pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197185 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EmberMike

« Reply #525 on: March 08, 2014, 13:34 »
+7
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...

I think this is one of the most important things said in this thread, maybe on this whole forum in recent days. Probably worth starting a whole other thread about.

People want to know what they can do to retain some control in this business, keep the big companies from taking and taking and not giving anything back. I think the #1 thing anyone can do is not give all of the control to a handful of companies. Or worse, a single company.

The biggest threat to the success so many people see at Shutterstock is the fact that so many people see such huge success there. Over 50% of many peoples' microstock income comes from Shutterstock. And as much as I am happy to see Shutterstock succeed, it's also a little terrifying that a single company has so much power.

My income from 2012 to 2013 increased by 30%. My income at Shutterstock represented 55% of my 2012 income, 49% of my 2013 income. I'm happy with that trend. I think it means I'm doing something right with diversifying my portfolio across enough growing companies and keeping my situation a little safer.

It's a lesson that I think a lot of people learn the hard way in working with Getty/iStock. Giving any one company so much power and control is dangerous. And counterproductive, I think. You are absolutely right, cobalt, there are so many good opportunities out there. Opportunities beyond the Poll list, too. I hope that anyone looking to make a move away from Getty is looking at all of the opportunities available to them, not just the obvious ones.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #526 on: March 08, 2014, 13:49 »
+2
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.

Yes but in the long run they will earn a terrible reputation among pros and ultimately they give a bad name to the whole stock industry.

Good luck to the next su-ck-er in line ready to buy Getty for 10 or 20 billion $ ...



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #527 on: March 08, 2014, 13:55 »
-1
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.

Looking at the very worst possible scenario, Getty could pretty much self-destroy its own industry if they start making more money with advertising and embedding and semi-free images, who are we to judge ? it's all about money, not about us, we're just the suppliers and nowadays there's an endless supply of cheap images and buyers seem to be more than willing to use cr-ap shot with iphones even for commercial and expensive stuff.

All i can say is pro photographers will be forced to adapt or die but this could be beneficial for us in many ways, we should all go back to assignment jobs because that's where the money is.

« Reply #528 on: March 08, 2014, 13:58 »
0
/
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 14:07 by tickstock »

« Reply #529 on: March 08, 2014, 14:17 »
0
BaldricksTrousers on: March 05, 2014, 20:12
Quote
I take it this includes iStock "from Getty".

Does it?
I made a few searches for my istock images on Getty and couldn't find any there (although some were on Thinkstock).
 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 14:21 by LesPalenik »

stocked

« Reply #530 on: March 08, 2014, 14:25 »
-3
I still think Getty made a brilliant move for them but not for us.
But you have to admit it's a revolution not the kind I would had hoped for but as a blogger I would be super excited about this move. Wordpress will offer PlugIns etc in no time this embedding feature will rule the blogs and small newspapers in no time.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #531 on: March 08, 2014, 14:43 »
+1
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.

Look, i'm just saying Getty is diversifying and by trial and error they're waiting to see what will stick on the wall.

And by the way, we should never put all our eggs in the stock basket, there's still so much traditional photography going on despite the bad economy and all, i've friend who switched from news to fashion to weddings to events to workshops, either that or they were going bankrupt and yet they're still doing fine now.

We must accept the photographic market is getting tougher and tougher, even Nikon announced big losses in the last quarter, blaming smartphones for decreasing sales of pocket cameras (which is their core business, not the DSLRs).

So, photographers struggling, camera makers struggling, agencies selling images for 1$ or even for free.
No matter how you paint it, it's a buyers' market now and it ain't gonna change soon and i said many times already we still have it better than journalists or photojournalists, they're the ones scrapping the bottom of the barrel and begging for assignments or food stamps.




Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #532 on: March 08, 2014, 14:44 »
+1
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'.

It's immoral but what else do you expect from companies like Getty ?

Besides that, promotional use with the photographer's credit line is also promoting ourselves, correct me if i'm wrong.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #533 on: March 08, 2014, 14:47 »
0
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.

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

it's wrong.

Can we really blame agencies for making profits ? are they a business or are they a charity ?
Do YOU work for free ?

It's getting a bit boring to read dozens of pages with comments like this.

Yes, getty is as greedy as it gets but so are many bad photographers i know who ripoff and scam their gullible customers, we're not saints either.

I mean, now it's take it or leave it, if Getty is so bad than stick with SS and good luck making a living selling subs for 0.30$




« Reply #534 on: March 08, 2014, 14:47 »
+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'.

It's immoral but what else do you expect from companies like Getty ?

Besides that, promotional use with the photographer's credit line is also promoting ourselves, correct me if i'm wrong.

We all know what "credit" will buy you...

Just sold two blog sized images through my Symbiostock site.  Guess I should have been giving them away for free.  What was I thinking?

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #535 on: March 08, 2014, 14:49 »
+1
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.

Actually I'm the only one who keep saying we either find a profitable niche or we diversify or we move to greener pastures.

Generic mediocre stock images are dime a dozen nowadays and will lose their remaining value pretty soon, first on Getty and then anywhere else, they'll become a given and a commodity.




« Reply #536 on: March 08, 2014, 14:53 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:22 by tickstock »

« Reply #537 on: March 08, 2014, 15:01 »
+4
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?


Symbiostock is very much alive, and there are templates -- there's even a home page generator for those who don't wish to design their own.

setting up a site is straightforward, the main time, like submitting to an agency , is uploading images

the biggest advantage remains that only a few sales will outperform 90% of the other agencies listed in the ms poll

http://cascoly-images.com/pix/sell-your-photography/

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #538 on: March 08, 2014, 15:02 »
+3
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.

Actually I'm the only one who keep saying we either find a profitable niche or we diversify or we move to greener pastures.

Generic mediocre stock images are dime a dozen nowadays and will lose their remaining value pretty soon, first on Getty and then anywhere else, they'll become a given and a commodity.

So at what point do agencies start giving away all photos including professional-awesome-really-expesnsive-to-produce-niche photos where they make money but we don't? And then photos aren't worth anything.

There's plenty of generic mediocre products everywhere. But everything has a price point. That's why there is generic mediocre clothing. Generic mediocre food. Generic mediocre cameras. Does that mean all that stuff should be free? That would be nice but it's not going to happen.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #539 on: March 08, 2014, 15:04 »
0
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.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Before jumping and screaming in horror we should wait 6-12 months in order to move accordingly, this whole embedded stuff could just be yet another fiasco for all we know.

Bad for photographers ? unless it's paid very well even Stock is indeed bad for photographers, ask anyone working on assignments.

Our photos have a value only as long as someone is willing to pay for it.
The cr-ap sold for millions of $ in art gallery are valueable because it's a Ponzi scheme and therefore there's a market for that, at least for a while, and good luck to the last suc-ker in the chain.

Stock images have a value only as long as they're cheaper than assignments, that's the simple reason why stock is born.

So, from the very start this industry existed ONLY because it was meant to be cheaper than its direct competition, is it any wonder that now we're fighting for pennies ? it was the logical consequence of the inevitable price war and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

« Reply #540 on: March 08, 2014, 15:26 »
+2
......
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.

.....

it's not that photographers are de-valuing their work -- the world has changed.  when creating  stock was time consuming and expensive (physically mailing slides to customers, so that only a handful could see them at a time), simple stock images could command $100 or much more.  digital stock changed that -- you could then buy a cd with 100 images for that price! 

it's not that the images are worth less , rather too many photographers still believe their images had that value in the first place; forgetting it was the process, not any intrinsic value in the image.

technology, not microstock agencies, has torn the innards out of the photography business  -- agencies, flicker, getty et al are merely RE-ACTING to the reality that photos ARE now a commodity. 

so photographers need to decide which path to take -- find the few remaining areas where individual photographers can still command a livable sum; or find ways to make money in this new world. 

mlwinphoto

« Reply #541 on: March 08, 2014, 16:08 »
0
Just sold two blog sized images through my Symbiostock site.  Guess I should have been giving them away for free.  What was I thinking?

Expect a refund request soon.....and don't let it happen again.... ;)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 19:21 by mlwinphoto »


« Reply #542 on: March 08, 2014, 16:17 »
+7
But you have to admit it's a revolution not the kind I would had hoped for but as a blogger I would be super excited about this move. Wordpress will offer PlugIns etc in no time this embedding feature will rule the blogs and small newspapers in no time.

Maybe some gullible bloggers will get excited.
As a blogger myself, I would never use such surreptitious elements (being exposed to future changes of the embedded images and contaminating my blogsite), and give Getty free stats on the traffic on my blogsite. On top of it, also the response times for the retrieval of embedded images will suffer.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 20:42 by LesPalenik »

« Reply #543 on: March 08, 2014, 16:21 »
+1
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'.

It's immoral but what else do you expect from companies like Getty ?

Besides that, promotional use with the photographer's credit line is also promoting ourselves, correct me if i'm wrong.

We all know what "credit" will buy you...

Just sold two blog sized images through my Symbiostock site.  Guess I should have been giving them away for free.  What was I thinking?

Congratulations to your Symbiostock sales, Sean! Two Symbio sales will beat 1 million free Getty rentals. And no blog stats are passed to Getty!

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #544 on: March 08, 2014, 16:23 »
+7
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.

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

it's wrong.

Do YOU work for free ?


You do if you upload to Getty.

« Reply #545 on: March 08, 2014, 16:38 »
+8
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/03/08/free-images-from-getty-why-it-matters/


Every photographer and user of photography should read this - the best article on this whole debacle by far.

marthamarks

« Reply #546 on: March 08, 2014, 17:33 »
+2

Do YOU work for free ?

You do if you upload to Getty.

+1  Bingo!

Rinderart

« Reply #547 on: March 08, 2014, 17:49 »
+3

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #548 on: March 08, 2014, 18:30 »
+1
Excellent article, Sean.

BTW, has anyone officially confirmed that if an image is removed from Getty, it will disappear from any embedded locations? I thought I'd been keeping up, but I've missed that if so.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #549 on: March 08, 2014, 18:30 »
+2
I'll keep this short and maybe people can add details.

On the IS forums it says this: "it's only images on Getty" and looks like about 1/3rd of those. Some collections are exempt. Rasters of the Vectors are included in some cases, but actual Vectors are not.

So no IS and no TS. At this time...  :-*

http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/03/08/free-images-from-getty-why-it-matters/

BaldricksTrousers on: March 05, 2014, 20:12
Quote
I take it this includes iStock "from Getty".


Does it?
I made a few searches for my istock images on Getty and couldn't find any there (although some were on Thinkstock).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13164 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
5328 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
49319 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