Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 199232 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #200 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:19 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 06, 2014, 12:08

maybe there is the need to register first

"1) Will users need to have a log-in account to use the embed feature?
No, it is important that users are able to easily use embed. In fact, many embedded uses will originate off other websites as people share and re-blog embedded images, which accounts for many of the uses we see today. But the Getty Images terms of use will govern shared and re-blogged embedded images. "

StockCube · « **Reply #201 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:20 »

Quote from: ksgal on March 06, 2014, 12:18

Quote from: tickstock on March 06, 2014, 12:14
His E+ images have the option.

this one can be:http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/rugby-team-walking-together-royalty-free-image/89512474

I still can't see it, so maybe you are right - I don't have an account there so that could be it.

tickstock · « **Reply #202 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:21 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #203 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:26 »

Quote from: StockCube on March 06, 2014, 12:20

Quote from: ksgal on March 06, 2014, 12:18
Quote from: tickstock on March 06, 2014, 12:14
His E+ images have the option.

this one can be:http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/rugby-team-walking-together-royalty-free-image/89512474

I still can't see it, so maybe you are right - I don't have an account there so that could be it.

I'm not logged in there, and I can see the embed link </> under the photo beside the twitter and tumblr share buttons.
I'd love to know what his take is on this.

7Horses · « **Reply #204 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:28 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 06, 2014, 12:17

Quote from: 7Horses on March 06, 2014, 12:14
http://7horses.eu/wp/blog/getty-crap-us/

"Oops! That page can’t be found.

It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try one of the links below or a search?"

'getty-crap-us' is what you chose to name it? Maybe try something a bit more professional sounding?

rephrased it

http://7horses.eu/wp/blog/getty-kiils-us/

ksgal · « **Reply #205 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:34 »

Is anyone else wondering if this embeding code was not compatible with Istock Monday?

Pixart · « **Reply #206 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:42 »

Question:
Embed. Does this mean the photo is stored on Getty's servers? Um.... not too knowledgeable about this stuff, but if this thing explodes couldn't they have several million blogs contacting their servers at the same second of time - can they actually handle that?

Why can I go to one of the embedded photos already in someone's blog and right click on it? It doesn't even have any exif to tell me where it came from.

From an embedded photo, you can "copy this code </>" and embed it on your own blog without even visiting Getty? Now that's convenient! No end user contact info. No spam from Getty!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #207 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:43 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 06, 2014, 12:19

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 06, 2014, 12:08
maybe there is the need to register first
"1) Will users need to have a log-in account to use the embed feature?
No, it is important that users are able to easily use embed. In fact, many embedded uses will originate off other websites as people share and re-blog embedded images, which accounts for many of the uses we see today. But the Getty Images terms of use will govern shared and re-blogged embedded images. "

oh, makes it so easy, they are so kind, I wonder what other agencies will do next, can't wait to wake up tomorrow, overnight they drop the bombs without asking or letting know anyone (ok perhaps Yuri ahah NOT) and as usual with nice surprises, worst is that this can happen any day, they should pick a day per year

again nothing we can do beside quitting, have no work on GI but this is going to affect us all

now there are 35 Million free pictures and subscriptions at iStock, they really know what they are doing

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #208 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:50 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 06, 2014, 12:42

Question:
Embed. Does this mean the photo is stored on Getty's servers? Um.... not too knowledgeable about this stuff, but if this thing explodes couldn't they have several million blogs contacting their servers at the same second of time - can they actually handle that?

Why can I go to one of the embedded photos already in someone's blog and right click on it? It doesn't even have any exif to tell me where it came from.

From an embedded photo, you can "copy this code </>" and embed it on your own blog without even visiting Getty? Now that's convenient! No end user contact info. No spam from Getty!

Yes, to the first. The servers sit there serving up these images everytime a new visitor hits a page. Actually, at one point, I had thought of a service where you'd host images and let blogs embed them, and based on the number of hits the image got, you'd charge accordingly. But I thought the server traffic would cost more than you'd make, and I didn't think people would want to rely on an image hosted on someone else's servers.

You can, to the second.

You got it, for the third. They want them to spread virally.

jjneff · « **Reply #209 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:53 »

itunes now offering 35million songs for free at the end of the song is an audio tag that says the artist name and where you can find it. Feel free to share the song as the artist dose not care about money! The record labels are thrilled and you can share share share all for free. Thanks Getty

Hobostocker · « **Reply #210 on:** March 06, 2014, 12:57 »

What the he-ll guys, up until now we got ZERO $$$ from bloggers and spongers, at least now Getty is doing something to monetize and of course their plan is to raise the bar in the future depending on many factors.

Just think about MILLIONS of blogs showing the name GETTY IMAGES in all their articles, it's HUGE and it's gotta be another nail in the coffin for their competitors who are struggling to stay afloat.

Nothing and nobody is going to make these rascals pay for stolen images, what Getty is doing is just getting a slice of the pie which is better than nothing.

jjneff · « **Reply #211 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:03 »

I am sorry but the TWIP blog has an account with ShutterStock and pays for images, what the heck you mean they PAY!! You are assuming all bloggers just steal images, well they don't! I didn't Please feel free to give all your images away it's your business but I want people to buy mine!

StanRohrer · « **Reply #212 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:08 »

If I have an image that goes viral under this free scheme, what are the chances anybody will spend money to use it as a paid license? If it is already all over the Internet, then the paid uses will not be unique enough to pay for the use. Will a top company want to pay for an image that has already lost it's first view impact? Will a top company want to pay for an image that may have already been used in undesirable (ie. porn or competitors) references? Perhaps Getty has just killed paying markets they didn't expect.

ShadySue · « **Reply #213 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:12 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 12:57

What the he-ll guys, up until now we got ZERO $$$ from bloggers and spongers, at least now Getty is doing something to monetize and of course their plan is to raise the bar in the future depending on many factors.

Just think about MILLIONS of blogs showing the name GETTY IMAGES in all their articles, it's HUGE and it's gotta be another nail in the coffin for their competitors who are struggling to stay afloat.

Nothing and nobody is going to make these rascals pay for stolen images, what Getty is doing is just getting a slice of the pie which is better than nothing.

Getty might get a slice of the pie, the content providers will be lucky to get a sugar grain.
No opt in, which would keep you happy; or opt out, which would be a slight relief to most on this thread.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #214 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:12 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 06, 2014, 12:43

now there are 35 Million free pictures and subscriptions at iStock, they really know what they are doing

Indeed they do, because they will soon make more money with photo sharing than selling stock, just wait and see.

As for us, i'm a bit skeptic, but it's still better than nothing, if we look at the scenario of mobile apps it's a lot worse, they make a few cents per download if lucky but because of huge numbers they can end up making a LOT of money and this could have never been possible with traditional business models.

Just think about the recent Selfies at the hollywood oscars... that picture was shared millions of times and the author earned nothing .. with Getty they could have made tens of thousands $$.

Unlike you guys i come to accept we're in 2014 ... some stock agencies are adding up to 30K pics per day ... Flickr has 4-5 billion images and most of them with CC licence ... we can talk about selling images for 100$ a pop as long as we want but the world has changed and it's not going back anytime soon.

You wanted microstock ... and now you get FREE photos, i told you years ago already and ALL my prophecies came true.

And yet, nothing of this is going to kill photography, monday i'm booked for a well paid outdoor shooting, that's what we're supposed to do, real things, going on location, stock is a side business and a moribund industry.

jeffclow · « **Reply #215 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:14 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on March 06, 2014, 13:08

If I have an image that goes viral under this free scheme, what are the chances anybody will spend money to use it as a paid license? If it is already all over the Internet, then the paid uses will not be unique enough to pay for the use. Will a top company want to pay for an image that has already lost it's first view impact? Will a top company want to pay for an image that may have already been used in undesirable (ie. porn or competitors) references? Perhaps Getty has just killed paying markets they didn't expect.

Ahhh....the law of unexpected consequences. Always raising its ugly head.

I concur with your assessment. Making some images "free" ends up devaluing all imagery in the eyes of the buying public. Especially if the word free is splashed all over the web and seen as a "good" thing. And that sure seems to be consensus of writers and bloggers worldwide.

The photographers whose images are being devalued? Not so happy. But in war .... that's called collateral damage. But there is also a thing called friendly fire - where you kill your own troops while trying to kill the enemy.

That seems like an appropriate analogy as well here.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #216 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:19 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 12:57

What the he-ll guys, up until now we got ZERO $$$ from bloggers and spongers, at least now Getty is doing something to monetize and of course their plan is to raise the bar in the future depending on many factors.

Just think about MILLIONS of blogs showing the name GETTY IMAGES in all their articles, it's HUGE and it's gotta be another nail in the coffin for their competitors who are struggling to stay afloat.

Nothing and nobody is going to make these rascals pay for stolen images, what Getty is doing is just getting a slice of the pie which is better than nothing.

Actually, when I search my images online I find they've been bought by bloggers and news outlets. They paid to license the images.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #217 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 06, 2014, 13:12

Getty might get a slice of the pie, the content providers will be lucky to get a sugar grain.
No opt in, which would keep you happy; or opt out, which would be a slight relief to most on this thread.

I understand you guys are all angry now but realistically we should wait 6-12 months to judge the outcome of all this.

