pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197288 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #325 on: March 07, 2014, 02:53 »
+8
I hate this deal.  A good portion of my port is travel and travel editorial related.  Much of my material is subject matter they decided should be given away for free.  Deactivating my port maybe a sound business decision.  Certainly something I'm thinking over.

I see it differently : once your embedded images are clicked 100 or 200 times you could make one sale, the average conversion-rate on e-commerce sites is 0.5% to 1%, photos are a bit harder to sell so maybe you can expect 0.1%

So images could be used 100-200 times for free and you might get one sale out of it ?   


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #326 on: March 07, 2014, 02:56 »
+4
I hate this deal.  A good portion of my port is travel and travel editorial related.  Much of my material is subject matter they decided should be given away for free.  Deactivating my port maybe a sound business decision.  Certainly something I'm thinking over.

I see it differently : once your embedded images are clicked 100 or 200 times you could make one sale, the average conversion-rate on e-commerce sites is 0.5% to 1%, photos are a bit harder to sell so maybe you can expect 0.1%

So images could be used 100-200 times for free and you might get one sale out of it ?
His maths doesn't add up. He firstly said 1:100-200, then 0.1%, which is 1:1000. Take your pick.

« Reply #327 on: March 07, 2014, 03:03 »
-9
there's nothing to be scared from low res embedded images, designers will still need to buy full size images and so most of the other traditional clients, only random bloggers will eventually embed free images and these guys were certainly using stolen images before so they should not even considered "lost sales" or whatever.

Yes. Even more than that - pirates will continue to use stolen content. Legitimate quality non commercial blogging is no different from Pinterest use and will work to the advantage of content owners - or certainly to non realistic disadvantage.

Anyone who expects today to be paid for non commercial online use (boggers, education, churches, clubs etc) is fighting a battle which they cannot win. At least Getty is focusing on that as an inevitable.

Ron

« Reply #328 on: March 07, 2014, 03:09 »
+20
Hobo, you keep saying bloggers are freeloaders, missing the point that many of our sales are paid by bloggers. That business is gone. You keep ignoring that fact.

Ron

« Reply #329 on: March 07, 2014, 03:11 »
+3
there's nothing to be scared from low res embedded images, designers will still need to buy full size images and so most of the other traditional clients, only random bloggers will eventually embed free images and these guys were certainly using stolen images before so they should not even considered "lost sales" or whatever.

Yes. Even more than that - pirates will continue to use stolen content. Legitimate quality non commercial blogging is no different from Pinterest use and will work to the advantage of content owners - or certainly to non realistic disadvantage.

Anyone who expects today to be paid for non commercial online use (boggers, education, churches, clubs etc) is fighting a battle which they cannot win. At least Getty is focusing on that as an inevitable.
In your logic, lets provide all our youth with crack cocaine and heroine as the fight against drugs is a battle we cant win. That will solve the problem for sure.

« Reply #330 on: March 07, 2014, 03:34 »
0
In your logic, lets provide all our youth with crack cocaine and heroine as the fight against drugs is a battle we cant win. That will solve the problem for sure.
And in this particular case it would be true 8)

« Reply #331 on: March 07, 2014, 03:43 »
-8
lets provide all our youth with crack cocaine and heroine as the fight against drugs is a battle we cant win. That will solve the problem for sure.

It's certainly true that many experts argue that prohibition is a failed policy. Otherwise I feel that this is an extravagant comparison.

I cannot understand anyone getting upset about an initiative which relates to non commercial online use. I also strongly suspect that had SS come up with this first there would be applause.

These things never turn out to be as catastrophic or nefarious as people imagine. The comparison with whatsapp (previously) is daft - that was about buying huge number of users. The idea that Apple or Adobe might get involved in stock misses a number of points:  Apple is a hardware company - its software and content services components exist largely to compliment and promote increasingly domestic hardware sales (eg iTunes was about selling iPods - Final Cut Pro is about selling Mac Pros (which is why it is sold so cheap compared with Adobe software)). Adobe already could not make stock work for them.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 03:48 by bunhill »

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #332 on: March 07, 2014, 03:48 »
+3
I cannot understand anyone getting upset about an initiative which relates to non commercial online use. I also strongly suspect that had SS come up with this first there would be applause.

It depends on wether the big news outlets start using the embeds, if they do big trouble ahead. I'll be keeping a close eye that's for sure.

Ron

« Reply #333 on: March 07, 2014, 03:59 »
+8
lets provide all our youth with crack cocaine and heroine as the fight against drugs is a battle we cant win. That will solve the problem for sure.

It's certainly true that many experts argue that prohibition is a failed policy. Otherwise I feel that this is an extravagant comparison.

I cannot understand anyone getting upset about an initiative which relates to non commercial online use. I also strongly suspect that had SS come up with this first there would be applause.


I cant believe you take this point of view. How can you not see that this is upsetting for people selling images to bloggers and websites? Stock is not solely big ads and large projects. 

I said it before, I believe the majority of my sales is just that, bloggers and websites. How can I not see the Getty move as a major blow to my market potential?

« Reply #334 on: March 07, 2014, 04:19 »
-5
I cant believe you take this point of view. How can you not see that this is upsetting for people selling images to bloggers and websites? Stock is not solely big ads and large projects. 

I said it before, I believe the majority of my sales is just that, bloggers and websites. How can I not see the Getty move as a major blow to my market potential?

The majority of images already are free , even commercially, to many users. And IMO all of the roads are going in the same direction: ie non commercial use is not going to provide long term viable sales. It is already too much challenged by free, creative commons and social media sharing. And by a perception you cannot change that images are free.

This is about non commercial use. It is also about SEO and marketing. It is also about engaging non commercial users - not necessarily as full clients yet ... but certainly more like clients than the people who use whatever they find somewhere or steal from a torrent site.

« Reply #335 on: March 07, 2014, 04:22 »
+21
It's not going to be one sale for every 100 embeds. The people looking for embed files now on getty are not designers taking a comp to test it in a design.

Files will be embeded Millions of times and you will still not see a single sale.

Just go back and look at the data from the Microsoft deal. Or ask the people who had files in the Getty google deal.

They were used by millions but nobody came back to istock to buy a high resolution image. Or an extended license.

Nobody came to buy other images from the series.

We already have the data from the previous "Getty experiments".


There is no increase in sales.


One image was downloaded over 2 million times at Microsoft. It had no increase in sales on istock.


It is unbelievable that Getty has the audacity to throw away our images without asking us.

They did ask Blend (very nicely I presume) - Can we spread your images all over the globe for free and make billions with data mining while you might get a sale for every 2 million backlinks?

And they (very nicely) said: No thank you. And their files have no embed icon.

Why didn't they ask the other artists?

Basically they are pretending the artist might benefit with sales, while they plan to make Billions for themselves when Getty is sold. All that money will be made riding on our files.

We will get nothing from this.


If they genuinely believed it would increase licensing there would be an opt in button.

They know the artists don't benefit and forced them into it.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 12:20 by cobalt »

« Reply #336 on: March 07, 2014, 04:22 »
+1
Agreed the other sites should sue for anti-competitive practices. They've got the lawyers.  They know the ins and outs. The Getty 'contract' can be found, and I doubt 'giving away 35 million images' is included.


Yes they have the Lawyers and potentially a lot of money to lose.  I would not expect them to make a public statement because admitting that it will impact business will only compound stock holder fears.

I look forward to hearing  DT, 123, etc response.


Snip http://tinyurl.com/krmqjax

NYSE stocks posting largest percentage decreases

NEW YORK (AP) - A look at the 10 biggest percentage decliners on New York Stock Exchange at the close of trading:

Copa Holdings S.A. fell 7.7 percent to $124.50.

Shutterstock Inc. fell 6.8 percent to $95.48.

Carriage Services Inc. fell 6.0 percent to $19.47.

Amira Nature Foods Ltd. fell 5.7 percent to $15.99.

Pandora Media Inc. fell 5.6 percent to $37.23.

Rally Software fell 5.5 percent to $18.84.

Intrexon Corp. fell 5.3 percent to $27.12.

Homeowners Choice Inc. fell 5.2 percent to $38.28.

Southcross Energy Partners LP fell 5.1 percent to $16.48.

Rouse Properties Inc. fell 5.0 percent to $18.39.



http://www.stoxline.com/quote.php?symbol=SSTK

Snip
SSTK

Our rating system posted a SELL today, downgraded from higher rating. This stock seems to be ready for a new bearish move. So you may continue to hold short positions or sell your long positions. You are relatively safe to short or sell now, downward move is expected.

Support1: 84.42    Support2: 72.93
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 04:49 by gbalex »

« Reply #337 on: March 07, 2014, 04:49 »
+17
The majority of images already are free , even commercially, to many users. And IMO all of the roads are going in the same direction: ie non commercial use is not going to provide long term viable sales. It is already too much challenged by free, creative commons and social media sharing. And by a perception you cannot change that images are free.

This is about non commercial use. It is also about SEO and marketing. It is also about engaging non commercial users - not necessarily as full clients yet ... but certainly more like clients than the people who use whatever they find somewhere or steal from a torrent site.

The "majority of images" are not free.  I don't even know where you came up with that.  As already said, everything you use at home is "non-commercial" but you still have to buy it.  This defeatist attitude is part of the problem.  Getty makes it worse by now setting the market value of their blog sized images at $0, so people expect that everything they find now is free to use.  I thought we had turned a corner where people were starting to realize there were consequences.

« Reply #338 on: March 07, 2014, 04:49 »
-9
Basically they are pretending the artist might benefit with sales, will they plan to make Billions for themselves when Getty is sold. All that money will be made riding on our files.

This is not whatsapp. It does not suddenly create millions of potential new users. Therefore it does not IMO directly inflate any valuation. I believe that this is much more strategic and nuanced than that. It certainly builds in future potential value. And I want them to have a good valuation - because that will reflect objective confidence in strategy. And it challenges other companies definitely (but nobody from microstock is allowed that complaint TBH).

I have consistently argued here that free is an inevitable part of the challenge which cheap faces. In some ways this is free challenging free maybe. Or maybe I had too much sun today.

(I never understood people going nuclear over Google Docs either FWIW). To me it seemed sensible for them to be in the room with Google.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 04:58 by bunhill »

« Reply #339 on: March 07, 2014, 04:57 »
-3
The "majority of images" are not free.

They are. Look at all of the content shared for free daily on Facebook and Weibo for example. And many companies are increasingly replacing a website with social media.

This defeatist attitude etc

It's not defeatist. It's about recognizing changing trends and profiles.

Ron

« Reply #340 on: March 07, 2014, 05:01 »
+3
You never agree with the majority, your point of view is always the opposite, regardless if you agree with it or not.

« Reply #341 on: March 07, 2014, 05:15 »
-2
You never agree with the majority, your point of view is always the opposite, regardless if you agree with it or not.

If you ask the 'majority' of people, you will find that they do not believe that there is any reason why they should not use whatever image they can find anywhere. Try suRveying opinion amongst the people you meet. You will also find that many of the same people think that downloading movies, music, software cracks etc is fine too. Or DVDs from the market etc.

I disagree with the majority - though the majority here would likely agree with me . But I recognize that I am not going to change what the majority think and therefore it is more interesting and constructive to think about where that leads.

But of course you mean that I often disagree with the majority here. Well so what ? Do alternative perspectives disturb or offend you ?


« Reply #342 on: March 07, 2014, 05:49 »
+11
The "majority of images" are not free.

They are. Look at all of the content shared for free daily on Facebook and Weibo for example. And many companies are increasingly replacing a website with social media.

This defeatist attitude etc

It's not defeatist. It's about recognizing changing trends and profiles.

You seem to be mistaking "viewing images for free" with "using images for your own purposes for free".

« Reply #343 on: March 07, 2014, 06:27 »
+12
I hate this deal.  A good portion of my port is travel and travel editorial related.  Much of my material is subject matter they decided should be given away for free.  Deactivating my port maybe a sound business decision.  Certainly something I'm thinking over.

I see it differently : once your embedded images are clicked 100 or 200 times you could make one sale, the average conversion-rate on e-commerce sites is 0.5% to 1%, photos are a bit harder to sell so maybe you can expect 0.1%

I do not believe free use of my images will ever result in a sale.  Only lost sales. 

« Reply #344 on: March 07, 2014, 06:31 »
-8
You seem to be mistaking "viewing images for free" with "using images for your own purposes for free".

Most images are free. Free to use including reposting and re-tagging. That effectively includes, in many cases, commercial use. Though when you start to drill down into the definitions of what uses are permitted or not then the 'majority' are going to find that a much more arcane debate. Most images are free to use - how most people use their internet.

You could wish that most images were not free to use. Even school project use would be paid. The same as some people might wish that mictostock had never been invented or that photographers had not chosen to support subscription sites.

But the majority of people uploading their images  (ie the majority of today's content producers) do not care if some company or organization they have friended or followed chooses to repost (ie use) their content.

Anyhow - this will probably turn out to be no big deal. Just an evolution. Just like all of the previous predicted catastrophes !


« Reply #345 on: March 07, 2014, 06:32 »
+2
I hate this deal.  A good portion of my port is travel and travel editorial related.  Much of my material is subject matter they decided should be given away for free.  Deactivating my port maybe a sound business decision.  Certainly something I'm thinking over.

I see it differently : once your embedded images are clicked 100 or 200 times you could make one sale, the average conversion-rate on e-commerce sites is 0.5% to 1%, photos are a bit harder to sell so maybe you can expect 0.1%

I do not believe free use of my images will ever result in a sale.  Only lost sales.

exactly, the people viewing these won't buy them, they will once again share it, bloggers will stay happy and photographers unpaid, on the long run this will be very prejudicial to all industry, perhaps even for GI

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #346 on: March 07, 2014, 06:43 »
+8
What the folks who believe people will click on the embedded photos and then purchase them are missing is that those people are the wrong target market. They're not designers or art directors. They're there to read the blog or article, not to buy photos. If they're fellow bloggers and like the image, they can also get it for free.


« Reply #347 on: March 07, 2014, 07:03 »
+3
It's possible that Getty sees this primarily as a cheap way of getting its name splashed all over the internet, raising brand awareness at little or not cost to them.

Bunhill's probably right that the alarm this has generated is out of proportion to the harm it will do. But it will do some harm, I have no doubt.

« Reply #348 on: March 07, 2014, 07:10 »
-5
No point wetting the bed over it unless you're a Getty producer.

« Reply #349 on: March 07, 2014, 07:24 »
+17
Isn't the Chrome browser free?  Isn't the Android software free?  Isn't WhatsApp free (yet is somehow worth $19B).  Do I view all my favorite web sites for free?  Do I now read all my morning newspapers for free?  And yet all of these things happen to be worth a fortune because they are all a portal to something else or they attract advertising fees.  So being free to them wasn't a dumb move at all.  Of course I can't add advertising to my images, but I can see why there are more and more apps that are free yet become worth a substantial amount of money.

I'm just a simple person.  The way I see it is this:  at the moment people have to search at Getty's web site to see my stuff.  What if every web site in the world decides to use the Getty embedded viewer and an extra billion people a day get to see my stuff. And every one of those views sees my attributed name and a one click link to my portfolio.  Will I lose money or make money?  The answer is:  I will make a lot more sales and a lot more money.  And do I care if Getty also makes money through views or clicks or advertising?  No, actually I don't care at all. In fact, I'll encourage them to do so. Why? Because I know that the more views they generate the more money I will make.  It's like putting a personal link to my portfolio on every web site in the world.
I've read a lot of dumb posts on this site, but this one takes the cake.


 

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
49339 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