Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 238734 times)

KimsCreativeHub · « **Reply #925 on:** March 14, 2014, 09:59 »

ShadySue, that sounds like bulk charities

My Very Best

KimsCreativeHub.com

tickstock · « **Reply #926 on:** March 14, 2014, 10:02 »

KimsCreativeHub · « **Reply #927 on:** March 14, 2014, 10:06 »

I wonder if there is a way for a contributor to know how menu images or times an image has been "imbedded" from their portfolio?

My Very Best

KimsCreativeHub.com

tickstock · « **Reply #928 on:** March 14, 2014, 10:08 »

Shelma1 · « **Reply #929 on:** March 14, 2014, 10:19 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 09:49

Not necessarily. I think this program isn't meant to replace paying bloggers at all, which seems to be the major contention here. I think for Getty the success is getting a few people who weren't paying for images to use the program and the free advertising the announcement has given them. I don't see many or any blogs that aim to make money, even 'non-commercially' switching over. It would seem like a bad business decision to do it.

How could you possibly think this? I'm just curious. Why would people who were just right-clicking bother with the trouble of registering at Getty and searching there and having to find the images that have the little embed icon and pasting and copying html code, knowing they would then be tracked and advertising would appear later? The only people I foresee using this are honest bloggers who've been either paying to license images or using public domain images. They're the ones who are excited that Getty's library is now open for "free" use.

The part about the free advertising I definitely agree with. It got them a lot of press for two days and is still getting them negative press now, though things are dying down quickly.

tickstock · « **Reply #930 on:** March 14, 2014, 10:25 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #931 on:** March 14, 2014, 10:57 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 10:25

If an honest blogger was using public domain images then I think it's better for me that they use the embed program, don't you?

So that you can earn a few cents from a nasty ad-switch, datamining scheme?
Fair enough, your call.
I wish it was mine not to risk partaking in that.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #932 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:16 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 10:25

You don't have to register with Getty. If an honest blogger was using public domain images then I think it's better for me that they use the embed program, don't you? Like I said though I don't see bloggers that pay for images switching because of the control over their website that they would lose. You posted that article by the legal blogger who made the point about not having control over what ads were placed on someone's legal blog, if a competitor has ads placed on there it wouldn't be good and I'm sure that goes for a lot of 'non-commercial' blogs. You seem to believe a lot of paying bloggers will give up control of their images, what makes you think it's worth saving a few dollars to do so? Would you do it? Would anyone here do it?

Yes, the article was written by a legal blogger. Obviously the first thing a lawyer will do is take a look at the fine print and legal implications. It's not the first thing an average blogger will do, unfortunately. But posting here and tweeting will help get that legal opinion out.

I work in an industry that pays for large licenses, where I'm used to dealing with image prices in the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. So Getty has no sticker shock for me. But, like attorneys, I'm an exception to the rule.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #933 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:16 »

Quote from: Red Dove on March 14, 2014, 08:39

^^ 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.

snobbery ?
maybe, or maybe not ... i'm just being realistic actually.

i'm not talking about technical quality, that's never been the issue, i'm talking about what the buyers are willing to pay.

i mean, it would be the same sh-it if suddenly there was a flood of random guys shooting on assignment for a pittance, and same for weddings and pretty much anything else.

i'm not saying stock is the rock bottom because it's inherently bad, but it became so bad due to many factors we've already discussed to death here and there's nothing we can do now, as an industry it's a dead man walking unless you've a huge portfolio or you're an image factory.

and talking about money, the more you devote time to stock the less time you have for more serious photography or assignments or whatever, i mean even weddings are paying a lot better than stock and it's a funny job after all, you go on location, meet people, laugh, eat, drink, and if you're lucky you find nice girls too, not to mention the many networking opportunities about assignments or prints or anything in between.

i would not think twice about switching to weddings if the stock industry tanks overnight.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #934 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:21 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 14, 2014, 08:48

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 don´t value art by dollars paid for it.

nobody is saying stock is not useful, but the buyers aren't willing to pay a decent price for it.

by the way, rich people don't care about art, they just buy it as an investment in order to diversify their assets.

tickstock · « **Reply #935 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:24 »

Shelma1 · « **Reply #936 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:25 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 11:24

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 14, 2014, 11:16
Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 10:25
You don't have to register with Getty. If an honest blogger was using public domain images then I think it's better for me that they use the embed program, don't you? Like I said though I don't see bloggers that pay for images switching because of the control over their website that they would lose. You posted that article by the legal blogger who made the point about not having control over what ads were placed on someone's legal blog, if a competitor has ads placed on there it wouldn't be good and I'm sure that goes for a lot of 'non-commercial' blogs. You seem to believe a lot of paying bloggers will give up control of their images, what makes you think it's worth saving a few dollars to do so? Would you do it? Would anyone here do it?

Yes, the article was written by a legal blogger. Obviously the first thing a lawyer will do is take a look at the fine print and legal implications. It's not the first thing an average blogger will do, unfortunately. But posting here and tweeting will help get that legal opinion out.

I work in an industry that pays for large licenses, where I'm used to dealing with image prices in the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. So Getty has no sticker shock for me. But, like attorneys, I'm an exception to the rule.
Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is?

But we all know what yours is.

tickstock · « **Reply #937 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:28 »

Shelma1 · « **Reply #938 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:31 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 14, 2014, 11:21

Quote from: cobalt on March 14, 2014, 08:48
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 don´t value art by dollars paid for it.

nobody is saying stock is not useful, but the buyers aren't willing to pay a decent price for it.

by the way, rich people don't care about art, they just buy it as an investment in order to diversify their assets.

Which people aren't willing to pay a decent price?

Maybe some shady internet folks who think it's OK to steal images. But for legit publishers and ad agencies, stock is a bigger market than ever. Our clients are always pressuring us to use stock in order to save money (to them, a $2,000 image is a bargain). I actually see the market for shoot assignments shrinking while stock grows.

That's borne out by the increase in SODs at Shutterstock. Art directors are happy to have an alternative to Getty.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #939 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:34 »

While Getty is busy trying to corner the market on non-paying bloggers, I just sold several extended licenses at Stocksy which pay out 100% to the artist.

cobalt · « **Reply #940 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:35 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 14, 2014, 11:21

by the way, rich people don't care about art, they just buy it as an investment in order to diversify their assets.

I know, which is why a lot images you see in the "art world" is just a different form of stock.

The artist are producing for the investment market, it is just as much production and assignment work as we do.

Building up the "persona of an artist" marketing the artist and his or her story...etc...

Unless you are very professional and customer targeted in your approach you won't make those big dollars.

eta: as for customers paying the right price for stock...you of course need to manage production costs with returns, like any business. And find a partner who puts energy into selling your work...like stocksy...

tickstock · « **Reply #941 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:37 »

cobalt · « **Reply #942 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:40 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 11:37

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 14, 2014, 11:34
While Getty is busy trying to corner the market on non-paying bloggers, I just sold several extended licenses at Stocksy which pay out 100% to the artist.
Congrats, it's good to see that you are making a lot more money now that you aren't with iStock/Getty.

And that gives you the chance to pick up all his sales tickstock. Let us know when you earn more than him on istock.

farbled · « **Reply #943 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:41 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 11:37

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 14, 2014, 11:34
While Getty is busy trying to corner the market on non-paying bloggers, I just sold several extended licenses at Stocksy which pay out 100% to the artist.
Congrats, it's good to see that you are making a lot more money now that you aren't with iStock/Getty.

And you don't have to worry about clawbacks or embedded for free images. I still haven't seen anything definitive about paying the contributors for use except some feel good statements here and there.

tickstock · « **Reply #944 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:42 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #945 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:45 »

Obtuse and nasty are the words that come to mind (but congrats, tickstock, you managed to win a couple of very rare minuses from me).

ShadySue · « **Reply #946 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:48 »

Quote from: farbled on March 14, 2014, 11:41

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 11:37
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 14, 2014, 11:34
While Getty is busy trying to corner the market on non-paying bloggers, I just sold several extended licenses at Stocksy which pay out 100% to the artist.
Congrats, it's good to see that you are making a lot more money now that you aren't with iStock/Getty.
And you don't have to worry about clawbacks or embedded for free images. I still haven't seen anything definitive about paying the contributors for use except some feel good statements here and there.

Good for you. Nothing I've found made me feel remotely good.

tickstock · « **Reply #947 on:** March 14, 2014, 11:49 »

tickstock · « **Reply #948 on:** March 14, 2014, 12:02 »

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #949 on:** March 14, 2014, 12:44 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 11:42

Quote from: cobalt on March 14, 2014, 11:40
And that gives you the chance to pick up all his sales tickstock. Let us know when you earn more than him on istock.
I'm already earning more than him at iStock, remember he's not there anymore.

I'd be amazed if you were earning more than him now, never mind when he was at iStock.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 238734 times)

KimsCreativeHub

tickstock

KimsCreativeHub

tickstock

Shelma1

tickstock

ShadySue

Shelma1

Hobostocker

Hobostocker

tickstock

Shelma1

tickstock

Shelma1

Sean Locke Photography

cobalt

tickstock

cobalt

farbled

tickstock

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

tickstock

tickstock

fotoVoyager

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors