced in their current pricing of $55-65 for a blog image. I think a lot of bloggers have long since found other ways to purchase (and not steal) images for their blogs at more affordable prices. Getty throwing in the towel and giving up on blog use licensing doesn't mean there is no market for it. They just don't think that anything less than $20 is reasonable for a blog use fee.

Just because Getty can't figure out how to sell blog content to bloggers doesn't mean that microstock can't (or isn't already) doing it.

What this Getty move does do is hurt the public perception of the value of images. But I think it's way too soon to be calling this the end. People still buy images at iStock despite the readily available supply of content available elsewhere for less. So opening up a flood of free content I don't think is going to send people rushing to Getty.

Getty has been a floundering, poorly-run company for a while now. They lack the ability to change the game anymore on their own. The game outgrew them years ago.

EmberMike

« Reply #172 on: March 06, 2014, 10:28 »
+13
Question to Yuri: Do you still think you made right decision by moving subscription sites to Getty? Everyone can make a mistake. I would really appreciate your opinion of this Getty's decision. Do you still think you port worth more on Getty than on sub. sites?

At times like this, I think about Yuri's "professionals work with professionals" comment and just have to smile.

:)


« Reply #173 on: March 06, 2014, 10:30 »
+2
They "own" my images for the next year.  By the time the contract is up, I'm sure my Getty photos will be all over the internet for perpetuity - even if I finally get them off the Getty site.

No, I'm pretty sure you can close your account with 30 days notice.  It's them that has to wait a year.

ShadySue

« Reply #174 on: March 06, 2014, 10:30 »
0
Question to Yuri: Do you still think you made right decision by moving subscription sites to Getty? Everyone can make a mistake. I would really appreciate your opinion of this Getty's decision. Do you still think you port worth more on Getty than on sub. sites?

At times like this, I think about Yuri's "professionals work with professionals" comment and just have to smile.

:)

Indeed, but I wonder if he manages to side-step all the sh*t the rest of us have to 'take - or get out'.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
10648 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
2960 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
1607 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
2738 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 06:11
by emicristea
107 Replies
32761 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results