MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 149639 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: March 06, 2014, 10:32 »
+1
They "own" my images for the next year.  By the time the contract is up, I'm sure my Getty photos will be all over the internet for perpetuity - even if I finally get them off the Getty site.

No, I'm pretty sure you can close your account with 30 days notice.  It's them that has to wait a year.

Worth investigating.  Thanks.


« Reply #176 on: March 06, 2014, 10:35 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:31 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #177 on: March 06, 2014, 10:36 »
+7
I think (hope) there'll be a backlash, and Getty will have to backpedal.

« Reply #178 on: March 06, 2014, 10:38 »
+8
How do they control (in)sensitive use? Isn't that a black hole they could be sucked into legally? E.g. images being embedded on porn blogs - or worse.

To clarify, at present they can wash their hands of all this "stolen" imagery, but now they are monetizing it through advertising revenue do they not have an even higher obligation to police the end users?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 10:40 by Red Dove »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #179 on: March 06, 2014, 10:39 »
+2
Question to Yuri: Do you still think you made right decision by moving subscription sites to Getty? Everyone can make a mistake. I would really appreciate your opinion of this Getty's decision. Do you still think you port worth more on Getty than on sub. sites?

At times like this, I think about Yuri's "professionals work with professionals" comment and just have to smile.

:)

Indeed, but I wonder if he manages to side-step all the sh*t the rest of us have to 'take - or get out'.
It's fun to bash Yuri but the way I see it, if it hurts him it's going to hurt all of us.  Maybe you should be careful what you wish for.  Oh and it seems childish and petty.
It's going to hurt us, inevitably, but does his 'special' contract teflon-coat him from this?
No one wished anything, just curious. Though of course, he won't tell.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #180 on: March 06, 2014, 10:41 »
+3
How do they control (in)sensitive use? Isn't that a black hole they could be sucked into legally? E.g. images being embedded on porn blogs - or worse.
They say that as embedded files are still on their server, it's easy to unembed them from commercial or abusive sites.
Still, just right-click and the image is yours.

« Reply #181 on: March 06, 2014, 10:41 »
+1
Oh boy!! They Have a Plan, they must have a plan.....to pay off their +$1 billion debt!!! That viewer seems stinky and full of ..... unseen traps!! Now i can easily see them advertising their new "innovative" subscription plan on istock to zillions of bloggers who embed their viewer.

« Reply #182 on: March 06, 2014, 10:49 »
+5
Question to Yuri: Do you still think you made right decision by moving subscription sites to Getty? Everyone can make a mistake. I would really appreciate your opinion of this Getty's decision. Do you still think you port worth more on Getty than on sub. sites?

At times like this, I think about Yuri's "professionals work with professionals" comment and just have to smile.

:)

Indeed, but I wonder if he manages to side-step all the sh*t the rest of us have to 'take - or get out'.
It's fun to bash Yuri but the way I see it, if it hurts him it's going to hurt all of us.  Maybe you should be careful what you wish for.  Oh and it seems childish and petty.

while the community was in turmoil over the google deal trying to take a stand by deactivating files or even leaving istock - in the middle of all that - Yuri decided that istock and Getty were his best possible outlets. One may wonder if a year later, when he (possibly) gets the subscriptions he tried to escape at SS and an even worse promotional use deal than what the Google deal ever was - if he still thinks that was his best decision. I fail to see how it could be, but I'd love to be enlightened... .

Ron

« Reply #183 on: March 06, 2014, 10:57 »
+9
I keep reading stuff about this being a game-changer, killing stock, etc. Sure it's bad, but can Getty really kill stock? Or microstock? I doubt it.

Microstock is bigger than Getty. Much as I'm sure some will disagree with that idea, really, I think it is. Especially from my perspective, being a vector artist. The Getty mothership doesn't deal directly in vectors. They leave that to iStock. So they have no real means to kill that part of their business, nor would they want to since vectors make up a pretty huge chunk of their income.

