pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #475 on: March 08, 2014, 04:00 »
-2
Choices.  We all have them.  I don't fault yours.  Why fault others who have a contrarian viewpoint?

All i'm saying is that many of you guys are over reacting, Getty is just offering embedded images, it doesn't mean webmasters will be able to use them as they please (making thumbnails, removing credits, etc etc), actually it's a way to get free advertising for getty and brand awareness and eventually make some sales too.

As for educating the spongers, once they click for the 100th time on an image and they're served with a getty page where the image is on sale for a hefty price then maybe they will finally learn once and for all that good photos are not free and can not be stolen for fun and profit as they did so far with impunity.




Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #476 on: March 08, 2014, 04:10 »
-4
"If Getty decided your images are worth nothing".

  Ahh.....that's the exact thing we're all upset about.  Getty does not have the right to say our images are "worthless".  Only the copyright owner could make such a statement.  If you want to say it about your own work - you sure can do so.  But Getty doesn't have the right to do so.

Getty is a broker.  They offer representation for 80% of the take of an image's sale.  We are suppliers/contributors or perhaps just simply fools to be in bed with them.

And what if Getty is right ?
Seriously, agencies owe us nothing, even more nowadays when good images are dime a dozen.

If our photos were so valuable they would sell for 500$ a pop like hotcakes but guess what it's not gonna happen anytime soon and agencies are struggling to make sales even for less than 5$/download.

This is the reality guys, the money is just not there anymore.
Good money will come from us seeking buyers and making private deals, for prints, for assignments, for posters, reproductions, whatever but not traditional stock no matter if RF or RM.

I would love the industry going back to expensive RM-only licencing but i'm forced to have a realistic look on the industry, clients are still OK paying good money for assignments but can't see much value in stock anymore.

Microstock finally managed to kill stock altogether and now there's no going back.
I guess many suppliers will leave in droves but the numbers are telling otherwise.

And it's going to get a lot worse than that .. i expect the many Instagram, Flickr, and similar sites to start selling anything they can for a few cents desperately trying to monetize their user generated content, totally disregarding legal rights and copyrights exactly as google did in the last 15 yrs.

It's photographers who are devalueing their images in the moment they put them for sale on the internet and with RF licence to top if off.

The only exit is traditional photography that means dirtying our hands meeting buyers face to face, shooting on assignment, selling them prints and getting the money in our hands.

Either that or you can forget about doing this job for long unless you're a stock factory with dozens of photographers working full time for a pittance in some third world country.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 04:21 by Hobostocker »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #477 on: March 08, 2014, 04:29 »
-3
Getty is a pimp no doub :)...I guess that makes us the prostotutes  :o

It's very very unfair for us, but stock agencies setting the bar so low will ultimately kill their own golden goose because they can't expect any serious photographer to sustain the production costs involved and earn a pittance for too long.

They will be flooded by an ocean of cheap images but no one will supply expensive stuff, and buyers in need of expensive will be forced to either pay the right price or to hire somebody on assignment.

So ironically this global devalueing of stock could make us a favour in the long run because it will polarize the market in two well defined price segments.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys !

« Reply #478 on: March 08, 2014, 04:57 »
+3
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.

Yep, it's the continuation of the IPO hype method to sell/flip mediocre crap waay overpriced,the apple marketing model. They are not 'building a data mining and adverstising network', that's just BS, they are just handing out links.  Data mining is crawlers, high class Db and SQL, it shows you how layman are clueless about these terms.... and what advertising networks? How? They gonna suddenly, heeyy, surprise, change the illustrative images to ad-banners from paying advertisers?? :)) They are not building anything, but they might fool some the more naive old folk who just don't get this whole 'internets' thing.

« Reply #479 on: March 08, 2014, 05:33 »
+11
hobostocker,

if you believe your files are worthless or allow Getty to devalue you work like this - your decision.

But I would just send my files to an agency that is primarily in the business of selling files and making money with licensing images.

If Getty wants to use my images for additional income through data mining and ad revenue...they can ask.

A simple opt in button solves the problem.

Then everyone who wants to be included can be part of this exciting new opportunity and the rest of us who are not working to make Getty rich will be safe.

They can even openly say that those opted in will be preferred in best match, the way other agencies do if you opt in and out of the subs model.

But because they know it will not translate into more sales, they forced people into it. If it was good to encourage licensing it would have been Digital Vision first. But the "crowd sourced images" - Vetta, E+,Flickr...they just love exposure..

Getty is not the God of stock. They haven't even been able to grow their revenue in the last 3 years, they have piled on 1,6 billion dollars in debt, they can't even man the front page of istock to change a Valentines day image...etc...

But if you love the way they treat you and feel it is a fantastic way to make money - enjoy!

I'll put my energy in the agencies that haven't changed their business model and want to add buying customers for files, not random people who supply data.

I hope they keep the viewer an exclusive honor and privilege. I mean, they want to share their unique content and not the files everyone else has right??

:)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 10:00 by cobalt »

« Reply #480 on: March 08, 2014, 07:11 »
+7
I don't want to make any more pictures  :(

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #481 on: March 08, 2014, 07:36 »
0
A troll on one of the blogs I've commented on told me I should get my own website.  I said .... yes, I agree... have you heard of symbiostock.com ? 

Shoot, if Leo had some templates and whatnot to sell this event could have been a big turning point for him.  We could comment like crazy and promote symbiostock for him, but.....  not sure I am supposed to mention symbiostock any more?

Has it become a Secret Society?

I couldn't get my potential site to work at all, so deleted it; but I wondered why I hadn't read of anyone mentioning sales there other than Ron.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #482 on: March 08, 2014, 07:49 »
+7
No, no secret. We're still plugging along, with people starting to make more sales, and we're about to reach 250,000 images in the network. I'm interested in my site succeeding now more than ever.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #483 on: March 08, 2014, 07:51 »
+2
I don't want to make any more pictures  :(


I thought this was a pretty good summation of the embedding:

"This move requires uptake, but the right kind of uptake. Ideally, it would generate new value among the web scofflaws while not harming Gettys business with pro publishers. Im not sure these embeds hit that balance. The workflows are too ungainly for the people who currently have contracts with Getty, true, but theyre also not quite easy enough to be a good substitute for people who dont mind stealing. My wager is that, as transformational as this announcement might seem to be, Gettys embeds wont be pockmarking the web."

http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/03/getty-images-blows-the-webs-mind-by-setting-35-million-photos-free-with-conditions-of-course/

« Reply #484 on: March 08, 2014, 07:53 »
+6

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #485 on: March 08, 2014, 08:01 »
+7
Seriously, agencies owe us nothing, even more nowadays when good images are dime a dozen.
Still, they have no right to give away our images for nothing.

Added: I mean 'moral' right. Apparently they gave themselves the legal right when they forced us to agree to letting them use our images free for whatever they might designate 'promotional use'.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 08:32 by ShadySue »

shudderstok

« Reply #486 on: March 08, 2014, 08:04 »
+6
"If Getty decided your images are worth nothing".

  Ahh.....that's the exact thing we're all upset about.  Getty does not have the right to say our images are "worthless".  Only the copyright owner could make such a statement.  If you want to say it about your own work - you sure can do so.  But Getty doesn't have the right to do so.

Getty is a broker.  They offer representation for 80% of the take of an image's sale.  We are suppliers/contributors or perhaps just simply fools to be in bed with them.

And what if Getty is right ?
Seriously, agencies owe us nothing, even more nowadays when good images are dime a dozen.

If our photos were so valuable they would sell for 500$ a pop like hotcakes but guess what it's not gonna happen anytime soon and agencies are struggling to make sales even for less than 5$/download.

This is the reality guys, the money is just not there anymore.
Good money will come from us seeking buyers and making private deals, for prints, for assignments, for posters, reproductions, whatever but not traditional stock no matter if RF or RM.

I would love the industry going back to expensive RM-only licencing but i'm forced to have a realistic look on the industry, clients are still OK paying good money for assignments but can't see much value in stock anymore.

Microstock finally managed to kill stock altogether and now there's no going back.
I guess many suppliers will leave in droves but the numbers are telling otherwise.

And it's going to get a lot worse than that .. i expect the many Instagram, Flickr, and similar sites to start selling anything they can for a few cents desperately trying to monetize their user generated content, totally disregarding legal rights and copyrights exactly as google did in the last 15 yrs.

It's photographers who are devalueing their images in the moment they put them for sale on the internet and with RF licence to top if off.

The only exit is traditional photography that means dirtying our hands meeting buyers face to face, shooting on assignment, selling them prints and getting the money in our hands.

Either that or you can forget about doing this job for long unless you're a stock factory with dozens of photographers working full time for a pittance in some third world country.

you are close to the mark or right on the mark.

i just wrapped up a shoot for a magazine that paid $1000 USD for a day, and the assignment before that a week before was for $1350 for two days, so yes assignments are the way to go. out of all the images i shot, several are 'stock' photos, and many are 'editorial' images that sell periodically just cause the access was there.

that all said, the terms for the shoots i do have an embargo period of 3 months, then i blast the images over to either IS or GI, and make additional money.

now that i give it some thought, it's been like that for the last 25+ years. it certainly helps when you get access to locations then can dump it to stock sites.

either way, this whole GI thing stinks big time. they have no right to give my/our work away.

it's wrong.








ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #487 on: March 08, 2014, 08:07 »
+1
Apologies if this link has been posted already on this thread ~
http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/industry-concerned-about-getty-images-free-for-all-approach

« Reply #488 on: March 08, 2014, 08:16 »
+7
If our photos were so valuable they would sell for 500$ a pop like hotcakes but guess what it's not gonna happen anytime soon and agencies are struggling to make sales even for less than 5$/download.

This is the reality guys, the money is just not there anymore.

Actually, I'm selling quite a few hotcakes at Stocksy.  Real money.  Because they're making the effort to find the customers and do it right.  So, giving up may work for you, but don't assume the rest of us want to do that.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #490 on: March 08, 2014, 09:01 »
+7
Photographers angry:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-07/photographers-hate-getty-imagess-plan-to-give-away-their-work


Qnd of course, the telling quote is:
"In an interview earlier this week, Craig Peters, a business development executive at Getty, said opponents of embedding would turn out to be a small minority clinging to a past that no longer exists; Getty plans to make money from uses that were simply not going to pay off in other ways."

So, photographers are clinging to a past where they got paid for their efforts.
Getty plans to make money from their brand, but are not even claiming they'll be able to make money for their content providers.
It's official, folks.  >:(
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 10:14 by ShadySue »

« Reply #491 on: March 08, 2014, 09:59 »
+13
Choices.  We all have them.  I don't fault yours.  Why fault others who have a contrarian viewpoint?

All i'm saying is that many of you guys are over reacting, Getty is just offering embedded images, it doesn't mean webmasters will be able to use them as they please (making thumbnails, removing credits, etc etc), actually it's a way to get free advertising for getty and brand awareness and eventually make some sales too.

As for educating the spongers, once they click for the 100th time on an image and they're served with a getty page where the image is on sale for a hefty price then maybe they will finally learn once and for all that good photos are not free and can not be stolen for fun and profit as they did so far with impunity.

You said it well in your comments above - "actually it's a way to get free advertising for Getty and brand awareness..."

Once again, I am now certain that you are a big fan of this new and innovative approach.  If you don't work directly for Getty - you should.  Because your statement indicates that what's good for Getty is naturally good for the photographers.

But I DO NOT AGREE.  I did NOT sign up and offer a thousand photos of mine that took years to create so that it could be used to create free advertising for Getty.  Sure - if they want to use a few photos - I'm willing to agree to that.  But ALL of my stuff?  No - that's morally wrong and clearly a stretch that would probably be found to be illegal if anyone had the deep pockets to fight them legally.

