MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197224 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: March 06, 2014, 13:29 »
+5
Just for the record, NASDAQ index flat, SS shares down 4% today.


« Reply #226 on: March 06, 2014, 13:29 »
0
No, you need to put that in the html, but you can just use that embed bit:
//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/180001639?et=Y6bmQlGSGEuDMaWJ-okQeg&sig=UTHDfD6LPp2rUdp2vALgZ0oKZUJnodIpbUlWJBodcUM=
to go grab the image.

farbled

« Reply #227 on: March 06, 2014, 13:31 »
+24
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.
That's a complete load of crap. I track my images carefully and I know my main source of customers are food bloggers and recipe sites that make money from ads. They will now qualify as non-profit under Getty's blurb. How is that raising the bar?

« Reply #228 on: March 06, 2014, 13:32 »
+12
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.

Free shoes - sounds like a GREAT idea.  Then next lets get FREE lunch.  And on and on it goes.

The next step in this evolution will be a form letter from Getty that will probably say something like this:

"Dear Contributor.  Your photos have been viewed 756,000 times on the web.  There is a cost associated with us giving you this FREE publicity.  Our business model can't sustain this any longer so if you want to continue having us give your photos away for free, you'll need to pay a monthly fee.  Remember, we're giving your photos away free because in the long run it will be GOOD for you.  But realize that you'll need to contribute a fair amount of the cost of doing this from this point forward.  After all, this is all being done to help you."

« Reply #229 on: March 06, 2014, 13:39 »
+3
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.

To make this work, you need cloud storage with sufficient bandwidth AND fast access times  Amazon S3 has "edge servers" worldwide to distribute this load and provice what they call a "content distribution" service. 

IMHO we are going to find out this is why Shutterstock just bought WebDAM - to get a server platform designed for quick access to shared images.   We'll find out what "shared" means later, when we get the  "today we are excited to announce..."
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 13:45 by stockastic »

« Reply #230 on: March 06, 2014, 13:49 »
+4
SS made an intelligent deal with Facebook. They also have a well functioning website, know how to announce downtimes in advance and you don't hear them blame "others" when they mess up.

You don't have to like them or trust them, but they have a proven track record of being able to do what they say they will do.

As opposed to istock/getty that seem to be pumping out confusing plans that even contradict each other all the time.

And they can't even change a Valentines day image for 3 weeks after the event.

Whatever plans they have for boldly changing the world of stock - Their track record shows they will mess it up for themselves faster than any competitor could do them harm.

It is all just extremly painful to watch.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #231 on: March 06, 2014, 13:59 »
+1
For anyone just arriving at this disaster or wondering where to see the link Etc. Hover over the image you like:




Click on </> then copy the code (it's a HTML frame). Done = free photo of sliced tomatoes.

<iframe src="//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/146104035?et=g6-y81VDPEib6nbkSMMv5g&sig=GePjNsiZenjaiCyUFsOSLxqF5x7oRjyJwhMdIrji6jo=" width="507" height="407" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Sean are you saying there's a way to display here or make a direct link? I'm missing it?

I get it... direct link.

http://embed.gettyimages.com/embed/146104035?et=g6-y81VDPEib6nbkSMMv5g&sig=GePjNsiZenjaiCyUFsOSLxqF5x7oRjyJwhMdIrji6jo=

Just doesn't seem to display IMG here.

Seems to be this only applies to Getty Images and not people like myself who are Indys on IS.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 15:12 by Uncle Pete »

EmberMike

« Reply #232 on: March 06, 2014, 14:11 »
+7
What the he-ll guys, up until now we got ZERO $$$ from bloggers and spongers...

What? Plenty of companies are successfully monetizing blog usage. My 3 sales at Stockfresh this week are small blog sizes. Not vectors, not large files. Smalls. Sure maybe they're not specifically being used on a blog, who knows. But they're web resolution, almost certainly being used on the web somewhere. And in use cases that Getty wants to serve for free.

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

Does anyone really need 6-12 months to decide if free is a good idea? Anyone?

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #233 on: March 06, 2014, 14:13 »
+4
Anyone could easily go in to that code and increase the constraints on the size of the image or change the frame. Or right click on the image and save it.

All of those actions are against Getty's T&Cs, of course. Based on their history of sending big payment requests when they find T&C violationsand because these images will be closely trackedperhaps Getty sees this as a shiny new income stream when people change code or right click?

« Reply #234 on: March 06, 2014, 14:23 »
+4
Ohhhh, thank god I'm not with them! Never have and never will be!  ???


____________________

If I'm author of blog and put the image in article, you are reading it and want to see full article, click on image and...? It takes you to Getty? Do you (or any man reading) want to buy that image or just read my article? I don't think so... So who is it for?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 14:27 by Ariene »

« Reply #235 on: March 06, 2014, 14:23 »
+1
Hi All,

 This is an interesting read and I think it is very relevant to the move by Getty. Information and the ability to accrue as much as possible is the biggest move by the largest companies in the world and for good reason according to Jaron Lanier. Check this link out and read the book if you can. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/27/who-owns-future-lanier-review

Cheers,
J

« Reply #236 on: March 06, 2014, 14:25 »
0
The NSA and Getty have the same problem, get the information at any cost or rights of the people!

Ron

« Reply #237 on: March 06, 2014, 14:33 »
+1
Hi All,

 This is an interesting read and I think it is very relevant to the move by Getty. Information and the ability to accrue as much as possible is the biggest move by the largest companies in the world and for good reason according to Jaron Lanier. Check this link out and read the book if you can. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/27/who-owns-future-lanier-review

Cheers,
J
What are your thoughts on this move? You have a few deals with Getty, supplying them with images. Are SpacesImages also free for use now, through Getty? I heard Blendimages is not included.

« Reply #238 on: March 06, 2014, 15:36 »
+11
What a great idea. No one can steal your images if you give them away for free. Brilliant! What substance abuse was occurring at that executive meeting?

EmberMike

« Reply #239 on: March 06, 2014, 15:44 »
+3
What a great idea. No one can steal your images if you give them away for free. Brilliant! What substance abuse was occurring at that executive meeting?

Ha! Good point. It's like trying to prevent bank robberies by opening the vault and letting anyone take whatever they like.

« Reply #240 on: March 06, 2014, 15:49 »
+4
Stock licensing partnership as "roadkill"? Intriguing idea (less so if you're under the tires...)

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

« Reply #241 on: March 06, 2014, 15:58 »
+7
What a great idea. No one can steal your images if you give them away for free. Brilliant! What substance abuse was occurring at that executive meeting?

Full disclosure: I condemn this move by Getty.  Seriously condemn it.

But as a predatory business move, I think it is brilliantly conceived.  They weren't getting much - if any - of the blog and not for profit web microstock market.  Their pricing was too high.  So they made a very rational move to blindside the competition by allowing free usage.  And they hide the fact that they aren't giving away their own assets - they are giving away their contributor's work. And they hide behind the "promotional" clause in their contracts to force their contributors to participate.

The web reaction?  Almost universally positive.  "Great move by Getty".  "Getty Gets It".  The bloggers are all over themselves and are giving Getty a standing ovation.  However, I have yet to see one line on this subject that says "thanks" to the contributors that are proving the content.  No - Getty gets the applause and the contributors get the.....shaft.

And boy - are they clever.  They say that the marketplace has made them take this move - so they can't be accused of being predatory in a world courtroom.  And while all those Getty images get used for free and the competition scrambles to stay afloat.....Getty re-positions themselves as an internet "play".  They aren't in the photo business anymore - they are a consolidator like Yahoo or Google or You Tube.  And they've got 35 million images to play with - at least for awhile until photographers start realizing that they are actually competing against themselves on pricing.

The Carlyle Group are smart business people.  They might also be called ruthless.  But they are turning a money losing proposition into positive spin and setting Getty to be resold to Google or Yahoo or someone else who decides that they want a piece of that great internet play.

My guess?  24 to 36 months from now they'll sell for billions more because they will be "The Number One provider of images in the world - by a large margin".

Clever people.  Very clever people.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 16:02 by jeffclow »


« Reply #242 on: March 06, 2014, 16:10 »
+3
SS shares now down 7% today, that's a significant hit.


« Reply #244 on: March 06, 2014, 16:22 »
+6
Brilliant? Short term maybe but certainly not for an extended amount of time. Why on earth would anyone keep their images at Getty? I don't get. Its like saying "well... since Getty can't sell the images no one else can either so I guess giving them away makes sense". Really? Getty can serve the people who want stuff for free. I'll continue to serve the people who actually pay for images. The likely scenario is that the market will divide into those who pay (for a large variety of reasons) and those who were never going to. If Getty is going after the freeloaders and thieves so be it. I've been in business long enough to know that the extremely cheap customers are the ones you wish for your competitors to have. At some point Getty is going to become the "Goodwill" (a donation store for leftover garments) of the industry. That is the type of place high school kids and poor college kids love but most professionals will not set foot in unless it is to donate. Talk about unsustainable. Unfortunately while this all transpires there will be a lot of collateral damage. Mostly in the form of the photographers and artists.

« Reply #245 on: March 06, 2014, 16:33 »
0
Interesting that Getty rarely files a lawsuit about copyrights - only 7 in five years according to this Business Week article online:

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

So - another example of their narrative ("we go after copyright infringement big time") being more of a boast than a fact.



more likely it means a letter from getty's lawyers results in a settlement w/o ever having to file a lawsuit

« Reply #246 on: March 06, 2014, 16:34 »
+3
Brilliant? Short term maybe but certainly not for an extended amount of time. Why on earth would anyone keep their images at Getty? I don't get. Its like saying "well... since Getty can't sell the images no one else can either so I guess giving them away makes sense". Really? Getty can serve the people who want stuff for free. I'll continue to serve the people who actually pay for images. The likely scenario is that the market will divide into those who pay (for a large variety of reasons) and those who were never going to. If Getty is going after the freeloaders and thieves so be it. I've been in business long enough to know that the extremely cheap customers are the ones you wish for your competitors to have. At some point Getty is going to become the "Goodwill" (a donation store for leftover garments) of the industry. That is the type of place high school kids and poor college kids love but most professionals will not set foot in unless it is to donate. Talk about unsustainable. Unfortunately while this all transpires there will be a lot of collateral damage. Mostly in the form of the photographers and artists.

The Carlyle Group is interested in flipping Getty after paying $3.5 billion for it last year.  They really don't care about selling photos - they want to sell the company and cash out.  They have done it with lots of other companies - buy them at a deep discount, make them look presentable and then sell them before anyone is the wiser.

Sure - Getty is going to lose hundreds - if not thousands - of photographers because of this move.  But they have thousands of replacements waiting in the wings that would give anything to be part of Getty.  I know one guy who paid Getty thousands under the Photographer's Choice banner so he could brag that he was a Getty photographer. 

That said - even if every Getty photographed bailed (not likely) - they still have millions of images from agencies that they've acquired in the past.  And they can disrupt the marketplace long enough that they can cash out.

You are right - it is not a LONG term sustainable business model. But that's the beauty of it for them - is IS a sustainable SHORT term model so that they can cash out.

« Reply #247 on: March 06, 2014, 16:42 »
+2
So are the independent files in the main collection at IS included in this?  (Do I need to start disabling files today or do I have a few months/weeks before they start giving mine away for free?)
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 16:48 by Gel-O Shooter »

« Reply #248 on: March 06, 2014, 16:43 »
0
.....

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. ....


exactly - even $20 for a blog image is high now - there are millions of bloggers who might use images if they were reasonably priced.  there was a discussion related to free images from photographers themselves over in the symbiostock forums.  there are other options for promoting your own self hosted site, too -- it doesn't take many $5 or $10 sales to replace most of the middle tier stock agencies, and only a few more to replace all but perhaps SS for most of us

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #249 on: March 06, 2014, 16:47 »
0
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.

We told you so already in 2007 o 2008, can't remember  :

"what's cheaper than microstock ? FREE images"

and there you have it.

content providers will better sell prints and do assignments as in the past.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13164 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
5329 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
3808 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
107 Replies
49321 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