pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #275 on: March 06, 2014, 18:26 »
+3
Hobostocker

Your avatar is out of date.

Will Work For Beer Free


« Reply #276 on: March 06, 2014, 18:29 »
+4
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 :o), 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.
[/quote]

You have a point there - maybe there will be less and less photographers wanting to sign up with the "prestigious Getty agency" when they realize that Getty will take their imagery and devalue it to the point of it being worthless.

But I'm sure the finance people at Carlyle figured this out and said something to the effect that "we may lose a few million images from our database, but in the long run we'll still come out ahead with the ad revenue and data mining".

People are commenting that Getty surely didn't think this out properly - and I think that is just not the case.  I think they thought out all the ramifications - the pros and the cons - and decided what was best for THEM.  For Getty - not for the contributors.  For Getty.

One thing is for certain - they've already done some major damage to the perceived value of any image on the internet.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 18:31 by jeffclow »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #277 on: March 06, 2014, 18:32 »
+3
You have a point there - maybe there will be less and less photographers wanting to sign up with the "prestigious Getty agency" when they realize that Getty will take their imagery and devalue it to the point of it being worthless.
Getty has had a dreadful reputation for the way it treats is photographers for a long time, since at least 2005, yet most of us took the risk of thinking, "They can't be as bad as all that," at least for a while.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #278 on: March 06, 2014, 18:39 »
+4
This new move is about flipping the company again. My guess is they are trying to line up Google as a potential buyer by building an advertising platform under their nose.

This could potentially end Getty, Connect is a woefully poor revenue generator absolutely no one will produce new content for a Credit tag.

If SS get their act together on the editorial side and set up an exclusivity program it could be a gift for them, there will be a lot high quality content producers out there looking for a new agent very soon.

This whole initiative is about the existing Hedge Fund bailing out looking for a new buyer, someone with very deep pockets. Huge, huge gamble for them.

« Reply #279 on: March 06, 2014, 18:40 »
+4
You have a point there - maybe there will be less and less photographers wanting to sign up with the "prestigious Getty agency" when they realize that Getty will take their imagery and devalue it to the point of it being worthless.
Getty has had a dreadful reputation for the way it treats is photographers for a long time, since at least 2005, yet most of us took the risk of thinking, "They can't be as bad as all that," at least for a while.
Well Sue I do think they outdid themselves this time... plus there is such a thing as a cumulative effect. This might be just the log that will break the camel's back  :-)

« Reply #280 on: March 06, 2014, 18:41 »
+3
Craig Peters I am trying to go into real estate now can I please have your house to give away as a boost to my business? Thank-you I knew you would understand. Just think of the buzz and exposure I will get and since I am so successful Mr. K as I know we are friends I get yours next :-)

If SS came out and stated "We will never give your hard earned content away, this is our business promise to you" open the doors to some high end editorial around the price of Stocksy and keep pursuing buyers they could really make a difference.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 18:44 by jjneff »

marthamarks

« Reply #281 on: March 06, 2014, 18:44 »
+4
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.

That's precisely why my Symbiostock site doesn't say my images are "royalty free". I took that tag out, because many viewers don't understand what "royalty free" means. They only see the word FREE.

Not a message I want to send.

« Reply #282 on: March 06, 2014, 18:47 »
+2
Nothing happened after the last special deal other than a few of us pulling our ports. They must be feeling pretty confident by now and aren't concerned about backlash. So, today it's a mere 35 million images up for grabs - Wonder what gem of a promotion they are planning to roll out next!

« Reply #283 on: March 06, 2014, 18:47 »
+3
This new move is about flipping the company again. My guess is they are trying to line up Google as a potential buyer by building an advertising platform under their nose.

This could potentially end Getty, Connect is a woefully poor revenue generator absolutely no one will produce new content for a Credit tag.

If SS get their act together on the editorial side and set up an exclusivity program it could be a gift for them, there will be a lot high quality content producers out there looking for a new agent very soon.

This whole initiative is about the existing Hedge Fund bailing out looking for a new buyer, someone with very deep pockets. Huge, huge gamble for them.

I concur with your sentiment - but I don't think is a huge "gamble" for them.  More like a calculated risk to reinvent themselves as an internet "play" versus just a stock agency. 

And I think they'll destroy several dozen microstock agencies by taking away their core business - selling to small websites and bloggers.  I'm sure they've calculated that out and figured out how they can do it without spending a dime.  It might be called predatory pricing - but they call it "promotional activity".

The group at the hedge fund have proven time and time again that they think they are smarter than the rest of the world and they've put lipstick on a pig in other situations - so my guess is we have just begun to hear the spin doctors weave their magic about how "good" this is going to be for the industry.

« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 18:49 by jeffclow »

« Reply #284 on: March 06, 2014, 18:50 »
+13

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.

Emphasis mine.

This isn't the first time Getty has messed around with contributors and violated trust. About the only difference this time is that they announced it versus with the Getty Google deal it was kept quiet until contributors uncovered it.

Anyone who takes Getty at their word today is willfully ignoring years of outrageous behavior, including the Getty Google deal, the 2011 contract changes for Getty Images contributors where if folks didn't like it they were told they could quit Getty entirely, the royalty cuts at just about everywhere - including those at PumpAudio where they wrote to contributors and said they'd now be getting 35% instead of 50% because they needed money for marketing.

And let's not forget the 2009/2010 grandfathering of cannister-based royalty levels plus the program to entice folks to become exclusive - and giving them 6 months past the deadline so those at DT could let their waiting period expire. That was up in August 2010 and in September they announced the train wreck that was the RC system where royalties were no longer tied to lifetime downloads.

Getty will say or do anything to get what it wants and change whatever it feels it needs to regardless of who gets hurt or left in the lurch. Take a risk and continue to supply them if it suits you, but for heavens sake don't ignore their sad track record and be surprised when things change (not to photographers' benefit) down the road.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #285 on: March 06, 2014, 18:52 »
+1
This new move is about flipping the company again. My guess is they are trying to line up Google as a potential buyer by building an advertising platform under their nose.

This could potentially end Getty, Connect is a woefully poor revenue generator absolutely no one will produce new content for a Credit tag.

If SS get their act together on the editorial side and set up an exclusivity program it could be a gift for them, there will be a lot high quality content producers out there looking for a new agent very soon.

This whole initiative is about the existing Hedge Fund bailing out looking for a new buyer, someone with very deep pockets. Huge, huge gamble for them.

I concur with your sentiment - but I don't think is a huge "gamble" for them.  More like a calculated risk to reinvent themselves as an internet "play" versus just a stock agency.

Huge gamble in context of image producers losing money through iS and Getty, if income dwindles there and affects income elsewhere I'll pull my work completely from Getty out of pure self preservation.

« Reply #286 on: March 06, 2014, 18:57 »
0
This new move is about flipping the company again. My guess is they are trying to line up Google as a potential buyer by building an advertising platform under their nose.

This could potentially end Getty, Connect is a woefully poor revenue generator absolutely no one will produce new content for a Credit tag.

If SS get their act together on the editorial side and set up an exclusivity program it could be a gift for them, there will be a lot high quality content producers out there looking for a new agent very soon.

This whole initiative is about the existing Hedge Fund bailing out looking for a new buyer, someone with very deep pockets. Huge, huge gamble for them.

I concur with your sentiment - but I don't think is a huge "gamble" for them.  More like a calculated risk to reinvent themselves as an internet "play" versus just a stock agency.

Huge gamble in context of image producers losing money through iS and Getty, if income dwindles there and affects income elsewhere I'll pull my work completely from Getty out of pure self preservation.

I apologize if if misread your earlier quote.  I thought you were talking about a gamble for Getty.  If you're talking about a gamble for the image producers - that's us photographers - then its not really a gamble.  The folks at Getty are playing craps in Vegas with our photos (remember - its not their money, its ours) and we're funding their losses.

I give them high marks for audacity.  They earned those high marks by saying in no uncertain terms that photographers/contributors cannot opt out.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #287 on: March 06, 2014, 19:00 »
+2
You have a point there - maybe there will be less and less photographers wanting to sign up with the "prestigious Getty agency" when they realize that Getty will take their imagery and devalue it to the point of it being worthless.
Getty has had a dreadful reputation for the way it treats is photographers for a long time, since at least 2005, yet most of us took the risk of thinking, "They can't be as bad as all that," at least for a while.
Well Sue I do think they outdid themselves this time... plus there is such a thing as a cumulative effect. This might be just the log that will break the camel's back  :-)
Absolutely, it just proves what I've always said no matter what my worst possible scenario might have been, they have always managed to outdo it.
Even subs (I didn't think they'd put ALL iStock's images into low-value subs, though I had expected all Main files, even exclusive Main files to be forced onto TS. I guess they realised most of us would just deactivate our Main files. Deactivating everything is a more daunting proposition.
But this freebie thing totally blindsided me, like everyone else (and has put the gas in the discussion about subs down to to a wee peep).

« Reply #288 on: March 06, 2014, 19:01 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:29 by tickstock »

« Reply #289 on: March 06, 2014, 19:06 »
+2
I don't see this as a smart move for Getty, but it might be for Carlyle to wring a bunch more $ from it while unloading it's weakened carcass. If they time things right they could get serious $ from a FB or Google for it. I hope that the so called real professionals (and I don't mean previous microstockers here) working with Getty manage to send them a strong signal over this. There could be a huge heap of high quality content looking for a new home really soon and a clever agency could really profit from that.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #290 on: March 06, 2014, 19:11 »
+4
From the business week article

"Eventually, Getty could include advertisements within the embedded images, much like YouTube videos embedded on personal blogs show ads that bring revenue to Google (GOOG). But Peters says Getty hasnt figured out how exactly that will work."

This is going to kill revenue for Getty in the short term. They've rolled it out with no way of generating any income for anyone. They've already tried "Connect" and it hasn't worked.

farbled

« Reply #291 on: March 06, 2014, 19:11 »
+2
Has anyone seen an official response from any microstock agency yet?


« Reply #292 on: March 06, 2014, 19:11 »
+2
And if we stopped upload files to ALL agencies for a month? It would be a major announcement, what we can do together.

I think that should go viral on twitter.. right now.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #293 on: March 06, 2014, 19:12 »
+4
SS could use the opportunity while the site is down tonight to offer higher royalties, and watch the mass exodus from Getty. Not that I want the additional competition, mind you.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #294 on: March 06, 2014, 19:16 »
+10
How times have changed, my exclusive iS income plummeted I bailed out, iS switch to subs and Getty give away images for free, meanwhile on SS I've sold an SOD today for over $100. 2 years ago I would never have believed it!

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #295 on: March 06, 2014, 19:26 »
+3
This is my best week ever for SODs there...even today, with all those free images available from Getty.  ;)

« Reply #296 on: March 06, 2014, 19:27 »
+5
Has anyone seen an official response from any microstock agency yet?
Shutterstock:
>>Announcements
Former Exclusives Interested in Joining Shutterstock
Posted by scott / 3.5.14 12:46 pm

We are receiving inquiries from exclusives who are interested in joining Shutterstock.
If you are among those exclusives who are interested in joining, please email us at [email protected].  An email will allow us to guide you through the signup and approval process.
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio.
Alternately, if you are a videographer with a collection of 500 or more clips, please email us at [email protected] and let us know how many clips you have and what type of content it is. If you have a link to your work online, please provide it.  Based on the nature of your request, we may be able to provide some additional submission assistance.
Please review the terms of your agreement to make sure you are not breaching it.

Best Regards,
Scott Braut
VP of Content<<

farbled

« Reply #297 on: March 06, 2014, 19:32 »
+4

 Shutterstock:
>>Announcements
Former Exclusives Interested in Joining Shutterstock
Posted by scott / 3.5.14 12:46 pm

We are receiving inquiries from exclusives who are interested in joining Shutterstock.
If you are among those exclusives who are interested in joining, please email us at [email protected].  An email will allow us to guide you through the signup and approval process.
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio.
Alternately, if you are a videographer with a collection of 500 or more clips, please email us at [email protected] and let us know how many clips you have and what type of content it is. If you have a link to your work online, please provide it.  Based on the nature of your request, we may be able to provide some additional submission assistance.
Please review the terms of your agreement to make sure you are not breaching it.

Best Regards,
Scott Braut
VP of Content<<

Thanks, I missed that one. I'm really hoping that Shutter finds a way to spin gold from this somehow for the rest of us who are not exclusive somewhere else.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #298 on: March 06, 2014, 19:36 »
+8
Look at the bright side.....all the Getty supporters we've been having to put up with while they bash the likes of Shutterstock and other sub sites for fueling the race to the bottom....put a cork in it, your agency just won the race.

lisafx

« Reply #299 on: March 06, 2014, 19:51 »
+17
I find myself hoping that the other stock sites get together and sue Getty for anti-competitive practices.  They are in a much stronger position to do so than contributors are, and potentially have even more to lose. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13167 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
5331 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
3809 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
107 Replies
49334 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