MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197283 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EmberMike

« Reply #900 on: March 13, 2014, 21:45 »
+8
...This is what worries everyone, I'm sure. I've seen my images on blogs, but now people who bought those images can embed for free...

This is what I don't get. It's obvious that people buy images for blogs. You've seen it, I've seen it, we all have. Just look at any of the sites that allow image purchases in different sizes and see how many small sizes are licensed. Those smalls are pretty much only good for web use, so it's fair to assume that a good number of them are going straight into blogs.

My point being that there is no doubt that bloggers buy images, so Getty throwing in the towel on bloggers as customers is ridiculous.

There is a market for that usage. They just think there isn't because no one wants to pay $55 for a blog size image. They think they're pricing blog sizes at a reasonable $20 but that's for a 200px wide image. How many blogs still support such a tiny size? So really the jump-off point for blog images at Getty is $55 and up.

I think it's fair to attribute some of the thinking behind this embedded viewer to creating some sort of alternative revenue stream through ads and such, but really I also think part of this is just plain old ignorance regarding what the market will bear. A 200px image is useless, of course no one is buying those, and no one wants to pay $55 for a blog image at a usable size. So instead of accepting the fact that their blog size offerings are undersized and overpriced, they just throw their hands up in the air and give up on capturing any of the blogger market directly, opting for this embedded viewer instead.

Brilliant.


« Reply #901 on: March 13, 2014, 21:54 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:08 by tickstock »

EmberMike

« Reply #902 on: March 13, 2014, 22:49 »
+2
Do you really think many bloggers will choose to put the embed viewer on their website?...

No, I don't. But it seems to be what Getty is hoping many bloggers will do.

« Reply #903 on: March 14, 2014, 00:02 »
-11
Do you really think many bloggers will choose to put the embed viewer on their website?...

No, I don't. But it seems to be what Getty is hoping many bloggers will do.

To me it seems as if some might rather than many will. And that is how I see this whole thing in general: ie very much in terms of it being an interesting experiment - test the technology and the effect, see where it goes etc. And sometimes one idea comes out of another - we have all experienced that as creatives and it is also definitely true in business.

I still cannot understand what seems like an over-reaction here and on a few blogs. This is about non commercial use and not about bloggers per se.

« Reply #904 on: March 14, 2014, 00:50 »
+11
The biggest damage was inflicted by using the word FREE.
We understand the non-commercial and embedding rules, but many users will notice only the "free" part, and with free they will do anything they like.
 

Ron

« Reply #905 on: March 14, 2014, 02:31 »
+10
Do you really think many bloggers will choose to put the embed viewer on their website?...

No, I don't. But it seems to be what Getty is hoping many bloggers will do.

To me it seems as if some might rather than many will. And that is how I see this whole thing in general: ie very much in terms of it being an interesting experiment - test the technology and the effect, see where it goes etc. And sometimes one idea comes out of another - we have all experienced that as creatives and it is also definitely true in business.

I still cannot understand what seems like an over-reaction here and on a few blogs. This is about non commercial use and not about bloggers per se.
Experimenting with property they dont own. And you seem to happily defend it.

« Reply #906 on: March 14, 2014, 02:55 »
+10
I have full right to over-react because it's my photos.

« Reply #907 on: March 14, 2014, 03:14 »
+10

No, they won't. They have almost 100K Flickr photographers who willing to do anything just to be be able to post Getty Artist badge on their Flickr page. There are good bunch that have huge RM ports. The embed program will not affect this group too much because they are not interested in small sales, and this campaign might give them the right exposure as their photos stand out and there is potential that buyers could be coming back to them. However, the majority are amateur with mediocre and replicable portfolios, have no where to go.

I remember the "istock charts" that had over 30 000 names of contributors entered and where we were ranked by sales. I was in the top 300, number 272, until I stopped uploading for a while and others overtook me.

I really don't think of myself as a top level artists, just good nice useful solid stock production.

So if I can make it into the top 1% of that list, I really don't think the masses of 100 000 flickr producers worries me.

The number of people who produce useful stock on a regular basis is very small, even if a huge flood of files enters the sites every week.


It is the top 5000 artists from all media types, those that regularly produce sellable content, that the agencies need to keep happy.

Maybe that is still enough "mass" for them to ignore us and treat us like idiots, but I believe the agency that can tap into the talent pool will have a distinct advantage. Especially those agencies that treat us as independent web shop owners and give us the tools we need to work.

All we need is a good plattform, the market is self organizing.

And how many shop owners want to have their products used for free by the world, even if their name is below and there is a backlink?

The loss of control is the biggest problem. Like we have established before - if this move was really about advertising and increasing sales, it would have been easy to offer an opt in.

You only force people into something if you know they don't want it and when they can benefit immensely from having everything available at once.

In this case a new business of data collection and ad space, built on the back of 500 dollar files.

The correct way to do this would have been to pay the artists for every embedded file. If they want to offer it free to the bloggers, then Getty should be the one paying, at least a sub level royalty for every embed.

To say "the files would have been stolen anyway so you don't deserve any money" is  wrong because the value of the blogs and articles is increased by the embedded image.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 06:17 by cobalt »

« Reply #908 on: March 14, 2014, 03:21 »
+2
I guess it would be fair to say that it is confusing if even some journalists get it wrong.
You've obviously met a different set of journalists from those I knew during my 20 years as a newspaper editor  ;D

« Reply #909 on: March 14, 2014, 03:23 »
+8

No, they won't. They have almost 100K Flickr photographers who willing to do anything just to be be able to post Getty Artist badge on their Flickr page. There are good bunch that have huge RM ports. The embed program will not affect this group too much because they are not interested in small sales, and this campaign might give them the right exposure as their photos stand out and there is potential that buyers could be coming back to them. However, the majority are amateur with mediocre and replicable portfolios, have no where to go.

I remember the "istock charts" that had over 30 000 names of contributors entered and where we were ranked by sales. I was in the top 300, numer 272, until I stopped uploading for a while and others overtook me.

I really don't think of myself as a top level artists, just good nice useful sold stock production.

So if I can make it into the top 1% of that list, I really don't think the masses of 100 000 flickr producers worries me.

The number of people who produce useful stock on a regular basis is very small, even if a huge flood of files enters the sites every week.


It is the top 5000 artists from all media types, those that regularly produce sellable content, that the agencies need to keep happy.

Maybe that is still enough "mass" for them to ignore us and treat us like idiots, but I believe the agency that can tap into the talent pool will have a distinct advantage. Especially those agencies that treat us as independent web shop owners and give us the tools we need to work.

All we need is a good plattform, the market is self organizing.

And how many shop owners want to have their products used for free by the world, even if their name is below and there is a backlink?

The loss of control is the biggest problem. Like we have established before - if this move was really about advertising and increasing sales, it would have been easy to offer an opt in.

You only force people into something if you know they don't want it and when they can benefit immensely from having everything available at once.

In this case a new business of data collection and ad space, built on the back of 500 dollar files.

The correct way to do this would have been to pay the artists for every embedded file. If they want to offer it free to the bloggers, then Getty should be the one paying, at least a sub level royalty for every embed.

To say "the files would have been stolen anyway so you don't deserve any money" is  wrong because the value of the blogs and articles is increased by the embedded image.

I'm with you.
A few years ago, I was over the moon to be with Getty. Now I have nothing but hatred for them.

« Reply #910 on: March 14, 2014, 06:51 »
+8
It doesn't matter what bloggers do or anyone else for that matter now that Getty has effectively devalued not just stock photography but photography as a profession overnight.

That word "Free" is what sticks in the mind of the dunderheads out there and plays right into the hands of the cheapskates who couldn't give sweet FA about the embed service, other than seeing it as a victory - "If we just keep on stealing stuff, eventually it will all be free so who cares - awesome."


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #911 on: March 14, 2014, 07:31 »
0
I don't think many bloggers would want to give up control of cropping, sizing, editing, stability (the images may not be there 2 seconds after they embed them), their data, advertising, etc.. 

Is anyone here considering using the embed program for most images on their blog?  I can't think of a circumstance that I would.

I would never use it because you can't create thumbnails out of embedded photos, and i'm reading the same negative comments on many webmaster forums, embedding images only makes sense inside articles or galleries but it's not usable for anything else.

data and analytics, i don't think it's an issue at all, every blog is already giving away analytic data to google and many others.

stability : big problem, getty could pretty much disable this service in the future or even asking you money so in both cases you'll be trapped and at their mercy.

i mean, nothing new, same issues encountered in the past by FotoMoto and other similar startups.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #912 on: March 14, 2014, 08:02 »
-6
Getty has effectively devalued not just stock photography but photography as a profession overnight.

yes and no.

if we really valued our photos we would only sell prints in art galleries and we would use the web only as a platform for portfolio to invite clients to exhibitions and to be contacted for assignments.

if we look at the top photographers in pretty much any field none of them sell stock and they only use their blogs or FB/twitter pages for promotion ... they use low res images with no watermarks and they don't give a sh-it if it gets stolen by random bloggers or if it's shared on pinterest or flickr .. i mean they don't even see digital as a business to be monetized, they make big bucks with galleries, prints, assignments, museums, exhibitions, etc, that's where the serious money is $$$.

they must be disgusted at the idea of selling stock, i can't blame them, stock is the rock bottom of photography no matter how we paint it, stockers are all in denial about this.










« Reply #913 on: March 14, 2014, 08:39 »
+10
^^ Sorry but that is an overblown piece of snobbery and seems to have missed out the last thirty years of the business. It's like saying anyone who doesn't make Gucci or Prada and knocks out tee shirts in a crappy basement has no value. Well value is relative. I'm no great shakes as a photographer but I haven't just picked up a camera and suddenly made a chunk of change out of stock photography. It has cost me my most valuable asset - time.

I'm not anticipating ever seeing my work at MoMa - but it does have a value over and above zero whether it hangs on a wall in New York or appears in a brochure for a cleaning company in downtown Nairobi.

« Reply #914 on: March 14, 2014, 08:48 »
+7
stock is the rock bottom of photography no matter how we paint it, stockers are all in denial about this.

Sorry, I really value my work. To create something that is actually useful to help people with their projects, school books and businesses...I find that has a lot more merit than creating wall decor for rich people.

There is real art, but that is rare. And I dont value art by dollars paid for it.

farbled

« Reply #915 on: March 14, 2014, 08:53 »
+2
I guess it would be fair to say that it is confusing if even some journalists get it wrong.
You've obviously met a different set of journalists from those I knew during my 20 years as a newspaper editor  ;D

Ha! I completely agree, 20 years ago there wasn't any spellcheck. Now if they could please re-introduce rules of grammar to print and tv journalists.... :)

« Reply #916 on: March 14, 2014, 09:09 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:08 by tickstock »


Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #917 on: March 14, 2014, 09:20 »
+7
It doesn't matter what bloggers do or anyone else for that matter now that Getty has effectively devalued not just stock photography but photography as a profession overnight.

That word "Free" is what sticks in the mind of the dunderheads out there and plays right into the hands of the cheapskates who couldn't give sweet FA about the embed service, other than seeing it as a victory - "If we just keep on stealing stuff, eventually it will all be free so who cares - awesome."
It does matter what bloggers do and it doesn't matter what thieves think about the Getty plan.  Bloggers are were paying money to license our images and thieves have already made up their minds about this, who cares what incorrect justification they use when stealing images.  It's still stealing.

Fixed it for ya.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #918 on: March 14, 2014, 09:26 »
+8
I still cannot understand what seems like an over-reaction here and on a few blogs. This is about non commercial use and not about bloggers per se.
That seems like an entirely selfish stance.
You may know that few, if any, of your images are use editorially or non-commercially.
That doesn't make it right for anyone, especially those of us who know that's how the majority of our images are used.

I'm mightily relieved that they've had to obey UK law, so the new getty uk site makes the facility almost invisible, as many of my images have a UK interest (I wonder how many UK punters, seeing all the 'free' hoo-ha then getting to the site and not being able to easily find out more have contacted them or blogged that it's all a load of tosh).
However, my relief doesn't stop me from believing that the whole shenanigans is ill-conceived and wrong. If it had to be done at all - and I wish it hadn't, as the loud and clear message is 'web images are free' (with some tiny small print),- - it should be done with wholly-owned content and people like yourself opting in.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 10:22 by ShadySue »

« Reply #919 on: March 14, 2014, 09:29 »
+2
We'll put shadysue.


My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com

« Reply #920 on: March 14, 2014, 09:37 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:08 by tickstock »

« Reply #921 on: March 14, 2014, 09:42 »
+14
I still cannot understand what seems like an over-reaction here and on a few blogs. This is about non commercial use and not about bloggers per se.
That seems like an entirely selfish stance.
You may know that few, if any, of your images are use editorially or non-commercially.
That doesn't make it right for anyone, especially those of us who know that's how the majority of our images are used.

... and when did we decide it was ok for "non-commercial" users to get free use of anything?

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #922 on: March 14, 2014, 09:44 »
+3
It doesn't matter what bloggers do or anyone else for that matter now that Getty has effectively devalued not just stock photography but photography as a profession overnight.

That word "Free" is what sticks in the mind of the dunderheads out there and plays right into the hands of the cheapskates who couldn't give sweet FA about the embed service, other than seeing it as a victory - "If we just keep on stealing stuff, eventually it will all be free so who cares - awesome."
It does matter what bloggers do and it doesn't matter what thieves think about the Getty plan.  Bloggers are were paying money to license our images and thieves have already made up their minds about this, who cares what incorrect justification they use when stealing images.  It's still stealing.

Fixed it for ya.
I agree that it would be an issue if paying bloggers decided to go with the embed program rather than buying images.  I've said it a few times now and so has Sean, Jon Oringer and countless blogs that there seems to be little chance of that happening because of the control a blogger would give up in terms of editing, cropping, ads, making sure the images are there for as long as the blog is, data mining etc..  I'll ask the question again if you are a blogger would you or anyone you know switch to the embed program and give up that control of your blog?

So you're predicting the program will fail?

« Reply #923 on: March 14, 2014, 09:49 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:08 by tickstock »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #924 on: March 14, 2014, 09:57 »
+4
I agree that it would be an issue if paying bloggers decided to go with the embed program rather than buying images.  I've said it a few times now and so has Sean, Jon Oringer and countless blogs that there seems to be little chance of that happening because of the control a blogger would give up in terms of editing, cropping, ads, making sure the images are there for as long as the blog is, data mining etc..  I'll ask the question again if you are a blogger would you or anyone you know switch to the embed program and give up that control of your blog?
In that case, why have they spent so much time and marketing resources on what you consider to be a pointless promotion, whose visible message is 'images are free'?

I'd have been happier with a system whereby non-profits and charities could get small images for e.g. $5, but even then it should be opt-in, as I'm sure there are many who wouldn't be happy with that. $5 is less than some of their big buyers are paying (I've had a few Getty sales netting me under $1 at 20%). I would far rather a charity bought my image cheaply than big business. (I do understand the concept of bulk-buying, before anyone says.)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13167 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
5331 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
3809 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
107 Replies
49338 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada
1 Replies
1799 Views
Last post May 19, 2022, 21:25
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors