MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 92448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2014, 20:14 »
-2
...But IMHO - SS, being the most technically advanced of these agencies, will come up with the slipperiest ways to monetize our images while making only token royalty payments.


I've been fussing about the lack of transparency in the SOD licenses since they started it - they will not tell us what the buyer is getting or paying for the amount we receive. It could be a great deal or a crappy one, but we have no way to judge. It is definitely a concern.

When Shutterstock first introduced extended licenses we received $20 of $40 and they have since decreased our share of totals even though the royalty is now $28. They clearly have an interest in increasing their share of the gross wherever possible

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-pricing/msg47584/#msg47584

(I was jsnover in an earlier life here). A number of people have raised questions about the Facebook deal and whether there were fees paid to SS that contributors saw no part of.

The big difference thus far is that Getty has shafted its contributors over and over again whereas there's just a worry about Shutterstock doing the same if it gets big and powerful enough


If more submitters asked the questions you do and then held them to task for failing to compensate us fairly, we would not be in this predicament. We all need to be asking relevant questions regarding contributor revenue via WebDAM.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/03/shutterstock-acquires-digital-asset-management-service-webdam/

With this news it makes me leery about SS scheduled down time, lets hope we do not receive more bad news.


« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2014, 20:20 »
+10
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:33 by tickstock »

« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2014, 20:23 »
+1
It will only affect everyone if it really becomes widely used and thus a "platform".

Until then it is cool buzzwords that will drive lots of "innovative" articles.

Which is why they are revamping the advertising toolkit for the artists, hoping we will help to widely advertise the use of the viewer.

A real platform needs huge volume. iTunes,ebay or youtube size.

Which is why they say they are open to inviting other agencies....


Even if the concept really did catch on - what is to stop SS to come up with their own version? And who has more experience in creating reliable internet technology and growing an internet business...?

I do believe it has potential to kill sales if a file really becomes popular. Why buy something you can rent for free if renting is made easy?

Getty will still benefit from the advertising revenue, while my poor file is "viewed"

If anything the project has  a lot of potential to drive people with quality content to stocksy, Offset, RM sites or to work on their direct sales shops.

« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 20:30 by cobalt »

« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2014, 20:29 »
+13
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:34 by tickstock »

« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2014, 20:34 »
+3
I tried to explain that I dont think Getty will be successful with the project, not that I want SS to succeed with it.

But SS has better technology experience and if they wanted to pull it off they probably could. Again, I dont mean that I want them to do it.

Why would they? Until now, they are in the business of selling files, not renting views to advertisers.

They make real money, they dont promise vague returns in a distant future in case they are ever successful at building a huge platform.

The more I think about it, the more I see it as just another hot air project.

It has the ability to do damage, but I dont have my best files on the Getty platform.

I learnt a lot from the Microsoft deal.

« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2014, 20:37 »
+3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:34 by tickstock »

« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2014, 20:44 »
+7
VMan these agencies were built on other peoples hard work and talent. They are willing to destroy their own industry for short term success.  Seems like every day this year carries bad news for the industry. They somehow are convincing themselves they are adapting.

« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2014, 20:47 »
+1
...I've been fussing about the lack of transparency in the SOD licenses since they started it - they will not tell us what the buyer is getting or paying for the amount we receive. It could be a great deal or a crappy one, but we have no way to judge.

And if we have no way to judge, I think it's safe bet that it's a crappy one.  Unless you have some mystical belief in the superior ethics of SS as compared to any other for-profit corporation. 

A number of people have raised questions about the Facebook deal and whether there were fees paid to SS that contributors saw no part of.

Yes and my posts on that were heavily minus-ed.  I think it's significant that no one from SS showed up here to deny it. 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 20:49 by stockastic »

« Reply #33 on: March 05, 2014, 20:47 »
+1
Twitter has lit up with tweets about this, and there are a lot like this - thinking Getty's stuff is now free for any use...

https://twitter.com/opajdara/status/441388499217158144

« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2014, 20:49 »
0
The blogger has the choice between grabbing a file from google, or a free creative commons license or installing a viewer. What do you think is faster to do? There are millions of free images available already that are legal to use. Even for commercial purposes.

You are talking about the huge volume of people going after freebies.

They usually dont spend money anyway. Getting people who love free to even just pay 1 cent for anything is incredibly difficult. Terrible conversion rate.

I dont see these people as my market.

The commercial users,even the small business need to pay. And Getty says themselves they dont believe it will change their core business.

For me this talk about "preventing copyright infringing" is the pitch line to get the artists to comply and help spread the viewer.

Then the real money will come for Getty when they make deals with the advertisers. But they have to build the platform first and need critical mass to make it interesting.

Building a platform can take a lot of time. Lets see if it works first.

But they might not even need it to really work if they are going after the money of investors. Then they just need a plausible looking story where the "real money" comes in a very distant future.

Whatever is their real motive, I think for me it will be better to keep special files elsewhere. But I have content for the viewer. Sure. No problem.

« Reply #35 on: March 05, 2014, 20:50 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:34 by tickstock »

« Reply #36 on: March 05, 2014, 20:51 »
+5
"There are millions of free images available already that are legal to use. Even for commercial purposes."

People often find that free isn't really 'free'.

« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2014, 20:54 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:34 by tickstock »

« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2014, 20:54 »
0
They exist, but are they a big market? If I had a little money, I would be using legal free content.

If the blog is commercial, i.e. a company blog, they need to license files properly. These are the people that buy a yearly subscription package or pay for the more expensive files.

Until someone shows me the data, I never thought my files were being widely used on non profit blogs. When I do a google search for my name and my files I usually find them on commercial websites.

