pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 90494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: March 06, 2014, 02:51 »
+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.

figuratively not literally.

Don't you mean vindictively not literally?


Uncle Pete

« Reply #76 on: March 06, 2014, 02:52 »
+9
Naw, encouraging people to freely use content with no cost is just dumb.

Well said!

People keep asking about "the artists". What artists? What if these are Getty Owned images and they own all the rights? There are no more "artists". Getty bought collections and owns all rights. They are just cutting holes in their own pockets.

On the other hand, the effect for Microstock I could say, thanks Getty, I'll give you my address and you can come over and stab me in the heart to make this less time consuming and torturous. You're killing us!
 
Whats worse than 15-20%? FREE! Well here it is.

Is this just another nail in the coffin for content producers?

-gl

Yes, that sums it up pretty well gl.

Someone show me a link please for actual use and if I can find one of my photos from IS there, for free...

If they are actually giving away my images and yours, as promotional. Let me say, it's been nice knowing you all.

I'm outta here.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 03:38 by Uncle Pete »


« Reply #78 on: March 06, 2014, 03:12 »
+1
On istock someome wrote this affects only files on getty. So Vetta and e+ will be included but the indepedents will be spared?

Is that true?

« Reply #79 on: March 06, 2014, 03:15 »
+3
DPReview shows the image size being provided
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/03/06/getty-to-allow-embedding-for-non-commercial-use-of-images?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_0


I hadn't thought too hard on it, but I guess that now CNN, FOX and any other news site can use these images for free.  Nice.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #80 on: March 06, 2014, 03:43 »
-13
I'm 100% with Getty on this, finally a bold move to tackle bloggers and spongers.

Let's face it, the actual world wide web is a lawless place where no police is moving a finger to protect OUR rights, anyone can easily steal copyrighted material and get a free lunch and apart rare cases no one is going to knock at their door or sueing their as-s.


« Reply #81 on: March 06, 2014, 03:46 »
+17
I'm 100% with Getty on this, finally a bold move to tackle bloggers and spongers.

Let's face it, the actual world wide web is a lawless place where no police is moving a finger to protect OUR rights, anyone can easily steal copyrighted material and get a free lunch and apart rare cases no one is going to knock at their door or sueing their as-s.

Time to change your avatar to "Will work for nothing", methinks.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #82 on: March 06, 2014, 03:49 »
+6
I disagree.  I think this is a great idea and will encourage many more customers to the Getty web site.  I hope they promote it actively in which case it could be a great success.  As they rightly point out in their announcement, infringement of copyright has gone mad and is out of control.  There's no way to police it properly.  What they are doing is trying to replace that with a properly designed method of using images through their own embedded player.  Millions of online images are viewed every day, and I want as many of those views as possible directed to my work at Getty.  The embedded player will include attribution and a direct link to the image buying page.  I already make very good money from my portfolio at Getty, and I think this initiative will increase my sales further.

I think that if they will give 100% of your images for free it will be a right move.

« Reply #83 on: March 06, 2014, 03:56 »
+23
I'm a bit baffled by all of the people saying that there is no opt-out...

I opted out quite a while ago by closing my IS account. I admit that this could have a massively chilling effect on sales at other sites, but at least my files won't be given away.

« Reply #84 on: March 06, 2014, 04:00 »
+9
DPReview shows the image size being provided
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/03/06/getty-to-allow-embedding-for-non-commercial-use-of-images?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_0


I hadn't thought too hard on it, but I guess that now CNN, FOX and any other news site can use these images for free.  Nice.


They definitely need image gifts, these poor, poor companies. How dare we ask for money to publish our work.

« Reply #85 on: March 06, 2014, 04:02 »
0
Microstock, D.E.P.

« Reply #86 on: March 06, 2014, 04:21 »
+3
They are not including the best Getty collections - Digital vision isnt in there, neither is culture or images from outside providers like Blendimages. And of course no RM.

But Photodisc, photographers choice, all the Vetta content and S+, all the illustration from istock - just help yourself to illustrate your  news site, magazine etc...And of course if you can get someone to write a blog about your business, but the blog is not formally hosted by your business,just flanked by ads...then you can use them too.


« Reply #87 on: March 06, 2014, 04:28 »
0


<iframe src="//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/171145671?et=3Gtxcss_ekSOBcX4Vx120g&sig=eJuBujfbvcCHLWacJvbtw__yU2WTJSUFHRE-F_hKkqM=" width="565" height="400" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

« Reply #88 on: March 06, 2014, 04:40 »
+9
The bloggers go wild about it  :(  Everybody is like great great great ... only minority sees a problem with it :/ this is sick

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #89 on: March 06, 2014, 04:41 »
+6
Just wrote this in the Flickr forum of Getty. This is becoming not only unsustainable but it's becoming offensive on the personal level.

"I'm on the verge to make my +11.000 photos collection completely free even for commercial uses in the highest resolution available.

Simply because the stock photography business has become unsustainable for photographers due to these greedy and shady anti-photographers schemes and maneuvers, that have the sole objective to deprive the artists from their income, keeping 100% of it for the agencies.

You want to play "Destruction of Stock Photography"? Guess who has the biggest weapons and the least to lose at this moment? We, the creators of the content.

We may not have the capability to unite and fight against these outrageous decisions, but all it takes is for a few of us to start offering our work for free to bring down agencies like Getty.

After all who will pay thousands of dollars for an advertisement picture when they can get a high-quality 21mp image for free, right?

Then, Getty will not be able to license a photo for a world campaign for 1 dollar. Let's see how you will explain that to the shareholders...

You're putting photographers in a position where they have nothing to lose. And when you put someone in that position very bad things usually happen."

« Reply #90 on: March 06, 2014, 04:49 »
0
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.

MxR

« Reply #91 on: March 06, 2014, 04:59 »
+2
Getty published new rate comisions:

Free blog images:

Exclusives 20% of a crap

Not exclusives 15% of a crap (by getty 360)



RT


« Reply #92 on: March 06, 2014, 05:04 »
+10
I'm still stunned by this latest move by Getty, I'm trying not to let my emotions get the better of me and say publicly how I really feel about the company, however amongst all the speculation of how this will affect the future for stock photographers and why Getty have chosen to make this move I just feel the need to point something out to everyone:

FACT - Up until now legitimate bloggers and editorial picture buyers paid to use our images and we got a fee for them doing so, as of this moment that revenue stream is gone. If you sell your images through Getty you have just lost income.

Images you have on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia et al will have been purchased and used by bloggers and online editorial buyers, that source of income may soon diminish.

We can only speculate whether or not an embedded link will create any future revenue sources.

Speaking personally and to other photographers that have ever taken part in any free scheme, this has never lead to additional sales.

Getty have mentioned ads on the embed player, they will receive the revenue from this, the photographer gets nothing. They've created a possible additional revenue for themselves whilst taking one away from photographers.









« Reply #93 on: March 06, 2014, 05:23 »
+11
Present:
- Getty gives 35 million photos for free for noncommercial purposes (??? can we really define noncommercial this days ???)

Future:
- Shutterstock gives 30 million photos for free for noncommercial purposes.
- Fotolia gives 27 million photos for free for noncommercial purposes.
- Dreamstime gives 22 million photos for free for noncommercial purposes.
- ...
- Photographers all over the world gives all their work for free for COMMERCIAL USE (just for one year, just to lead all agencies to bankruptcy)

« Reply #94 on: March 06, 2014, 05:40 »
+12
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??

Ron

« Reply #95 on: March 06, 2014, 05:43 »
+11
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.

Its funny though they with this move they just killed off their own newly introduced subscription plan over at IS.

I thought we had seen rock bottom, and then Getty comes up with a new low.

This isnt over yet, I dont believe out of those 35 million images, there is not one big shot photographer or a few, that wont fight Getty on this. Surely Getty pissed off a few wrong people now.

ShadySue

« Reply #96 on: March 06, 2014, 05:55 »
+1
On istock someome wrote this affects only files on getty. So Vetta and e+ will be included but the indepedents will be spared?

Is that true?
For the moment, also S files are spared for the moment.
So, at last something to cheer - their broken connector didn't manage to migrate all our eligible content over.
Every dark cloud has one.
 ;)

« Reply #97 on: March 06, 2014, 05:55 »
+9
It doest matter if photographers leave or sue.

If they can sell this story of the amazing new advertising platform which will create google adwords like revenue streams and pitch that to wall street investors with the right buzzwords, they can probably pick up millions of dollars of investor money long before they even sell one single advertising contract.

Instead of focussing on revenue growth or profit, all attention will now be on the number of embedded viewers. If their profits should fall, they can always say they are investing heavily in "their new platform".

So the story has many ways to generate money for Getty.

Selling more licenses isnt even necessary.

And if it doest work, they can just go back to blaming SS for everything.

ShadySue

« Reply #98 on: March 06, 2014, 05:59 »
+2
My two GI sales for January netted me $3 and 91c respectively, so I'm not losing too much if that's the way things are going ...
Still, I'd rather Getty weren't making money off my images while giving them away.

« Reply #99 on: March 06, 2014, 06:03 »
+3
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
10487 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
2904 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
31996 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results