May we like or not, what Getty is doing is nothing but giving the market what the market was asking for since a long time.

What the market will get back is another story, that's depending on the payout photographers will earn once this thing will be up and running.

I can't see why this is treatening out traditional business, book publishers and magazines and newspapers will still buy stock images like before, it's only bloggers and low lifers who will embed for free and they never paid a dime so far so where's our actuall loss ? there's no loss at all, i'll rather take 100$ bucks per year in royalties from bloggers than 0.00$ like i do now.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #218 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:20 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 12:57

What the he-ll guys, up until now we got ZERO $$$ from bloggers...

I have always bought microstock for my blog and I'm not the only one.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #219 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:22 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 13:12

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 06, 2014, 12:43
now there are 35 Million free pictures and subscriptions at iStock, they really know what they are doing

Just think about the recent Selfies at the hollywood oscars... that picture was shared millions of times and the author earned nothing .. with Getty they could have made tens of thousands $$.

It was paid product placement and promotion for/by Samsung.

karenr · « **Reply #220 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:22 »

Also, this is a hacker's dream. Because of the numbering, five lines of php code could hit their servers for every image. And since code on every blogging web site, will be hard to shut them down by changing how it is accessed.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #221 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:23 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 13:19

I understand you guys are all angry now but realistically we should wait 6-12 months to judge the outcome of all this.

Yeah, that way, we'll be distracted by the next fiasco.

Quote

May we like or not, what Getty is doing is nothing but giving the market what the market was asking for since a long time.

The "market" would probably like my car for free, but I'm not giving it to them.

Quote

What the market will get back is another story, that's depending on the payout photographers will earn once this thing will be up and running.

Right, a payout. That worked pretty well with my $.001 payouts from Connect.

Quote

I can't see why this is treatening out traditional business, book publishers and magazines and newspapers will still buy stock images like before, it's only bloggers and low lifers who will embed for free and they never paid a dime so far so where's our actuall loss ? there's no loss at all, i'll rather take 100$ bucks per year in royalties from bloggers than 0.00$ like i do now.

Plenty of bloggers license images, with real money.
http://blog.myphillylawyer.com/2012/12/29/pennsylvanias-underage-drinking-fines-soar-in-attempt-to-curb-teen-drinking/
http://asiasociety.org/education/learning-world/what-pisa-and-why-does-it-matter
http://www.todaysparent.com/blogs/tracys-mama-memoirs/my-back-to-school-boycott/

... and that's just a couple from searching google images for my name.

jjneff · « **Reply #222 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:23 »

Are ShutterStock's prices to high! Nope are they growing like crazy! yep, do people pay for the service yes. It must be outdated. Oh please let me start a company by giving way all your stuff!

ShadySue · « **Reply #223 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:25 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 13:19

May we like or not, what Getty is doing is nothing but giving the market what the market was asking for since a long time.

I'll round up a posse to stand outside Jimmy Choo asking for free shoes.
They'll surely give us them free to try for a Big Night Out and maybe we'll buy them later.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #224 on:** March 06, 2014, 13:26 »

Yes that's the way it works, anyone can click on the code when a photo has the </> under it and you get something like this:

<iframe src="//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/180001639?et=Y6bmQlGSGEuDMaWJ-okQeg&sig=UTHDfD6LPp2rUdp2vALgZ0oKZUJnodIpbUlWJBodcUM=" width="400" height="671" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

As far as copying from any website, that's never changed. You could do that with anything on any website.

So as Sue said and I finally figured out on Getty click under ANY image with the </> and you get the frame code for embedding on anything that reads that kind of script. I don't think this forum does?

Quote from: Pixart on March 06, 2014, 12:42

Question:
Embed. Does this mean the photo is stored on Getty's servers? Um.... not too knowledgeable about this stuff, but if this thing explodes couldn't they have several million blogs contacting their servers at the same second of time - can they actually handle that?

Why can I go to one of the embedded photos already in someone's blog and right click on it? It doesn't even have any exif to tell me where it came from.

From an embedded photo, you can "copy this code </>" and embed it on your own blog without even visiting Getty? Now that's convenient! No end user contact info. No spam from Getty!

Direct link to file using this, that's now hosted on http://www.Crapstock.com = so to answer the question, yes. Any site with an embedded code can be linked to. There you go. Free for all. Getty tag, artists credits, everything is gone.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 199232 times)

ShadySue

StockCube

tickstock

ShadySue

7Horses

ksgal

Pixart

luissantos84

Sean Locke Photography

jjneff

Hobostocker

jjneff

StanRohrer

ShadySue

Hobostocker

jeffclow

Shelma1

Hobostocker

Microstock Posts

Shelma1

karenr

Sean Locke Photography

jjneff

ShadySue

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors