pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EmberMike

« Reply #425 on: March 07, 2014, 13:39 »
+6
Ok but those are different things.  A vector being given away implies that the entire full sized image is being given away with layers etc..  That's not what this is.

Is a JPG of a vector any less valuable than a JPG photo?


« Reply #426 on: March 07, 2014, 13:42 »
+1
I see a Vetta illustration embedded under point #4 in the article.

This one: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/social-media-gathering-royalty-free-illustration/467771121?suri=1

The vector isn't available though, it's an image of a vector. 


It's pretty big though and wouldn't be that hard to autotrace. If I were motivated I could reproduce that image about 10 minutes. Kind of negates the whole need for the vector file at all. And on top of it people think it is OK because the image is free.

Getty did give unwatermarked comp images away before and is it difficult to use autotrace on watermarked images?

Perhaps... but I wouldn't even need to autotrace that image to recreate it. And now I am under the misinterpretation that it is OK because the image was free. Why should they care if I vectorize it? I mean its free right?

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #427 on: March 07, 2014, 13:44 »
+7
If I was a Vetta contributor I'd be steaming mad right now.

« Reply #428 on: March 07, 2014, 13:45 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:26 by tickstock »

« Reply #429 on: March 07, 2014, 13:45 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:26 by tickstock »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #430 on: March 07, 2014, 13:46 »
+3
Ok but those are different things.  A vector being given away implies that the entire full sized image is being given away with layers etc..  That's not what this is.

Is a JPG of a vector any less valuable than a JPG photo?
A JPG of a vector is less valuable than a vector of a vector and a JPG of a photo can be less valuable than a RAW of a photo.  Sorry I'm not sure I get your point.  Someone said vectors were being given away, they aren't that is all I was saying.

If your argument made any sense at all, Getty would never watermark vectors.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #431 on: March 07, 2014, 13:47 »
+1
If I was a Vetta contributor I'd be steaming mad right now.
If Jon says it's no big deal then I'm cool with it.

Jon?

« Reply #432 on: March 07, 2014, 13:49 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:26 by tickstock »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #433 on: March 07, 2014, 13:50 »
0
Jon?

« Reply #434 on: March 07, 2014, 13:50 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:26 by tickstock »

« Reply #435 on: March 07, 2014, 13:51 »
+5
Anyone halfway adept at illustrator can do this. The issue up until now is that it was considered theft and everyone knew it. Getty just made it seem OK to redraw this artists image and use it in vector format. Of course it is still theft but now most people won't realize it. This free message they are sending is very concerning.

« Reply #436 on: March 07, 2014, 13:53 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:25 by tickstock »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #437 on: March 07, 2014, 13:53 »
0

« Reply #438 on: March 07, 2014, 13:54 »
+3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:25 by tickstock »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #439 on: March 07, 2014, 13:55 »
+1
Anyone halfway adept at illustrator can do this. The issue up until now is that it was considered theft and everyone knew it. Getty just made it seem OK to redraw this artists image and use it in vector format. Of course it is still theft but now most people won't realize it. This free message they are sending is very concerning.
I don't disagree with that, hopefully they spend some time educating people.  I don't think they want people taking the images from their embed player either, that defeats the purpose.

Not if the purpose is to track that and then send letters demanding payment.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #440 on: March 07, 2014, 13:56 »
0
Jon?

Oringer.


He works at Getty now?

I don't think so but maybe that's where the subs idea came from?  This is what I was talking about:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/


I just wanted you to admit you were dragging Oringer into a discussion about Getty giving away images free, which he wasn't involved with in any way. If you're that obsessed with Shutterstock why don't you just upload there already? Sheesh.

« Reply #441 on: March 07, 2014, 13:57 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:25 by tickstock »


« Reply #442 on: March 07, 2014, 14:01 »
+1
Jon?

Oringer.


He works at Getty now?

I don't think so but maybe that's where the subs idea came from?  This is what I was talking about:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/


I just wanted you to admit you were dragging Oringer into a discussion about Getty giving away images free, which he wasn't involved with in any way. If you're that obsessed with Shutterstock why don't you just upload there already? Sheesh.


I'd say SS's official response to this deal is very relevant to the discussion.   As is their unofficial, behind-the-scenes response, to the extent we want to speculate on it.

« Reply #443 on: March 07, 2014, 14:06 »
+7
I took a look on GettyImages to get an idea of which third of their images they're allowing users to embed (35 million of about 105 million was what one article stated).

It now seems to me that being embeddable means Getty considers you the "low rent district" - if you look at the hover previews for an image you will see the </> icon at the end of the row for images that are embeddable, so you can quickly scan results to see what is.

Having noticed that things like National Geographic were excluded and Flickr included, I started with their Collections page

http://www.gettyimages.com/creativeimages/imagecollection

And saw that huge chunks of the creative stuff is not embeddable - Rubber Ball, Digital Vision, Tetra, Images Bazaar, Dorling Kindersley, Yuri Arcurs, Blend Images, Ingram,

But Vetta, E+, Flickr are embeddable.  Photodisc is interesting in that only a portion are embeddable and it appears that the search (not for a term but browsing the collection) puts all the embeddable images up front - half way through page 4 the images are no longer embeddable (I only spot checked a few pages after that, so there could be something I missed)

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?p=image&family=creative&contractUrl=1&b=PDI#4

My assumption is that they're only taking a risk (offering for free) with things they don't value very much anyway...

EmberMike

« Reply #444 on: March 07, 2014, 14:12 »
+3
A JPG of a vector is less valuable than a vector of a vector and a JPG of a photo can be less valuable than a RAW of a photo.  Sorry I'm not sure I get your point.  Someone said vectors were being given away, they aren't that is all I was saying.

It's ok, I don't get your point either.

« Reply #445 on: March 07, 2014, 14:13 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:25 by tickstock »

« Reply #446 on: March 07, 2014, 14:19 »
+8
A JPG of a vector is less valuable than a vector of a vector and a JPG of a photo can be less valuable than a RAW of a photo.  Sorry I'm not sure I get your point.  Someone said vectors were being given away, they aren't that is all I was saying.

It's ok, I don't get your point either.
The point was that someone said they were giving away vectors and they aren't.  You cannot get the vector.  That's all, very simple.

Obviously we all know the embedded player doesn't distribute actual vectors.  The OP was saying that the previously sacred cow of the 'vector created illustration' is now included.  I know you're playing obtuse to make some sort of point, but let it go.

« Reply #447 on: March 07, 2014, 14:23 »
-4
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:25 by tickstock »

« Reply #448 on: March 07, 2014, 14:24 »
+8
That is very interesting Jo Ann.

Vetta, E+ and Flickr.

The files from the "low level crowd source amateurs"....the real content from professional artists like Yuri are of course too valuable to be degraded with free embedding.

In case there is anyone left at istock with illusions where their place is in the Getty Foodchain.

They must be laughing themselves silly about the naive istock exclusives and Flickr artists.

But hey, it's crowd sourced! These guys love exposure, right?

This is all so exciting!!!
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 14:29 by cobalt »

Harvepino

« Reply #449 on: March 07, 2014, 14:25 »
+19
Fun fact:

5 years ago in an office job I was hoping one day I'd become professional photographer selling on Getty.
Now I am professional photographer hoping Getty won't ever touch any of my images.
 ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13168 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
5333 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
49345 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada
1 Replies
1800 Views
Last post May 19, 2022, 21:25
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors