MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 94136 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2014, 21:45 »
+4
News flash you don't need Getty Viewer. Just go sign up for a free account. Now find your image. Open to comp size right click and save a ahhh now you don't need the viewer for your blog and no water mark!


« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2014, 21:48 »
+5
My new goal - to automate a collection of 40 million embed links on individual pages in a "blog" with adwords on the side.

« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2014, 21:54 »
+13
This is very, very clever move by Getty:

1) It doesn't violate or breach their current contributor's contracts because they list this new intiative as "promotional use".
2) Since over half the websites worldwide are non-profit or non-commercial, they will get a lot of usage that will advertise their site.....and they aren't giving away anything except their contributor's images.  It costs the photographer - but not Getty.
3) They intend to "sell advertising" down the road - but since they aren't "selling" the photo, they won't have to pay out a commission.

And on top of that - if they disrupt their competitors by giving away 35 million blog images free - then that's a win for them as well.

They are clever folks.  Very clever.  And I don't say that without understanding the irony that the fool in this new deal is us - the content providers.

« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2014, 22:06 »
+7

EmberMike

« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2014, 22:18 »
+9
So people don't want to spend $55 on a blog image. And Getty's answer to that is to throw their hands up and quit even trying to make a buck on this usage type? Yep, sounds about right.

Forget about the issue of there being this huge disconnect between what people are willing to pay today and what Getty charges. Let's not address that. Let's just jump to extremes and create even more confusion over what the real value of an image is. Because nothing helps people understand the value of an image like making it available for $20 or $600 or free.

« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2014, 22:56 »
+8
To me this sounds like a definition of anti-competitive practice... I wonder how other stock agencies going to react to that, especially SS. Unless Getty makes only their exclusive content free?

« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2014, 22:59 »
+20
I can just "hear" the boardroom discussion when this was proposed:

"Let's give away all 35 million images for free to non-profits and non-commercial sites.  It won't cost us much except to craft some code - and we'll write that off as promotional expense.

Then we'll get all those millions of bloggers hooked on using our free images - and once we do that, then we'll embed ads and start raking in the ad revenues.  And since we won't be selling any photos - we won't have to pay any commissions out to the photographers.

And we'll claim this is a promotional initiative so that we don't breach any contracts we currently have - and we won't allow anyone to opt out.  Sure - it will make them mad - but we'll throw them a bone and tell them that we were forced to do this because we can no longer afford to monitor unauthorized usage of Getty photos online.

Remember - we never paid for this content to begin with - so we're monetizing it by turning it from an expense into an asset that we control...."

My guess is that the smart guy or gal who proposed this idea got a fat raise and a promotion.  After all - who wouldn't jump at the chance to make money off of other people's efforts if you don't have to pay for all their efforts.

« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2014, 23:02 »
+8
I can just "hear" the boardroom discussion when this was proposed:

"Let's give away all 35 million images for free to non-profits and non-commercial sites.  It won't cost us much except to craft some code - and we'll write that off as promotional expense.

Then we'll get all those millions of bloggers hooked on using our free images - and once we do that, then we'll embed ads and start raking in the ad revenues.  And since we won't be selling any photos - we won't have to pay any commissions out to the photographers.

And we'll claim this is a promotional initiative so that we don't breach any contracts we currently have - and we won't allow anyone to opt out.  Sure - it will make them mad - but we'll throw them a bone and tell them that we were forced to do this because we can no longer afford to monitor unauthorized usage of Getty photos online.

Remember - we never paid for this content to begin with - so we're monetizing it by turning it from an expense into an asset that we control...."

My guess is that the smart guy or gal who proposed this idea got a fat raise and a promotion.  After all - who wouldn't jump at the chance to make money off of other people's efforts if you don't have to pay for all their efforts.

You hit the nail on the head. They'll make lots of money from the ads and the contributors will get zip...

Gee I wonder why they don't let people opt out?

« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2014, 23:09 »
+12

Getty should be ashamed of the 'free to use' posts that are proliferating across twitter.

I have to stop looking at Twitter - it makes me feel sick

And I hope Getty gets badly burned by this shameful giveaway of what's not theirs to give away.

I just hope they don't take us all down with them

« Reply #59 on: March 05, 2014, 23:32 »
+7
The Microsoft deal was about getting the "random eyes" linked to Getty.

The Getty Google Deal was about the "random eyes" linked to Getty.

Now the amazing 35 million free for blogs embedding deal is about the "random eyes" linked to Getty.

Time and attention will be devoted to this project. Maybe,perhaps,one day enough embeds will be there to include advertising (below the image,inside the image?)

Maybe then money will be paid by advertisers to Getty.

Maybe then a tiny stream will reach artists.

Maybe one in a million from the "random eyes" will click on the link go to Getty and license the file.