Your argument is flawed because you wrongly assume that we should all "see the light" and realize that our stuff isn't worth much.  You keep shouting via this forum that we are overreacting. You are trying to get us to believe it because you personally believe the Getty narrative that this is "good for photographers".

Saying it over and over doesn't make it right. 

Yes - the market has changed.  Yes - photography and photos cost a lot less than they did ten years ago.  But you can post 10,000 posts telling all of us how wrong we are and how great this new Getty promotion is and it doesn't mean you are right and we are wrong.

A vast majority of us here see if differently.  Is the reason you can't accept that FACT is because somewhere deep inside your mind you are worried that we MIGHT be right and you might be wrong? 

This move from Getty to devalue online use of images is BAD for photographers - in my opinion.  I'll be happy to meet you back here at this forum in 24 months and we can see the fallout.  If you're right and this is a great move for Getty and the photographers - I will publicly state how right you were and how wrong I was.  That's a promise.

But I will never agree that you - or any other human on this planet - has a right to tell me how I should feel about something, or that my photos have no value. 


« Reply #492 on: March 08, 2014, 10:22 »
+1
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...


Like Jo Ann, I found a lot of collections that are not embeddable. However, I have been told by senior management at one of the Image Partner collections whose images so far are not embeddable that they have been told that none of the Image Partners can Opt Out. They expect their images in their collection to be embeddable in the near future.

My guess is that Getty has to go through some process to turn embedding on with each collection and they haven't got around to it yet. I suspect that if we wait a week we'll find that it will be possible to embed nearly all the images in the Creative Stock Images and Editorial collections.

This certainly sounds like something Getty would do. Instead of having one simple switch in their software that they can turn on or off they have 500 different switches, each of which has to be individually turned on or off.

« Reply #493 on: March 08, 2014, 10:28 »
+9
The genius of it is that they don't have to share any revenue with the content creator for money generated by the valuable data and information extracted from embedding those images into other sites.

They hugely increase the value of their company without having to pay royalties.

« Reply #494 on: March 08, 2014, 10:32 »
+1
Possibly she made the mistake so many do - hearing "royalty free" and thinking "free"...

Exactly. We need to eradicate every reference to "free" when speaking or writing about our images.

We can lock that barn door, but the horse is already in the next county.

It was a bad mistake in the first place but it really is time to rebrand the license name. Maybe "extended value" licenses would be a good term, or "unlimited value". it only needs the vendors at private sites and maybe one big site to embrace a new name and it could become the new norm. It wouldn't be long before people stopped talking about RF and switched to EV or UV.

How about it?

... maybe "Special Value".....

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #495 on: March 08, 2014, 10:33 »
+10
either way, this whole GI thing stinks big time. they have no right to give my/our work away.

it's wrong.

They can only give your work away if you give it to Getty to do with as they please.

Personally I hope this is the straw that breaks the camels back and all the talented photographers go elsewhere leaving Getty with nothing but pictures of Cats and 'wot I ate for dinner' pictures uploaded from mobile phones.

« Reply #496 on: March 08, 2014, 10:36 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:23 by tickstock »

marthamarks

« Reply #497 on: March 08, 2014, 10:38 »
+4
Personally I hope this is the straw that breaks the camels back and all the talented photographers go elsewhere leaving Getty with nothing but pictures of Cats and 'wot I ate for dinner' pictures uploaded from mobile phones.
Where should they go?

Symbiostock!

« Reply #498 on: March 08, 2014, 10:39 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:24 by tickstock »

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #499 on: March 08, 2014, 10:41 »
+2
They hugely increase the value of their company without having to pay royalties.

It's all perceived value, truth is their turnover is shrinking in size year on year. It may be good for an IPO but eventually they will have to stop cannibalising their own business or their running costs will outstrip the revenue and debt burden.


 

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