And then there's pricing. Getty has been grossly disconnected from the reality of pricing in recent years, as is evidenced in their current pricing of $55-65 for a blog image. I think a lot of bloggers have long since found other ways to purchase (and not steal) images for their blogs at more affordable prices. Getty throwing in the towel and giving up on blog use licensing doesn't mean there is no market for it. They just don't think that anything less than $20 is reasonable for a blog use fee.

Just because Getty can't figure out how to sell blog content to bloggers doesn't mean that microstock can't (or isn't already) doing it.

What this Getty move does do is hurt the public perception of the value of images. But I think it's way too soon to be calling this the end. People still buy images at iStock despite the readily available supply of content available elsewhere for less. So opening up a flood of free content I don't think is going to send people rushing to Getty.

Getty has been a floundering, poorly-run company for a while now. They lack the ability to change the game anymore on their own. The game outgrew them years ago.
I think most of my 10,000 sales have been for non commercial use, blog use, websites, maybe illustration in an ebook. Those sales are potentially gone now. Anyone paying a fiver to CanStockPhoto or 39 euro for 5 images at SS, for a blog or website image, no longer have to pay that money. Its free. How is that no bad for micro stock or micro agencies? Maybe vector artists get a away scott free, but stock photography is dealt a major blow. Time will tell.

Ron

« Reply #184 on: March 06, 2014, 11:00 »
+4
I think (hope) there'll be a backlash, and Getty will have to backpedal.
Yeah, I am hoping they pissed off the wrong photographer this time.

I cant believe AFP is in on the deal. Alas, they are crooks as well, suing a photographer for claiming copyright on a photo they stole from him in the first place.

« Reply #185 on: March 06, 2014, 11:02 »
+10
Not sure they can even pull this off technically. Even at low res the computer power needed to access the photo each time it is seen. Ever notice when a news program does a story about a company you can not access web site for a day. What if they have a technical glitch and it would effect every blogger.

Not a good deal for the blogger in a way. So they save $5 or less for an image. They will be bait and switched looking for them.. time consuming. If the image is deleted their content will not show up. If the service is down their content will not show up. Once they start with ads you loose control over your content on the page and will make it look junkie. No sense in giving your site control to someone else to save a few dollars.

« Reply #186 on: March 06, 2014, 11:10 »
+9
Unless everyone pulls their port from Getty, they will not back pedal.

This will change stock. The days of shooting things isolated on white and making money will be over. Probably already have enough strawberries on white to last a lifetime. Agencies will evolve into those that support bloggers and the like with (free) images for the advertising $$ and those that support commercial uses with images for licensing.

At least I hope it does. If these two uses stay mixed, it is the end for the working photographer.

« Reply #187 on: March 06, 2014, 11:16 »
+11
I had considered myself retired from posting, but this has me intrigued enough to share my take.

First, I have my doubts that this will end microstock as we know it.

Im a buyer as well as a contributor.  I would never want that viewer on my website, even my personal blog.

Its even conceivable that a potential buyer would be attracted by the notion of free images from iStock, search through the site to find the perfect image, go through the motions of putting the viewer on his/her site, deciding it looks like crap, and then saying, but I still really like that image and to buy it would only be a few dollars. 

OK, thats a very glass half-full way of looking at this, but its a possibility, and thats the kind of person I am.

Second, assume the worst for a moment.  iStock kills microstock.  None of us make any money going about this the way we do it today.  We would all stop doing it, right?  There would be no more fresh content.  Sure, with 30+ million images out there, the world would exist just fine for a few years if not a single new image was created.  But it couldnt go on for long.

New imagery would be needed, and if no one produced it because microstock was dead, a new model would HAVE TO rise from the ashes to make image creation profitable.  Its supply and demand.

I happen to think this is not the revolution.  This effort will not be embraced widely enough to kill our livelihoods.  But a revolution will happen one day, maybe soon, and a new model will emerge that makes creators want to create, or the world will have no new images.  And since the world is becoming more visual every day, relying more on effective images and less on text every day, Im confident the work I produce will be more in demand tomorrow than it is today.

Thats my prediction, anyway.  Now back into retirement.

« Reply #188 on: March 06, 2014, 11:19 »
+3
Not sure they can even pull this off technically. Even at low res the computer power needed to access the photo each time it is seen. Ever notice when a news program does a story about a company you can not access web site for a day. What if they have a technical glitch and it would effect every blogger.

Not a good deal for the blogger in a way. So they save $5 or less for an image. They will be bait and switched looking for them.. time consuming. If the image is deleted their content will not show up. If the service is down their content will not show up. Once they start with ads you loose control over your content on the page and will make it look junkie. No sense in giving your site control to someone else to save a few dollars.

Interesting point. What if your blog is about the virtues of healthy eating and exercise and the advertising running through your embedded image of a green salad is from one of the big n' fat fast food chains?

farbled

« Reply #189 on: March 06, 2014, 11:22 »
+4
I certainly hope that this won't have the impact on MS that Getty hopes it will. I don't think it will but I could be wrong. But my plan B is along the same lines as StockPhotosArt. If my income is damaged and becomes unsustainable because of this, I'll pull every image I have, put it on my Sym site and give it away hi-res for free and make my pennies from ad revenue and donations. And I will tweet and facebook every day to Getty about it. :)

« Reply #190 on: March 06, 2014, 11:28 »
+8
Not sure they can even pull this off technically. Even at low res the computer power needed to access the photo each time it is seen. Ever notice when a news program does a story about a company you can not access web site for a day. What if they have a technical glitch and it would effect every blogger.

Not a good deal for the blogger in a way. So they save $5 or less for an image. They will be bait and switched looking for them.. time consuming. If the image is deleted their content will not show up. If the service is down their content will not show up. Once they start with ads you loose control over your content on the page and will make it look junkie. No sense in giving your site control to someone else to save a few dollars.

I agree. Given that Getty doesn't quite "shine" in technical aspects they probably did a pretty sad job implementing this. For a blogger who doesn't want to pay it's much easier to get an image somewhere else - through a screen dump or just some other site where the image is not protected. A blogger who wants to pay (= be legit with their image use)... will get it through Getty for free now! (how does this even make sense??). All Getty did by this move is gave the customers who'd be paying otherwise a free product, and led millions of internet uses to believe that stock images are now free to use... people will continue "stealing" images but now with a belief that they are not doing anything wrong.

« Reply #191 on: March 06, 2014, 11:38 »
+2

Second, assume the worst for a moment.  iStock kills microstock.  None of us make any money going about this the way we do it today.  We would all stop doing it, right?  There would be no more fresh content.  Sure, with 30+ million images out there, the world would exist just fine for a few years if not a single new image was created.  But it couldnt go on for long.

New imagery would be needed, and if no one produced it because microstock was dead, a new model would HAVE TO rise from the ashes to make image creation profitable.  Its supply and demand.

I happen to think this is not the revolution.  This effort will not be embraced widely enough to kill our livelihoods.  But a revolution will happen one day, maybe soon, and a new model will emerge that makes creators want to create, or the world will have no new images.  And since the world is becoming more visual every day, relying more on effective images and less on text every day, Im confident the work I produce will be more in demand tomorrow than it is today.

Thats my prediction, anyway.  Now back into retirement.

My thoughts exactly:) However, when something like Getty makes one stupid decision after another instead of concentrating on what a stock agency is supposed to do - just selling images, plain and simple! - it is extremely annoying....


« Reply #192 on: March 06, 2014, 11:47 »
0
... go through the motions of putting the viewer on his/her site, deciding it looks like crap, and then saying, but I still really like that image and to buy it would only be a few dollars.  ...

Considering how people weren't even bothered by large watermarks all across the image they used, this is unlikely

« Reply #193 on: March 06, 2014, 12:02 »
0
Question to Yuri: Do you still think you made right decision by moving subscription sites to Getty? Everyone can make a mistake. I would really appreciate your opinion of this Getty's decision. Do you still think you port worth more on Getty than on sub. sites?


At times like this, I think about Yuri's "professionals work with professionals" comment and just have to smile.

:)


Indeed, but I wonder if he manages to side-step all the sh*t the rest of us have to 'take - or get out'.

It's fun to bash Yuri but the way I see it, if it hurts him it's going to hurt all of us.  Maybe you should be careful what you wish for.  Oh and it seems childish and petty.

It's going to hurt us, inevitably, but does his 'special' contract teflon-coat him from this?
No one wished anything, just curious. Though of course, he won't tell.


I can't see the download for free option on his image here but I am not very au-fait with Getty so I may be looking at the wrong collection or something.

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/young-couple-eating-pizza-on-beach-royalty-free-image/84303011

« Reply #194 on: March 06, 2014, 12:08 »
0
maybe there is the need to register first

« Reply #195 on: March 06, 2014, 12:14 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:31 by tickstock »

« Reply #196 on: March 06, 2014, 12:14 »
+1
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 12:27 by 7Horses »

« Reply #197 on: March 06, 2014, 12:17 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:31 by tickstock »

« Reply #198 on: March 06, 2014, 12:18 »
0
Some blogs and articles on this (some as re-tweeted by Getty who are clearly trying to get this news out as widely as possible). (Edited to add that I'm adding links here to have a somewhat complete record of the articles on this topic)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140305/16180626448/getty-images-decides-its-mostly-better-to-compete-than-sue-frees-up-millions-images.shtml

http://www.geekwire.com/2014/getty-images-launches-new-tool-bloggers-embed-stock-photos-free/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/05/getty_images_drops_its_paywall_opens_up_photos_for_free.html

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/06/gettys-new-embed-tool-makes-millions-photos-free-use-non-commercially/

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/03/gettys-free-image-program-new-revenue-model-or-a-surrender-to-copyright-infringement.html

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/since-it-cant-sue-us-all-getty-images-embraces-embedded-photos

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-07/photographers-hate-getty-imagess-plan-to-give-away-their-work

http://www.wcvb.com/money/technology/Getty-opens-photo-archive-to-bloggers/24838730

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57619973-93/getty-images-makes-much-of-its-photo-portfolio-free-to-use/

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use

http://fstoppers.com/incredible-news-kind-of-getty-images-makes-their-images-free-to-use

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10680578/Getty-releases-millions-of-free-images-in-fight-against-copyright.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/03/why-getty-going-free-is-such-a-big-deal-explained-in-getty-images/284264/

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26463886

http://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/getty-free-stock-photos-price

http://photocritic.org/getty-free-embed-feature/

http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/gettys-move-is-cynical-says-british-press-photographers-association/

http://mashable.com/2014/03/05/getty-free-photo-embeds/

http://thedambook.com/getty-did-what/

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/06/thoughts-gettys-embed-tool/

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2014/03/getty-images-progressive-destructive/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/business/media/getty-to-let-bloggers-and-others-use-photos-free.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/tech/social-media/getty-free-pictures/index.html

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/05/getty-images/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/video/12520021/shutterstock-shares-up-as-getty-images-focuses-on-digital.html

http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/industry-concerned-about-getty-images-free-for-all-approach/

https://econsultancy.com/blog/64482-five-key-implications-of-getty-images-embeds-that-publishers-need-to-know

http://www.creativebloq.com/photography/getty-photos-free-31410913

http://onthewebbsocialmedia.com/gettys-new-free-embedded-images-may-free-afterall/

http://gettyimagesmustchange.com/site/getty-offers-millions-of-images-for-free/

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/03/gettys-greg-peters-on-why-free-images-are-good-for-photographers-and-for-the-photo-industry.html

http://alistapart.com/blog/post/using-embeddable-getty-images

http://www.zenlegalnetworking.com/2014/03/articles/social-media/gettys-new-embedding-feature-dont-get-excited-yet/

http://www.v3im.com/2014/03/getty-images-sets-35-million-images-free-but-theres-a-catch/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/getty-images-allows-free-embedding-cost-privacy

http://newcameranews.com/2014/03/06/getty-images-giving-away-old-crap-that-nobody-wants/

http://blog.hootsuite.com/getty-free-35-million-images-can-use/

http://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JMP6130
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 16:21 by Jo Ann Snover »



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
11934 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
4307 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
3033 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
4104 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 06:11
by emicristea
107 Replies
40875 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle