Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 199475 times)

Pixart · « **Reply #250 on:** March 06, 2014, 16:51 »

Quote from: EmberMike on March 06, 2014, 15:44

Quote from: markrhiggins on March 06, 2014, 15:36
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.

Very true, since the money doesn't really belong to the bank either - they might as well.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #251 on:** March 06, 2014, 16:51 »

Quote from: farbled on March 06, 2014, 13:31

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?

If you read some webmasters forums you will realize that webmasters aren't very happy about embedding images in their blogs for the simple reason they can not create automated thumbnails so i don't expect blogs to switch to Getty in droves unless they find a workaround for that because at the moment the embedding only makes sense to embed editorial images inside an article where there's no need for further thumbnails etc

Hobostocker · « **Reply #252 on:** March 06, 2014, 16:54 »

Quote from: EmberMike on March 06, 2014, 14:11

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

Yes because nobody ever tried this kind of embedding in such a large scale, FotoMoto and similar startups never got rich as i know so for all we know it could be a disaster despite being backed by getty.

ShadySue · « **Reply #253 on:** March 06, 2014, 16:57 »

Quote from: Gel-O Shooter on March 06, 2014, 16:42

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?)

At first, it's only going to be certain parts of Getty's collection, including those ingested via E+ and Vetta.
So AT THE MOMENT, S files and M files are safe from this (but not from cheap sub sales). However Lobo has said they'll consider rolling it out later.

Ha, it used to be that the main, and topic, topic of conversation on the Exclusive forum was why isn't the connector working to get our E+/V files over to Getty.
Oddly, it hasn't been mentioned since this bombshell.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #254 on:** March 06, 2014, 16:59 »

Quote from: jeffclow on March 06, 2014, 16:34

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.

It's a marketing experiment, millions of people and especially of webmasters will click in these embedded photos and will land on getty page with prices etc ... in the very worst scenario 0.1% of these clicks will make a new sale so what do you guys know ... first of all the Getty brand will be enjoy a huge boost, secondly they will make a lot of sales, third they will maybe educate spongers and bloggers once and for all.

You should see it as the music played on radios, it's free to listen but the artists and the labels get some small return and of course free advertising.

I mean these web-sized images are NOT the products we're meant to sell, i don't know about you but i'm not in the business of selling 500px low-res thumbnails, and if you do sorry but maybe you better find a better career, it's 2014 !

tickstock · « **Reply #255 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:02 »

Red Dove · « **Reply #256 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:05 »

I think Jeff C is bang on unfortunately. This is now all about the data, push marketing, relevant content, brand leverage and monetizing by small increments on a vast scale. The sort of stuff that makes Wall Street reptiles drool over their shoes.

Like FB and others their share price will probably shoot up in time for the big sell off and one day people will be standing around asking "what happened to the actual money?" and some ten year old kid will say "it was virtual you idiots. it was never there."

Hobostocker · « **Reply #257 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:06 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography 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.... and that's just a couple from searching google images for my name.

Yeah bloggers licencing subs for a few cents .. is that really the busines we're in ?

I've the feeling you guys are all overreacting, Getty will bring millions of new users on their site and some of these free loaders will end up becoming loyal buyers, how is that a bad news for us ?

Carlyle selling Getty for 5 or 10 billions ? so what ... if WhatsApp is worth 20 billions so is Getty Images ... still a good news for us in my opinion, it means our images are worth a lot more than we may think and the markets agree.

Let's face it, this is now a buyers market, we've no voice about pricing at this point, even Getty is giving images for free and this never happened before so there's no going back, we either take it or leave it.

KB · « **Reply #258 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:10 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 16:59

It's a marketing experiment ... in the very worst scenario 0.1% of these clicks will make a new sale so what do you guys know

You think converting 1 in a 1000 clicks is the worst scenario?

Whatever you're on, I'd like some of that, please.

cobalt · « **Reply #259 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:10 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 17:06

I've the feeling you guys are all overreacting, Getty will bring millions of new users on their site and some of these free loaders will end up becoming loyal buyers, how is that a bad news for us ?

You´ve probably never tried to convert freeloaders to pay. I have.

It is easier to upsell from paying 1 cent to 200 dollars than it is to convert people who want free to pay 1 cent.

This deal is not about licensing files.

It is only about data mining and advertising revenue while the artists image is being used for free without their permission to do so.

All the talk about copyright infringers is just the pitch to confuse the artists.

If people steal, you don´t solve the problem by giving them things for free.

farbled · « **Reply #260 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:18 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 16:47

"what's cheaper than microstock ? FREE images"

Wrong, the correct answer is "Getty is cheaper than microstock"

gbalex · « **Reply #261 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:20 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 06, 2014, 17:10

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 17:06

I've the feeling you guys are all overreacting, Getty will bring millions of new users on their site and some of these free loaders will end up becoming loyal buyers, how is that a bad news for us ?

You´ve probably never tried to convert freeloaders to pay. I have.

It is easier to upsell from paying 1 cent to 200 dollars than it is to convert people who want free to pay 1 cent.

This deal is not about licensing files.

It is only about data mining and advertising revenue while the artists image is being used for free without their permission to do so.

All the talk about copyright infringers is just the pitch to confuse the artists.

If people steal you don´t solve the problem by giving things to them free.

Completely agree

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #262 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:31 »

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

cobalt · « **Reply #263 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:31 »

One more very obvious point that I don´t see people talking about but the radio silence from many friends makes it obvious:

What about all the artists that specialise in lifestyle? That work with models. With families.

Their own families.

Their own children.

This is commercial photography produced by professionals to be licensed responsibly by what used to be the most elitist stock agency in the world.

Licensed to registered buyers.

Now everyone, can embed images with models, family, children on any blog of the world. For free.

In fact anyone is being invited to embed images. Even in pages with advertising.

If you have reassured your models, although of course there is no perfect security, but that you are working with a professional agency selling files for very high prices - how can you look into their faces today??

You didn´t tell them you were going to "freely share the images for free on the internet". With ANYONE. Unregistered.

What happens to your production plans. What do you tell the models?

I mostly do still life. My easter eggs don´t care.

But I am sure my models do.

ShadySue · « **Reply #264 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:34 »

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/06/getty-embed-tool-already-subverted-can-remove-credit-line

Shelma1 · « **Reply #265 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:35 »

Has someone already posted about Getty's partnership with EyeEm and I missed it?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2014/03/06/photo-app-eyeem-partners-with-getty-to-sell-user-images/

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #266 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:36 »

Well, of course they agree to abide to the TOS when they embed, so no problem. ( eyeroll ) Who's going to sue when it goes wrong? Not Getty, of course. Hands in the air....

ComfortEagle2095 · « **Reply #267 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:39 »

I don't think it matters whether this is widely adopted or not. I think there's a more important issue here.

By making this move, Getty has established the idea that they can use images in any number of ways to generate income for themselves (via advertising or whatever) without paying anything to the image owners. So long as they don't collect a licensing fee, it's "promotional use" and anything is fair game.

I'm sure they are thinking of even more clever ways to monetize the image collection in ways that avoid a licensing fee. If they get away with this one they'll roll out more and so will other agencies.

Unless someone fights this in court and wins, the precedence is set.

Digital66 · « **Reply #268 on:** March 06, 2014, 17:54 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 17:06

Yeah bloggers licencing subs for a few cents .. is that really the busines we're in ?

I've the feeling you guys are all overreacting, Getty will bring millions of new users on their site and some of these free loaders will end up becoming loyal buyers, how is that a bad news for us ?

What do we have here? A diehard fan of Getty?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #269 on:** March 06, 2014, 18:00 »

Quote from: Digital66 on March 06, 2014, 17:54

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 17:06
Yeah bloggers licencing subs for a few cents .. is that really the busines we're in ?

I've the feeling you guys are all overreacting, Getty will bring millions of new users on their site and some of these free loaders will end up becoming loyal buyers, how is that a bad news for us ?
What do we have here? A diehard fan of Getty?

Yep. J. Klein in disguise.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #270 on:** March 06, 2014, 18:03 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 06, 2014, 16:10

SS shares now down 7% today, that's a significant hit.

Time to buy

ShadySue · « **Reply #271 on:** March 06, 2014, 18:08 »

Quote from: Digital66 on March 06, 2014, 17:54

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 17:06
Yeah bloggers licencing subs for a few cents .. is that really the busines we're in ?

I've the feeling you guys are all overreacting, Getty will bring millions of new users on their site and some of these free loaders will end up becoming loyal buyers, how is that a bad news for us ?
What do we have here? A diehard fan of Getty?

Surely he was being sarcastic?

jeffclow · « **Reply #272 on:** March 06, 2014, 18:08 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 06, 2014, 17:31

One more very obvious point that I don´t see people talking about but the radio silence from many friends makes it obvious:

What about all the artists that specialise in lifestyle? That work with models. With families.

Their own families.

Their own children.

This is commercial photography produced by professionals to be licensed responsibly by what used to be the most elitist stock agency in the world.

Licensed to registered buyers.

Now everyone, can embed images with models, family, children on any blog of the world. For free.

In fact anyone is being invited to embed images. Even in pages with advertising.

If you have reassured your models, although of course there is no perfect security, but that you are working with a professional agency selling files for very high prices - how can you look into their faces today??

You didn´t tell them you were going to "freely share the images for free on the internet". With ANYONE. Unregistered.

What happens to your production plans. What do you tell the models?

I mostly do still life. My easter eggs don´t care.

But I am sure my models do.

So much irony in all of this. Getty makes the photographer/contributors jump through hoops to get "official" Getty model releases. They have to be witnessed and you have to have one for every photo - even if it is the same model time and time again. That's their rules - and they don't bend them.

So those of us who play by THEIR rules just realized that they can change their rules anytime - for any reason - under the guise of promotional use. And so my children and my grandchildren's images will be all over the web in countless situations that there will be no way to monitor.

I just love the Getty employees who keep responding to all the contributor's complaints with the generic - "just wait and see"...or "trust us on this one - it's going to be good for the photographers long term".

Reminds me of the old saying - if someone shows up at your door and tells you that they are from the government and they are there to "help you" - you better grab your wallet and head out the back door.

Trust is earned. If you violate a person's trust - as Getty has just done - they won't get it back because they say that we're overreacting - or that we should wait and see.

I feel violated. And the first time I see one of my kids and grandkid's photos used freely on a website with Getty's blessing, I think I'll probably be sick to my stomach.

Digital66 · « **Reply #273 on:** March 06, 2014, 18:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 06, 2014, 18:08

Quote from: Digital66 on March 06, 2014, 17:54
Quote from: Hobostocker on March 06, 2014, 17:06
Yeah bloggers licencing subs for a few cents .. is that really the busines we're in ?

I've the feeling you guys are all overreacting, Getty will bring millions of new users on their site and some of these free loaders will end up becoming loyal buyers, how is that a bad news for us ?
What do we have here? A diehard fan of Getty?
Surely he was being sarcastic?

Hobostocker, were you being sarcastic?

Elenathewise · « **Reply #274 on:** March 06, 2014, 18:20 »

Quote from: jeffclow on March 06, 2014, 16:34

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.

I don't know about thousands waiting in the wings... I closed my direct account with Getty last year after Google "deal" (they were asking me why

), and the only reason I am still selling on iStock is I am doing it non-exclusively. The moment I see my sales affected by this "free" bulls**t I am gone from iStock. So will many remaining others. Let them offer their own in-house content for free.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 199475 times)

Pixart

Hobostocker

Hobostocker

ShadySue

Hobostocker

tickstock

Red Dove

Hobostocker

KB

cobalt

farbled

gbalex

Sean Locke Photography

cobalt

ShadySue

Shelma1

Sean Locke Photography

ComfortEagle2095

Digital66

Sean Locke Photography

Elenathewise

ShadySue

jeffclow

Digital66

Elenathewise

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors