MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #350 on: March 07, 2014, 07:44 »
+2


fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #351 on: March 07, 2014, 07:47 »
+5

« Reply #352 on: March 07, 2014, 07:55 »
+11
In the first place it is about their sneaky acts. When you have an agreement it is normal to inform people before, giving them the possibility to went out or at least to opt out. There are laws for these things. Nobody could have seen this coming and nobody could protect him/herself from their acts. And when this turns out profitable for  them, what will be the next step? This is not a stockagency anymore. It is owned by a Group that only wants short-term profit.

They have no right to give away what they not own.

Do you want to do your business harm using stolen images on your blog or website?  Dont think so
No self respecting person will.
There will always be people stealing. But good is good and bad is bad, no matter what nice names you give it. Their given reasons are nonsense. You can try to legalise theft. This way stealing is no longer called stealing, but what world are we going to live in when such a thing happens? 

But again: They have no right to give away what they not own.

It is only about blog-sizes for now. But artists depending on GI/IS/the Carlyle Group for their main income should start a quick search for other  opportunities from now on, before they awake one morning seeing not only blog-sized images but their whole busisness is given away for free.



PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #353 on: March 07, 2014, 08:08 »
+2
I'm still not happy about the personal use stuff but I think this has commercial potential beyond advertising revenue.

I have said we need a new Rights Managed licensing model. RF has given open rights with no possible recurring revenue and also has made it impossible to track proper licensing versus infringement thieves.

This could be the new-age RM for commercial usage. Getty could charge a usage fee so that commercial websites are renting an image for a specified period of time and specific use. This is essentially a subscription usage model like Adobe CC. You can use it as long as you're paying for it.

This brings recurring revenue back in the equation instead of now where with RF once they buy it once and use it however they want. Even with the "restrictions" in RF licensing, what buyer pays attention to it and who polices usage? Nobody. Now they pay as long as they use it.

It also should easily provide the ability to manage rights. Should be pretty easy to find infringements because imbeds would have very specific usage just like RM.

And usage premiums would be back. If a website buys a 400x600 imbed for one page they can't enlarge it to 1200x1600 and use it across 50 websites. If they want to use it across 50 websites then they pay extra for that usage.

This also brings urgency to renew and pay on time. Who wants a whole website of disabled images that say something like "Image is Disabled for Non-Payment to Getty" or whatever.

So, IF, this is what Getty has planned this may be a good move long term and this first personal use part is the publicity stunt to advertise the model to the mainstream.


« Reply #354 on: March 07, 2014, 08:10 »
+3
The problem is Getty itself not image thieves! You see with an account you could always get the low res size for free non-commercial use. Getty says "people keep stealing our images so we should just give them access anyway" Well how about a water mark on all sizes until you purchase? I know that is a truly unique idea but you would have had Getty advertising and more exposure if people used the watermarked images in their blogs. Second Getty has a outdated price structure and that is because that are so greedy! they could have easily done what ShutterStock has done years ago but instead they only focus on how to twist and turn different ways to make money on what they have vs finding new buyers and invest in decent web technology. Throwing up your hands and saying this doesn't work is a cop out. How can Stocksy make a profit so early if that is the case? How can ShutterStock continue to grow and find new buyers? This move by Getty is aimed to be a one two punch to ShutterStock. First give images away free to bloggers and all non-commercial web use, next make a sub. site like ShutterStock and drive buyers there for the rest of the low end market sales. All this is done at the expense of we the artist and Getty could care less. People that say this is good just like to be abused. I make a product, get model releases, scout locations in order to SELL my work. 

« Reply #355 on: March 07, 2014, 08:12 »
+6
The picfair letter misses the entire point.

Getty is shifting their business model in a very drastic way. It is not about licensing images.

They are using high quality professionally produced images and handing them out for free to millions of unregistered users to build a data mining and advertising network on the back of our files.

And they dont even have a plan how to really monetise that network, they admit that freely.

Getty right now is in the business of selling itself (again). In the next 6 - 12 months, maybe 18 months max.

They need to create buzz, they need to create a "story". That is why they also partnered with eyem.

The whatsapp deal (20 Billion dollars for a start up with 50 people) has made many people hot for easy dollars. Fair enough.
 
Data mining and Google adwords type revenue is the big thing in investing trends today. Like the internet bubble 10 years ago.

Somebody compared Carlyle and investors to selling business like they flip burgers and it is true. It doesnt really matter what the company does. It just has to look attractive to the investor community.

Getty was last sold for 3.3 billion. But they havent been able to grow their revenue from licensing images. It is stuck at around 870 million (?) from the last report Carlyle published. They also have 1.6 billion in debt.

So how can the owners demand more money? How can they upsell?

By adding something modern, cool and trendy.

The embedded viewer, data mining and advertising prospects, plus eyem sounds like a very good mix.

Throwing out high quality images for free will of course get them spread out by the millions.

I wonder what profit they are shooting for? Can they sell Getty for 5 billion? 10 Billion?

Why would you care about licensing images if you can make a few BILLION dollars in the coming months from selling Getty?

And the deal only works because of the very high quality files they are throwing around, encouraging unregistered users to post them everywhere.

The competition can probably sue Getty for unfair business practises because the market with bloggers might be ruined by the free files. The other agencies cannot compete with free.

But a clever lawyer representing the artist should go for the billions of profits when Getty is sold and the data mining and advertising revenue.

The business model has been changed completely and the artist did not send the content to Getty so that they can make millions from "promotional use" without paying us.

Any kind of use of our files that makes money is revenue created by the images and should be shared according to the royalty percentage we signed up for.

« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 21:11 by cobalt »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #356 on: March 07, 2014, 08:56 »
0

I have said we need a new Rights Managed licensing model. RF has given open rights with no possible recurring revenue and also has made it impossible to track proper licensing versus infringement thieves.

This could be the new-age RM for commercial usage. Getty could charge a usage fee so that commercial websites are renting an image for a specified period of time and specific use. This is essentially a subscription usage model like Adobe CC. You can use it as long as you're paying for it.

This brings recurring revenue back in the equation instead of now where with RF once they buy it once and use it however they want. Even with the "restrictions" in RF licensing, what buyer pays attention to it and who polices usage? Nobody. Now they pay as long as they use it.

It also should easily provide the ability to manage rights. Should be pretty easy to find infringements because imbeds would have very specific usage just like RM.

And usage premiums would be back. If a website buys a 400x600 imbed for one page they can't enlarge it to 1200x1600 and use it across 50 websites. If they want to use it across 50 websites then they pay extra for that usage.

Getty already does this. That's what rights-managed is. Or am I missing something?

EmberMike

« Reply #357 on: March 07, 2014, 08:59 »
+20

You guys don't get it.

Flooding blogs with embedded low res images with the photographer's name anche the image linking to Getty is free advertising which will ultimately lead to more SALES....

Oh we get it, all too well. See, this is an all-too-familiar sales pitch that graphic designers, photographers, and artists of all kinds hear frequently, even from big companies. It's that old "We can't pay you, but you'll get tons of exposure leading to future paid work," line.

Heard it all before, and it never works out.

That's why we don't need to wait and see how this works out. It's been done before, and it's basically a form of spec work. No pay up front and maybe you'll get paid down the road, with heavy emphasis on "maybe."

« Reply #358 on: March 07, 2014, 09:18 »
+8
^^ Reminds me of when I had a contact in the music press and a comment one of them got from a member of The Jam about his agent. Something like "Oh Yeah. I've got plenty of exposure. I'm famous. But my agent has got all the f**king money."

Goofy

« Reply #359 on: March 07, 2014, 09:57 »
+1

« Reply #360 on: March 07, 2014, 09:57 »
+5
Why everybody thinks that Getty giving our images for free?
They just changed the business model of licensing for themselves and building advertising network on the back of our files.
It is us who are going to get nothing, not a single cent from this new Getty business model.
Now they can bring back the canister level so everyone will get 50% from ZERO.

farbled

« Reply #361 on: March 07, 2014, 09:58 »
+7
SS is not scared because 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.
Wow, do you know anything at all about blogging and the people that do it for a living? How about article writers for sites like HuffPost or About.com or similar sites? A huge chunk of my sales are from bloggers and if this is successful, then that could very well go away.

Photographers lose in this deal. Getty does not. I can't wait to hear how many click-through purchases vs. free use your images get, this time next year. Then we can see how sweet the Koolaid is then.

Ron

« Reply #362 on: March 07, 2014, 10:04 »
+9
Quote
But Peters said the feedback he's received from photographers is "largely positive."

"We have over 200,000 photographers whose work we represent on a global basis. In that world, not everyone's going to always agree with the things we do," he said. But he said he met with a group of photographers Wednesday night, "and they were incredibly excited about it."

I dont believe for one second their photographer were happy about this.

« Reply #363 on: March 07, 2014, 10:06 »
+2
Quote
But Peters said the feedback he's received from photographers is "largely positive."

"We have over 200,000 photographers whose work we represent on a global basis. In that world, not everyone's going to always agree with the things we do," he said. But he said he met with a group of photographers Wednesday night, "and they were incredibly excited about it."

I dont believe for one second their photographer were happy about this.

Depends on the "photographer"

There are thousands of amateurs out there who will be thrilled to see their name and images all over the web. They can google their name and get thousands of hits. They are with Getty! Its FANTASTC!

« Reply #364 on: March 07, 2014, 10:12 »
+5
What makes me ill about all these articles promoting the Getty free images is that most people will stop reading after they see FREE and will not understand the limitations associated with these to begin with. A viewer is nice, but annoyed bloggers will change the ifram size to hide it or just save the image out. And as said before...policing this is going to be much harder than policing the other. Just one of many issues I have with this idea.

« Reply #365 on: March 07, 2014, 10:24 »
+7
The picfair letter misses the entire point.

Getty is shifting their business model in a very drastic way. It is not about licensing images.

They are using high quality professionally produced images and handing them out for free to millions of unregistered users to build a data mining and advertising network on the back of our files.

And they dont even have a plan how to really monetise that network, they admit that freely.

Getty right now is in the business of selling itself (again). In the next 6 - 12 months, maybe 18 months max.

They need to create buzz, they need to create a "story". That is why they also partnered with eyem.

The whatsapp deal (20 Billion dollars for a start up with 50 people) has made many people hot for easy dollars. fair enough.
 
Data mining and Google adwords type revenue is the big thing in investing trends today. Like the internet bubble 10 years ago.

Somebody compared Carlyle and investors to selling business like they flip burgers and it is true. It doesnt really matter what the company does. It just has to look attractive to the investor community.

Getty was last sold for 3.3 billion. But they havent been able to grow their revenue from licensing images. It is stuck at around 870 million (?) from the last report Carlyle published. They also have 1.6 billion in debt.

So how can the owners demand more money? How can they upsell?

By adding something modern, cool and trendy.

The embedded viewer, data mining and advertising prospects, plus eyem sounds like a very good mix.

Throwing out high quality images for free will of course get them spread out by the millions.

I wonder what profit they are shooting for? Can they sell Getty for 5 billion? 10 Billion?

Why would you care about licensing images if you can make a few BILLION dollars in the coming months from selling Getty?

And the deal only works because of the very high quality files they are throwing around, encouraging unregistered users to post them everywhere.

The competition can probably sue Getty for unfair business practises because the market with bloggers might be ruined by the free files. The other agencies cannot compete with free.

But a clever lawyer representing the artist should go for the billions of profits when Getty is sold and the data mining and advertising revenue.

The business model has been changed completely and the artist did not send the content to Getty so that they can make millions from "promotional use" without paying us.

Any kind of use of our files that makes money is revenue created by the images and should be shared according to the royalty percentage we signed up for.

This is exactly right.

Getty do not want to be in the business of selling images any more, they are now in the business of selling eyeballs, views, links and data. None of which translate into royalties for photographers, but will no doubt generate enough buzz to unload it onto the next owner before an eventual IPO once the hype is right.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #366 on: March 07, 2014, 10:44 »
+3
this is on the front page of CNN right now-

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/tech/social-media/getty-free-pictures/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


Love all the comments under the article. Backlash!


« Reply #367 on: March 07, 2014, 10:47 »
+14
Having now read the 350 plus posts on this subject, I think I can recap the key points:

1) Getty did this because it is good for Getty.  They may have consulted some of their photographers - but since they have 200,000 contributor/photographers - the vast majority were never consulted.
2) The Carlyle Group owns Getty.  They are a hedge fund company.  They buy companies and they flip them - that's what they do.  They aren't concerned about photos or photographers - they are concerned with how they can quickly resell a company and cash in on the sale.
3) Getty was getting undercut on small web sales by the dozens of microstock competitors.  This move - although surely denied by any official spokesperson - is aimed at derailing or destroying those small competitors.  Getty has the wherewithal to give away a portion of the business because it still has most of its business on the large commercial side - whereas the other guys thrive mostly off of small sales
4) The Getty contributors cannot opt out other than leave Getty. But even if they do, it requires 30 days notice and during that time Getty will give away all the images in their portfolio for free web usage.
5) The move by Getty has been applauded almost universally by the non-photography community and the word FREE and GETTY are now splashed all over the world.
6) We can complain, but Getty has all the complaint answers down to one basic premise:  This is promotion and we are allowed to do that with the contracts you all signed
7) It is hard to ascertain the long term effects of this completely - but short term it will destroy the premise that using an image on the web is a copyright infringement for most websites and bloggers.  And it surely will devalue the monetary value of imagery overall - at least to some extent.
8) Getty intends to sell ads and to capture data with this new FREE initiative.  The intend to become a consolidator on content - like YouTube.  That turns them into an internet "play" and we've all seen where anything that is an internet "play" seems to be getting sold for billions.  The smart people at Carlyle have reinvented their company - and will cash out long before the bottom drops out of the commercial market.

Bottom line - probably a very good business move by Getty.  Clever and crafty and very disruptive.

Probably a very bad outcome for those of us who sell our photos. 
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 11:03 by jeffclow »

« Reply #368 on: March 07, 2014, 10:54 »
+5
On the wordpress bog the bloggers are all thrilled about this. To their credit a great many are saying they have avoided using pics off the net for fear of violating copyright and now they feel safe to use the Getty files. I tried to post a question asking how they would feel if WP created a tool that would let other bloggers embed their entire post in another blog with only attribution for compensation.  It didn't get past the moderators so I guess they only want woo-yays there

« Reply #369 on: March 07, 2014, 11:01 »
+7
this is on the front page of CNN right now-

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/tech/social-media/getty-free-pictures/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


Love all the comments under the article. Backlash!


Some gems! I love the one that begins "Getty is legal organized crime..."

And there's a tale that if accurate shows them in a most unflattering light - Getty sent a demand letter for use of images that a thief had uploaded to Getty; even after the photographer won his lawsuit against Getty they haven't paid him:

"Getty is also one of the largest bringer of lawsuits against websites. Charging individuals or businesses with such that the images they're using may or may not be legal property of Getty. A client I did some photography work for wanted images for her site in 04. Since I designed the site, creating all the images and graphics for the site said images and graphics were intellectual property between the client and I. In 2009, Getty sent my company a letter threatening a lawsuit if we did not pay them for using said work. They said the images they were referring to were a client of theirs they were representing. After a year of legal roundabout we proved the work was ours. It seems someone had copied some of our work and presented it as their own. We sued Getty in late 09 and the lawsuit is still pending because of Getty refusing to pay up. Since they brought the original lawsuit they are liable for every single penny we spent fighting them. So in late early 2012 we sued Getty for theft of our work. For some odd reason they still had our work listed in their catalog. We won the lawsuit last year and Getty has yet to pay."

KB

« Reply #370 on: March 07, 2014, 11:04 »
+5
An open letter to photographers

https://www.picfair.com/posts/an-open-letter-to-photographers
Why does this get so many positive recs? It seems to be saying what a lot of the posts that get negative recs are saying:
The web is awash with news that Getty is giving away all of its images for free. Relax. It isn't. Your work has not suddenly become worthless.

This is what has changed: people who were previously not paying for Getty images, and were never going to ... will continue not paying for Getty images.

Bloggers can now legally embed Getty image into their sites for non-commercial use. These images are a chunk of real estate that Getty can make money from at a later date.


It fails to consider that 1000s (10000s?) of bloggers who did pay for images no longer have to, as well as the possibility (yet unrealized) that editorial sites will switch to free images.

I think it's very short-sighted to believe that this changes nothing.

« Reply #371 on: March 07, 2014, 11:05 »
+4
"Getty is also one of the largest bringer of lawsuits against websites. Charging individuals or businesses with such that the images they're using may or may not be legal property of Getty. A client I did some photography work for wanted images for her site in 04. Since I designed the site, creating all the images and graphics for the site said images and graphics were intellectual property between the client and I. In 2009, Getty sent my company a letter threatening a lawsuit if we did not pay them for using said work. They said the images they were referring to were a client of theirs they were representing. After a year of legal roundabout we proved the work was ours. It seems someone had copied some of our work and presented it as their own. We sued Getty in late 09 and the lawsuit is still pending because of Getty refusing to pay up. Since they brought the original lawsuit they are liable for every single penny we spent fighting them. So in late early 2012 we sued Getty for theft of our work. For some odd reason they still had our work listed in their catalog. We won the lawsuit last year and Getty has yet to pay."

just insane, shameless thieves!

« Reply #372 on: March 07, 2014, 11:11 »
+1
Quote
Hi Petr,
Wed like to invite you to our private beta launch of 500px Primeroyalty-free licenses for premium photos.
 
You know 500px as a community of 37 million breathtaking photos created by over 3 million photographers in 200 countries.
 
Today were making a collection of these photos available for commercial licensing. In a world of diminishing profits for photographers our revolutionary 70% royalty plan is sure to make waves, but from a buyers perspective heres whats even more exciting:
 

Exclusive content Over 75% of our collection has never been published.
Simple buying One option covers it all. For $250 per photo you get the highest resolution and its always royalty-free with a worldwide, any-media usage license. No expiries or seat limits. That means unlimited print and digital impressions forever.
Audience insights We collect billions of consumer signals each month and give you in-depth audience metrics to ensure your photo choices are the best ones for your needs.
 
Cant find the perfect photo? Email your brief to [email protected] and well reach out to our photographers on your behalf. Or call our researchers at 1.855.561.4584 x105 and they can handpick a custom selection for you.
 
Please visit http://prime.500px.com


hh good timing

farbled

« Reply #373 on: March 07, 2014, 11:20 »
+2
This is what has changed: people who were previously not paying for Getty images, and were never going to ... will continue not paying for Getty images.

I love this quote. The inference is that all the people that will use this service, like bloggers, news orgs, non profits, etc. are all thieves and will steal regardless, so why bother fighting them.

« Reply #374 on: March 07, 2014, 11:27 »
+1
This is what has changed: people who were previously not paying for Getty images, and were never going to ... will continue not paying for Getty images.

I love this quote. The inference is that all the people that will use this service, like bloggers, news orgs, non profits, etc. are all thieves and will steal regardless, so why bother fighting them.

oh please, shall we open SS doors as well?


 

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
49323 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