pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197245 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #550 on: March 08, 2014, 18:42 »
0
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.


Brilliant Piece.


Really an excellent essay! Thank you Sean!


marthamarks

« Reply #551 on: March 08, 2014, 18:44 »
+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?

Symbiostock!
Thanks, I needed a laugh after reading this thread.  ;)

Glad I gave you a good laugh, Tickstock!  :D

However, the truth is if all those "talented photographers" mentioned above actually did leave Getty and start their own Symbiostock sitesand if we all made a lot of very public celebratory noise about itthe SYS network as a whole would take off. It's poised to do that right now but needs more strong artists to join in. A bold and gutsy collective act like that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

There's strength in numbers, but only if people have the courage to band together and fight for themselves.

farbled

« Reply #552 on: March 08, 2014, 18:52 »
+1
Well there goes the new camera body for my work this year like I had planned. I have to wait and see how/if this affects my stock income. Sorry Nikon.

« Reply #553 on: March 08, 2014, 18:57 »
+1
"So no IS and no TS. At this time...  "

Well, we already know E+ and Vetta are included, and what is TS but stuff that's on Getty?

« Reply #554 on: March 08, 2014, 19:00 »
-5
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:22 by tickstock »

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #555 on: March 08, 2014, 19:04 »
+1
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.

You're probably right the impact could be very small. The real scandal will be when the advertising platform kicks in and the percentage payments to photographers will be unknowable. I still have no idea what the Getty Connect royalties really are or what advertisers actually pay for these clicks? They are such an opaque and powerful company they are impossible to prise open.

In the meantime I'll be scouring news sites to see if they switch over to these embeds, that will be when the sh*t really hits the fan.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #556 on: March 08, 2014, 19:08 »
+2
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.

You're probably right the impact could be very small. The real scandal will be when the advertising platform kicks in and the percentage payments to photographers will be unknowable. I still have no idea what the Getty Connect royalties really are or what advertisers actually pay for these clicks? They are such an opaque and powerful company they are impossible to prise open.

In the meantime I'll be scouring news sites to see if they switch over to these embeds, that will be when the sh*t really hits the fan.

Apparently/allegedly (i.e 'according to Lobo') they're going to pay 20% of any advertising/other monetisation revenue, but as you say, there is no transparency.

« Reply #557 on: March 08, 2014, 19:10 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:22 by tickstock »

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #558 on: March 08, 2014, 19:16 »
+4
Apparently/allegedly (i.e 'according to Lobo') they're going to pay 20% of any advertising/other monetisation revenue, but as you say, there is no transparency.

You never know what the advertisers cost actually is, anything can be dumped in there, admin costs etc before the 20% royalty is reluctantly dished out. It's deliberately opaque behaviour and makes me very suspicious of how much money is actually flowing through these schemes.

At least with straight forward licensing you can reverse engineer the original income generated to get an inkling of whether you've been stiffed or not.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #559 on: March 08, 2014, 19:19 »
+3
There are other sources as well (more than my crystal ball Pete).  Transparency is not something any of these companies are known for even the Shutterstock deal Sean praises isn't exactly transparent.

True none of it is particularly pretty, but f*(k me this latest Getty scheme makes YayMicro and their crazy schemes look positively rosy.

« Reply #560 on: March 08, 2014, 19:24 »
0
Per Lobo:

Posted By georgeclerk:

I've not read all the detail around this, so sorry if this question has already been answered..


It sounds as though Getty are planning to monetize this concept by including advertising along with the embedded images that can be used freely.


Question - will Getty be paying 20% royalties to artists for the revenue generated from this?

The answer to your question is yes, George.

« Reply #561 on: March 08, 2014, 19:26 »
+1
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.

You're probably right the impact could be very small. The real scandal will be when the advertising platform kicks in and the percentage payments to photographers will be unknowable. I still have no idea what the Getty Connect royalties really are or what advertisers actually pay for these clicks? They are such an opaque and powerful company they are impossible to prise open.

In the meantime I'll be scouring news sites to see if they switch over to these embeds, that will be when the sh*t really hits the fan.

Getty's royalties to photographers ? At least an order or two of magnitude less than what you are getting now.

shudderstok

« Reply #562 on: March 08, 2014, 19:29 »
+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?

that is the question of the day.

the whole industry is a mess.


Uncle Pete

« Reply #563 on: March 08, 2014, 19:44 »
+3
I should have been more clear, the Independent IS and TS files, are not included at this time. IS files that are not on Getty, are not included. What I wrote was GETTY only. So the path to Getty even if it includes Exclusives on IS or Getty people who aren't on IS, is still from Getty, not from IS? (and sure feel free to correct me, I read it on the IS forum)  :)

About the 20% part. Different numbers have been tossed out, but I'll accept that IF this is ever monetized and someone gets 20% that could be (using web standards, not my crystal ball) 1 cent for a click. 20% would be .002 cents per click. On a small blog, why someone could bring in as much as 80 cents, maybe even a dollar for 500 clicks! And the one cent might be high!

When they say how much really, then I'll believe it. Until then we are guessing. And I need to add, who's the source? Lobo or IS and Getty. Oh good, 100% accurate and truthful sources.  ??? They would never lie to us, change or go back on promises. No not them.

Quote is Craig Peters from Getty:  ...the company has "certainly thought about" monetizing usage data, but has no specific plans.



"So no IS and no TS. At this time...  "

Well, we already know E+ and Vetta are included, and what is TS but stuff that's on Getty?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 09:17 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #564 on: March 08, 2014, 19:51 »
+6
A forum post about %20 is not a contact, or dependable.

« Reply #565 on: March 08, 2014, 19:56 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:22 by tickstock »

« Reply #566 on: March 08, 2014, 20:34 »
+1
A forum post about %20 is not a contact, or dependable.
That's not the only source.

I must have missed the other legally binding sources.  Links?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #567 on: March 08, 2014, 20:39 »
+2
A forum post about %20 is not a contact, or dependable.
That's not the only source.

I must have missed the other legally binding sources.  Links?

Do they consider anything legally binding, if it benefits us, not them?

« Reply #568 on: March 08, 2014, 20:42 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:21 by tickstock »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #569 on: March 08, 2014, 20:58 »
+9
Interview with Craig Peters, Senior Vice President of Business Development, Marketing at Content Images at Getty,
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/03/gettys-greg-peters-on-why-free-images-are-good-for-photographers-and-for-the-photo-industry.html

FWIW
"PDN: If you generate ad revenues from this initiative, will you share that revenue with contributors?
CP: The answer is yes. This is their content, and if we generate any revenue from that content, we not only have the obligation, but we have every intent to share that revenue.

PDN: How might that be divvied up with contributors?
CP: We have contractual obligations back to our contributors that require us to pay certain royalty amounts to our contributors."

What a pity they have 'contractual obligation' burdens towards their contributors.
And of course, "we have every intent" means nothing. We all know what the Road to Hell is paved with.

Actually, that whole interview is very scary.
(Sorry to anyone who posted that link earlier, surely it's on this thread, but I need to get to bed ...)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 21:01 by ShadySue »

« Reply #570 on: March 08, 2014, 21:05 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:21 by tickstock »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #571 on: March 08, 2014, 21:11 »
0
Another blog post, again sorry if it's been posted earlier, taking a very postive view:
http://blog.melchersystem.com/2014/03/06/getty-images-gamble

Zzzzzzz

lisafx

« Reply #572 on: March 08, 2014, 22:40 »
+2
A forum post about %20 is not a contact, or dependable.
That's not the only source.

I must have missed the other legally binding sources.  Links?
I'm not sure what you want to see.  Pretty much all the agencies have language that they can change the terms at anytime.  So by that standard nothing is really legally binding for the future on pretty much any agency.  There isn't a new contract as far as I know if that's what you want?

So once again, when asked to name the "sources" you reference for your declarations, you fail to list any at all.  What a surprise!  I guess we would all be as certain as you if we didn't have to bother with the pesky facts.

« Reply #573 on: March 08, 2014, 22:48 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:46 by tickstock »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #574 on: March 09, 2014, 01:21 »
+4
So I was reading about the Getty deal in the NY Times, and noticed this banner ad for Dreamstime...


 

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
49324 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