pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #500 on: March 08, 2014, 10:43 »
+12
Seriously, agencies owe us nothing...snip...

And what happens if we all withdraw all of our images from these agencies?  We are their lifeblood, seems like they owe us everything.  It's just that some seem to have forgotten that.


« Reply #501 on: March 08, 2014, 10:44 »
+8
They will move to all the other agencies or sell direct. There is a huge world of agencies out there.

The exclusives just have no idea how many opportunities there are. But a lot of people can see the writing on the wall, especially with the looming subs, so they are already moving their content.

The success of stocksy has also woken up a lot of people in the high end. They have to ask themselves: if stocksy can be so incredible successful with such a small team - what are they doing wrong?

But if you believe that unless you can sell via Getty your work is worthless, if you allow them to judge you and demoralize you...YOUR choice...
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 10:49 by cobalt »

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #502 on: March 08, 2014, 10:50 »
+2
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?

Any of the Top Tier, Corbis, Stocksy take your pick.

My February indie earnings were close to equaling my february 2012 iS exclusive earnings without iS.

The transition to indy was painful but I'm glad I did it, my income feels much more stable as an indy now.

« Reply #503 on: March 08, 2014, 10:57 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:47 by tickstock »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #504 on: March 08, 2014, 11:05 »
+7
On the other hand, exclusives are reporting that their earnings are dropping year after year. At some point the tipping point will be reached where income from exclusivity will equal income from non-exclusivity, and Getty giving images away free is bringing that point rapidly closer.

« Reply #505 on: March 08, 2014, 11:08 »
+3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:47 by tickstock »

« Reply #506 on: March 08, 2014, 11:13 »
+1
I read that Getty Images is partnering with Stipple. I went there to check it out and it looks like anyone can sign up.

https://stipple.com/creators [nofollow]

From how I understand it, you are granting them a non-exclusive license to spread your content all over the Internet. However, you retain copyright and the information you embed in it stays with it. So, you could advertise your own photography website and personal social media. That would be an improvement over letting Getty use your content to advertise their website.

I think I might just try it out with a few images and put my own ads in it to see how it goes. I'm wondering if you could use it in affiliate marketing? Like say if I wanted to promote something, I could take a picture of it and put in my affiliate link? I would be interested in any one else thought that. Just thinking out loud.

« Reply #507 on: March 08, 2014, 11:16 »
+16
It takes more than a year to recover your income. I dont understand why people always think there is a "magic button" to instantly move up into the best search positions on the other agencies. They wouldt be earning what they do now if they came in new to istock/getty with their portfolios, even if everything was accepted and went live immediately.

Sean could be earning a lot more money now, if he had embraced Shutterstock. Yuri had 3000 - 4000 downloads a day. At around 70 cents to one dollar on average, you just need a fraction of that to pay your bills.

Instead Sean decided to join a total start up and otherwise focussed on ethical companies that were low earners. This year he is following a different approach.

Do you have any  doubts, that he will be successful?? I dont.

Robert Kneschke keeps posting his results, he is now at over 13 000 dollars of revenue a month as a single artist without employees and saw a YOY growth of 28% last year.

80% of his income is from Fotolia and Shutterstock, he hardly supplies the macros, because he makes easier money on the micros.
He stopped supplying istock in 2010.

Will I earn 13 000 dollars a month in one year, even if I had 12 000 files ready and sitting and uploaded them? No, because my files need to move up in the best match search positions. This takes time.

But if you work consistently and think about your content, I really dont see a problem. I only have 600-700 files on average on the agencies because I took a whole year to understand the wider industry. And I have come to the conclusion I should have gone indie  earlier.

There is absolutely no way I am going back, I love money.

And Getty is not even giving you any vision that there will be money in the future, all we keep reading is how it is all over, we have to accept that our work is worthless etc...

So why would my main focus be there?

I supply istock as a normal subs agency, like I supply Fotolia or Shutterstock. I might even see growth there when they add more subs customers.

But there is so much money out there, you just have to open your ideas and work smart.

The stock industry is a market with over 6 Billion dollars a year. Getty has a large piece with 870 million, but there is so much more.

But if you are looking for a perfect blueprint for someone to write it out for you so that you just follow in their footsteps without thinking for yourself...why would I do that? I share a lot, but not everything. ;)

« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 11:28 by cobalt »

« Reply #508 on: March 08, 2014, 11:25 »
+4
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:46 by tickstock »


« Reply #510 on: March 08, 2014, 11:30 »
+3
We do have a difference of opinion.  I can't see myself ever contributing to Fotolia or iStock as a nonexclusive.

Like I said, your choice.

You will now be selling subs on istock and Getty shares your files for free.

I am not trying to be cynical. i gave you a heart, because I understand. I used to think like that as well.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 11:32 by cobalt »

« Reply #511 on: March 08, 2014, 11:30 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:46 by tickstock »

« Reply #512 on: March 08, 2014, 11:33 »
+5
Good article:
http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2014/03/07/getty-images-not-quite-free-to-use/


Very good article, Sean - thanks for sharing.

Unfortunately, I doubt if many of the thousands of people who are already using this "free" feature of Getty have read the terms.  They get to the part that says FREE = GETTY and that's all they need to know.

By the way - I read your latest at your site.  Great recap.  You do a really fine service to your fellow photographers by sharing so much of what is happening in the industry.  On behalf of all of us....

Thank you.

« Reply #513 on: March 08, 2014, 11:35 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:23 by tickstock »

« Reply #514 on: March 08, 2014, 11:37 »
+9
By the way - I read your latest at your site.  Great recap.  You do a really fine service to your fellow photographers by sharing so much of what is happening in the industry.  On behalf of all of us....


Cheers.  Here's another :)
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/03/08/free-images-from-getty-why-it-matters/

« Reply #515 on: March 08, 2014, 11:38 »
+7
After the google scam I expected this kind of scheme. However, I thought they would create freestock with the Flickr and Istock collections possibly with some other collections too. The scale of this scheme is surprising. After the google scam I have been only deleting stuff from IS. They offered me a contract through Flickr, I even printed it out, but never signed it because I was sure they wanted to scam me.

No doubt SS and DT will be hit, I will be hit personally because my photos are often used in editorial contexts. I think the chances that Getty succeeds are 50:50. The more top photographers quit, the lower Gettys chances are.
 
Did Getty devalue photography? In the lower end of the market yes, definetely. As for high-end commercial photography I would say no, at least not for now. Most of all they devalued their own collections. It actually raised the value of independent exclusive commercial collections, like Stocksy. Who would now licence Getty photos for big bucks? Their photos will float everywhere, why would big brands use them in their campaigns? This is a Getty Images picture, even losers and hobos can afford it.

I dont want to whine about Getty. I haven't read the whole thread. I will try adapt to the new situation and look for alternatives.  I started to learn programming this week I am happy I can upload my best work to Stocksy.

What can be done about Getty? I believe the only solution is a big, multi-tiered co-op run by the right people. The Stocksy team did an excellent job and is very successful, but it is not designed to challenge the whole of Getty. Two years ago I was very skeptical about co-ops in the context of stock but Stocksy proved that the co-op model can work, and that happy cows give more milk.

A big, multi-tier, multi-collection co-op could now challenge Getty, even if particaption in the co-op required buying shares to fund it. For sure many top Getty photographers are sick and tired by now. A co-op could have a lower end collection to challenge Gettys freestock if the real profits are distributed among photographers. It's not impossible. The only way to fight Getty is to deprive them of content.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 11:49 by Snufkin »

« Reply #516 on: March 08, 2014, 11:41 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:23 by tickstock »


« Reply #517 on: March 08, 2014, 11:45 »
+13
I think contributors will see income from the ad revenue generated by images in the embed viewer.

This income can also be clawed back after a year or two, when they discover a "glitch" in the viewer. These muppets cannot even calculate subscription royalties, why do you expect they would be able to report ad revenue? It would be rocket science for them.

« Reply #518 on: March 08, 2014, 11:46 »
+8
By the way - I read your latest at your site.  Great recap.  You do a really fine service to your fellow photographers by sharing so much of what is happening in the industry.  On behalf of all of us....


Cheers.  Here's another :)
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/03/08/free-images-from-getty-why-it-matters/

I think contributors will see income from the ad revenue generated by images in the embed viewer.  In your article you seem to say they won't but it's hard to tell if you are just talking about the data collecting part, which by the way I don't think Shutterstock is sharing with contributors either.


I'm saying I haven't seen anything that concretely says contributors will ever see any money (fair or not) from this.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #519 on: March 08, 2014, 11:47 »
+5
On the other hand, exclusives are reporting that their earnings are dropping year after year. At some point the tipping point will be reached where income from exclusivity will equal income from non-exclusivity, and Getty giving images away free is bringing that point rapidly closer.

My Istock income isn't dropping. Yet. But my downloads are dropping to 2008 levels and income is only being propped up by price increases and stuff like E+ on Getty. So the stable income is just an illusion. Eventually for me, there absolutely will be a tipping point, soon.

My non-stock and direct stock sales are increasing nicely. And direct sales are showing that my work is worth way more than $1 or even $100. But now as an exclusive I need to send direct buyers to IS and I get 35% of $5-$50 per image. Some buyers are shocked at the prices. Selling direct I could be getting 100% of hundreds of dollars per image. Plus with every new program GI rolls out the trend seems to be benefits for them and either little, or even negative, financial benefits for contributors.

I have nothing against Getty. I've earned plenty of money through them and appreciate the opportunity. But business is business and it's my choice to work with them or not. At some point a business arrangement may no longer make sense and I may be getting close to that point.


« Reply #520 on: March 08, 2014, 11:48 »
+3
By the way - I read your latest at your site.  Great recap.  You do a really fine service to your fellow photographers by sharing so much of what is happening in the industry.  On behalf of all of us....


Cheers.  Here's another :)
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/03/08/free-images-from-getty-why-it-matters/


Another stellar recap, Sean.  Best article online yet that I've read summarizing the situation.  Should be required reading for any photographer who sells stock or is interested in making money with their photos.

My biggest concern on this move by Getty is that for the vast majority of non-photographers, this move makes them think that all of Gettys photos are free for online use.

Thats sure been the reaction of a the many bloggers who have applauded this move with a standing ovation online.

And ultimately, whether it does hurt sales or not it threatens the premise that an image has value and cant be used for free in all situations. That devaluation is a real threat to photographers worldwide.

« Reply #521 on: March 08, 2014, 11:51 »
+3
It actually raised the value of independent exclusive commercial collections, like Stocksy. Who would now licence Getty photos for big bucks? Their photos will float everywhere, why would big brands use them in their campaigns? This is a Getty Images picture, even losers and hobos can afford it.


Yes, I agree - the content on stocksy just increased tremendously in value. Even RM content can be embedded in the viewer, how silly is that?

Offset, stocksy,imagebrief and other specialised agencies - they will be the big winners, no doubt.

Just imagine you are a salesperson working for them - "Do you really want to go and pay 500 dollars at that other site...did you see the little embed icon below the file where anyone can use it for free"...this will make selling, especially at higher prices, a lot easier.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #522 on: March 08, 2014, 11:53 »
+5
By the way - I read your latest at your site.  Great recap.  You do a really fine service to your fellow photographers by sharing so much of what is happening in the industry.  On behalf of all of us....


Cheers.  Here's another :)
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/03/08/free-images-from-getty-why-it-matters/

I think contributors will see income from the ad revenue generated by images in the embed viewer.  In your article you seem to say they won't but it's hard to tell if you are just talking about the data collecting part, which by the way I don't think Shutterstock is sharing with contributors either.


Maybe...but that's a loooong way off. First Getty has to get many, many images embedded, then prove to advertisers they'll get a decent ROI. And so far this announcement is not even a blip on the radar of the advertising trade press. Not one word about it. Nobody cares. (In fact, I'm in the camp that feels this will devalue the images used, because advertisers don't like to use the same images everyone else does.)

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #523 on: March 08, 2014, 11:55 »
+4
By the way - I read your latest at your site.  Great recap.  You do a really fine service to your fellow photographers by sharing so much of what is happening in the industry.  On behalf of all of us....


Cheers.  Here's another :)
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/03/08/free-images-from-getty-why-it-matters/

I think contributors will see income from the ad revenue generated by images in the embed viewer.  In your article you seem to say they won't but it's hard to tell if you are just talking about the data collecting part, which by the way I don't think Shutterstock is sharing with contributors either.


I'm saying I haven't seen anything that concretely says contributors will ever see any money (fair or not) from this.


Yes, "maybe at some undefined point down the road" doesn't pay bills for using my images. And even if there is an opportunity how can we assume we'll like the royalty structure? They could make a fortune on advertising revenue and come up with some secret royalty scheme where we get peanuts like Connect's .001 cents.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #524 on: March 08, 2014, 12:55 »
+3
I think contributors will see income from the ad revenue generated by images in the embed viewer.

Working that crystal ball in the dark again? Where do you get this "I think" from. Any shred of evidence? Or you just want to believe in something that I think will never happen.

Now who's I think has more credibility? (possibly neither) But we don't know!

Did you read Sean's article and all the loopholes and conditions and vague limitations? It's obvious by the terms that imbedded ads will be added at some date. (I think?)

As for data collection, from IS or other sites? Nice try, who cares. All sites do that and they have no obligation to share it.


 

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
49321 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