In the meantime other agencies invest time, efforts and resources at identifying customer groups who are ready to spend money today. They cultivate this business relationship, they cultivate the relationship with their artists. They make a huge effort to connect the right kind of target group of buyers with the right kind of content.

They generate income from direct license sales.

This is what I am interested in. Money.

My files will go where the money flows.

(removing the XS size to avoid giving blogs a cheap entry option to buy stock directly - that is also clever right? I mean - why bother with XS if they can get it all for free?)
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 23:38 by cobalt »

« Reply #60 on: March 05, 2014, 23:38 »
+13
To me this sounds like a definition of anti-competitive practice...
You're right. This is what is called in economics 'dumping'. A company sells a product at a loss (or in this case gives it away) in order to destroy the revenue stream of its competitor (SS).  In this case, it isn't Getty who will take the loss, it is us. The assets being destroyed in value are our images, even those of us who don't submit to Getty/iStock, because our sales at SS et al will fall. Getty will profit by selling ads.

There are laws against dumping, but they would not apply to this case I'm afraid.

I started submitting to IS in 2005. Some years ago I realized that IS/Getty are not operating in good faith, so I stopped doing business with iStock - stopped submitting there and withdrew almost all of my images. Personally, I do not understand the people here who continue to do business with a company they know to be acting in bad faith. Those people are hurting all of us.

« Reply #61 on: March 05, 2014, 23:51 »
+5
Is this just another nail in the coffin for content producers?

-gl

« Reply #62 on: March 06, 2014, 00:08 »
+13
I just have to jump in on this crazy concept!

This is just mind boggling! Getty gets all the revenue from the image/ad placement and contributors get $0. I understand their concept, but FREE? Why didn't they just create a new lower pricing category for bloggers only?  It seems illogical to bypass a potential new revenue stream and just jump right into FREE without even testing the waters first.

Does this mean that word press and other template designers can place images directly for use in their templates and sell them? What about scam, porn and other undesirable sites? Can they place your images there? Just sign up at Getty with a fake email, copy the code and you are good to go!

Here is another article: http://thenextweb.com/media/2014/03/06/getty-makes-photo-collection-available-bloggers-free-charge/#!yD4dW

mlwinphoto

« Reply #63 on: March 06, 2014, 00:12 »
+4
I'm curious to know your thoughts on this Sean, is this the end of the stock industry or am I just overreacting?

No, you're not overreacting.  I'm not Sean but IMO it's one more nail in our coffin.  Too bad we can't, as a very large group, come together and do something about all of this.  Stop uploading to these sites and eventually the pressure will be on them to do something about it.   But, that will never happen so the downward spiral will continue.

I had a publisher contact me last month wanting to use one of my images for a book cover; the book was for resale....they were expecting to pay no more than $10....needless to say, no deal.   Makes me sick.

« Reply #64 on: March 06, 2014, 00:27 »
+23
The sad part of this is that we've seen the enemy - and it's us.

Getty suckered in a large group of photographers (including me) with promises that they were going to keep the high end pricing firm.  They demanded exclusivity and got it - and literally took millions of photos "off the market" by that bold move.  They might not sell your photo - but if they don't, then at least they don't have to compete with it since they "own" it for a year or two.

Then their pricing started spiraling downhill - and they claimed that they had to make "adjustments" because of marketplace pressures.  They actually started selling images in emerging markets like China for under five cents.  That's a fact - I have the commission statement to prove it.

But still they maintained that "Getty" aura - you know, the one that makes a photographer feel like they've "made" it if they are part of Getty.  Yes - I bought that premise hook, line and sinker.

And now - they effectively devalue the value of an image online to zero.  Not 10 cents.  Not one dollar.  They make a photographer's image worth absolutely nothing and disrupt the marketplace for all time.  After all, once you've gotten something for free - why would you ever pay for it again in the future.

The sad thing is that they are using millions of photos - including hundreds of mine - to destroy the market for me down the road.  I can't opt out and they have me and so many other photographers caught up in their scheme.  They claim it will ultimately be good for us all. 

The fool in this deal is the photographer.  That's me.  I was foolish for signing with them and I was foolish for trusting them.  They are going to use my own images to destroy any future value for my photos - and for photographers worldwide.

And they will make millions off the combined efforts of thousands of photographers through advertising while simultaneously destroying the marketplace for imagery online.

So very clever.  So very wrong.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #65 on: March 06, 2014, 00:40 »
+3
This is all so frickin' depressing.....I'm going to bed with a bottle of (cheap) whiskey and a bad book.

« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2014, 00:46 »
+4
... Does this mean that word press and other template designers can place images directly for use in their templates and sell them? What about scam, porn and other undesirable sites?
You're right, Kelly. There will be no way to police this. Getty has opened the door to 'commercial' being a meaningless restriction, if sites which sell ads are not 'commercial':
"Blogs that draw revenues from Google Ads will still be able to use the Getty Images embed player at no cost. 'We would not consider this commercial use,' says Peters. 'The fact today that a website is generating revenue would not limit the use of the embed. '"

The value of the assets of contributors, even those who refuse to submit to IS, has just been drastically reduced. The sales of GL and other agencies will surely suffer. Only Getty will profit.

What will it take for us contributors to stop doing business with them?


« Reply #67 on: March 06, 2014, 00:58 »
+6
I wonder if this is why they all but scrapped inspections of new content for iStock.

There were already some people out there who maintained that any image published on the internet was automatically public domain, once Getty have finished training the entire blogosphere to think that then scarcely anybody will see any reason to pay for anything.

Ultimately, this will probably destroy Getty, too, because when their sales vanish so will their content and they won't have any "free" content to bury their adverts in.

The sooner they bankrupt themselves the better. That does seem to be their ultimate aim, anyway.

« Reply #68 on: March 06, 2014, 01:20 »
+2
Another well written article that discusses this move by Getty.

http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/03/getty-images-blows-the-webs-mind-by-setting-35-million-photos-free-with-conditions-of-course/


Near the end of the article, the author shows how easy it is to hide the credits: "The way the embeds are set up, its trivial to resize the iframe to eliminate the Getty Images credit and sharing tools at the bottom."

shudderstok

« Reply #69 on: March 06, 2014, 01:47 »
+6
normally i am a GI supporter, but this goes a bit too far.

Well done for being "a GI supporter". Look where it got you. When Klein said "We are not the photographers' friend" ... he certainly meant it.

And you dare criticise SS and Oringer!

" ... but this goes a bit too far". Did you actually say that in the 'silly girly voice' that I can only imagine it being opined? Pathetic. A bit too far???

Su*king up to Getty got you exactly what you deserve. In this case ... absolutely nothing.

tone it down a bit please. you make yourself look silly with replies like this, they add nothing to the conversation at hand.
i personally have no issues supporting GI both in the past and currently, but this give away of free images is bu!!sh!t.
it seems to me that regardless of whom you  support it appears to me that each agency is trying to lower the bar by selling images at the lowest price point possible and/or giving away images for free to attract customers.
i think tickstock said it correctly "I know there are some people on here that can't help but use any excuse to attack other contributors, that's what's pathetic, but am I alone in thinking this is just as serious to all contributors?  It seems to me to have the potential to affect everyone."
when does this madness stop?


« Reply #70 on: March 06, 2014, 02:14 »
+8
Interesting that some RM images don't have the link for this, like Photolibrary and Stone collections, but "Photographers Choice" seems to get thrown under the bus with no problem.  Wonder how they can justify "Own the image for the duration of your project and control who else can use it." when they can't control who else can use it.

Great - unwatermarked 500px images free to grab:
http://embed.gettyimages.com/embed/187864566?et=3vzhf8g4REOfhzaCPwTajw&sig=oCeRWWbNxe6lsrI71TRxX4SL3V3_tZfoL3lpJhvu0ww=

There's no way to police usage of that.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 02:29 by Sean Locke Photography »

shudderstok

« Reply #71 on: March 06, 2014, 02:18 »
-1
I'm curious to know your thoughts on this Sean, is this the end of the stock industry or am I just overreacting?

No, you're not overreacting.  I'm not Sean but IMO it's one more nail in our coffin.  Too bad we can't, as a very large group, come together and do something about all of this.  Stop uploading to these sites and eventually the pressure will be on them to do something about it.   But, that will never happen so the downward spiral will continue.

I had a publisher contact me last month wanting to use one of my images for a book cover; the book was for resale....they were expecting to pay no more than $10....needless to say, no deal.   Makes me sick.

traditional stock gave you real $$$ for a book cover.
microstock made sure you got $10 for a book cover.
the new wave in stock photography was SS which should have been called nanostock.
and now we have GI ensuring the new era of stock is called yoctostock.

in the game of stock i'd say this is check mate.



« Reply #72 on: March 06, 2014, 02:40 »
+3
the new wave in stock photography was SS which should have been called nanostock.

You'll remember that at the time it was launched the commissions were on a par with what iStock was paying - in fact, 20c was bang in the middle of the 10c/20c/30c which were the three commission levels at iS.
So iStock was nanostock too.

ShadySue

« Reply #73 on: March 06, 2014, 02:42 »
+1
microstock made sure you got $10 for a book cover.
Which micro? When?
Not iStock, for sure.

shudderstok

« Reply #74 on: March 06, 2014, 02:50 »
-2
the new wave in stock photography was SS which should have been called nanostock.

You'll remember that at the time it was launched the commissions were on a par with what iStock was paying - in fact, 20c was bang in the middle of the 10c/20c/30c which were the three commission levels at iS.
So iStock was nanostock too.

figuratively not literally.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
10688 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
3002 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
1647 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
2773 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 06:11
by emicristea
107 Replies
33044 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results