Where do you find yours?

« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2014, 20:56 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:34 by tickstock »

« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2014, 21:03 »
0
I think this might be the easiest way to get an idea how vulnerable you are. Get some stats on how you find your files being used and then see in how many cases you could have been replaced by the viewer.

The announcement will certainly lead many people to believe that "everything on getty is now free".

Maybe this will help push the viewer around. Or maybe it will just be a short lived internet hype.

How fast will the getty lawyers sue people who use the viewer in the wrong place? And after a few people get sued, how many people will continue using the viewer?

And will anyone ever be sued? Because if the real money is supposed to come from advertising, why would they care if it is placed on a commercial website?

Many questions...

But the artists have to decide if they want to take part and spread the viewer.

This is a very big project if they really want to be successful with it. I would look carefully at their track record in technology, sales and growing a business to decide if I should be scared or not.

The more immediate problem is the introduction of subscriptions on everything on istock except Vetta. I would be more scared of that if I was still exclusive.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 21:06 by cobalt »

« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2014, 21:07 »
-10
Isn't the Chrome browser free?  Isn't the Android software free?  Isn't WhatsApp free (yet is somehow worth $19B).  Do I view all my favorite web sites for free?  Do I now read all my morning newspapers for free?  And yet all of these things happen to be worth a fortune because they are all a portal to something else or they attract advertising fees.  So being free to them wasn't a dumb move at all.  Of course I can't add advertising to my images, but I can see why there are more and more apps that are free yet become worth a substantial amount of money.

I'm just a simple person.  The way I see it is this:  at the moment people have to search at Getty's web site to see my stuff.  What if every web site in the world decides to use the Getty embedded viewer and an extra billion people a day get to see my stuff. And every one of those views sees my attributed name and a one click link to my portfolio.  Will I lose money or make money?  The answer is:  I will make a lot more sales and a lot more money.  And do I care if Getty also makes money through views or clicks or advertising?  No, actually I don't care at all. In fact, I'll encourage them to do so. Why? Because I know that the more views they generate the more money I will make.  It's like putting a personal link to my portfolio on every web site in the world.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 21:11 by hatman12 »


« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2014, 21:09 »
+14
"What if every web site in the world decides to use the Getty embedded viewer and an extra billion people a day get to see my stuff.  Will I lose money or make money?  The answer is:  I will make a lot more sales and a lot more money. "

Sorry.  I don't see the correlation.

« Reply #43 on: March 05, 2014, 21:13 »
+3
David - some of my files in the Microsoft deal had a functioning link to my portfolio on istock. I think 4 files from 25.

I had no correlation in sales. No increase. No drop after the files where removed from Microsoft.

You need to target the right kind of customers very carefully to make money.

I really hope it works out for you.

« Reply #44 on: March 05, 2014, 21:15 »
0
The blogger has the choice between grabbing a file from google, or a free creative commons license or installing a viewer. What do you think is faster to do? There are millions of free images available already that are legal to use. Even for commercial purposes.

You are talking about the huge volume of people going after freebies.

They usually dont spend money anyway. Getting people who love free to even just pay 1 cent for anything is incredibly difficult. Terrible conversion rate.

I dont see these people as my market.

The commercial users,even the small business need to pay. And Getty says themselves they dont believe it will change their core business.

For me this talk about "preventing copyright infringing" is the pitch line to get the artists to comply and help spread the viewer.

Then the real money will come for Getty when they make deals with the advertisers. But they have to build the platform first and need critical mass to make it interesting.

Building a platform can take a lot of time. Lets see if it works first.

But they might not even need it to really work if they are going after the money of investors. Then they just need a plausible looking story where the "real money" comes in a very distant future.

Whatever is their real motive, I think for me it will be better to keep special files elsewhere. But I have content for the viewer. Sure. No problem.

The sites do not have to do a thing there are app coders all over the net and they can make using the app as easy as clicking a button.

This is not rocket science.

« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2014, 21:15 »
+13
I don't pay for the Chrome Browser but it's not free either :) And I read my newspaper online but I pay for it - because I want to keep reading the New York Times which means somehow journalists need to be paid.

The big issue here is that (a) Getty doesn't own what it's giving away and (b) that it's not clear that the people who do own it will actually see other sales to replace the ones they lose - and yes, I've found many of my images used - paid for - on blogs


« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2014, 21:17 »
+6
No you will not make more money! people don't care about the artist they just want the image when they need it. I don't look at images on blogs and find out who shot it because I don't really care. I only care when I need to buy an image and I am not going to go find the Getty view box to get one!

« Reply #47 on: March 05, 2014, 21:20 »
+7
If you want to use my image then buy it!

« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2014, 21:35 »
+10
Getty should be ashamed of the 'free to use' posts that are proliferating across twitter.

« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2014, 21:36 »
+8
istock had a project with a blogsite called vox. Files could be embedded for free and they all had links to our portfolios and individual files.

I saw no increase in sales, not even views and I think neither did istock. The project was cancelled.

But of course there was no advertising being flashed at the end user through the images.

Maybe if istock had done that, istock would have had advertising revenue. But in those days istock was in the business of selling files,not using their content to rent it out at end users and avoid paying the artist.

As an artist you anyway have to be lucky to get your files "viewed" to even have a chance of making a sale. Are your files interesting enough to stand out in the 35 million files to be chosen to be viewed?

But for the advertising revenue again it doest matter. They just need a platform with a critical size of users (here: embedded viewers)  to get the advertisers to pay them.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 21:41 by cobalt »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
10651 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
2961 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
1609 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
32778 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results