MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197302 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #575 on: March 09, 2014, 01:44 »
+17
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.

Call me crazy, but I don't want to be in bed with a company that dreams up a way to give away my work for free, even if their plan doesn't work out. Who knows what they'll come up with next?


Ron

« Reply #576 on: March 09, 2014, 02:48 »
+1
Tickstock, you went from being against this deal, back to your old Getty defending antics. Did you get an email from Getty saying your content wouldnt be included if you got with the program again?

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #577 on: March 09, 2014, 03:15 »
-8
Call me crazy, but I don't want to be in bed with a company that dreams up a way to give away my work for free, even if their plan doesn't work out. Who knows what they'll come up with next?

There would be no problem if selling digital images was easy but of course it's getting more and more difficult and buyers are no more willing to pay decent prices too so first we had microstock and now we're reaching the third phase : free/embedded images, and who know's what's next, probably super cheap "all you can eat" subscriptions which are already the norm for news-wire agencies since a long time !

We may refuse going in bed with such companies but we must accept the market has changed for worse.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #578 on: March 09, 2014, 03:25 »
-9
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


Of course it's positive because finally someone as big as Getty is trying radical new ways to actually increase sales.

By the way, Klein already talked about doing something similar to Youtube's monetization months ago in a BJP interview.

stocked


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #580 on: March 09, 2014, 03:39 »
-3
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.

But where is the "scandal" ?

Good luck monetizing stuff belonging to the past century like their Photodisc pile of cr-ap.

If you guys think to be marketing genius why you don't sell your own images on your e-commerce site ? You will quickly realize it's going to cost you a LOT in advertising fees to make just a few sales, your net gain will be maybe 5-10% if lucky or you could easily lose a lot of money before even trying to break even.

Shutterstock is spending half of their earnings in advertising and then they've to pay for a whole data center, employees, engineers, and all .... in the very best scenario they're making a 20% net gain per year and this is sustainable only because they're paying us a pittance.

Again, if you think selling photos is easy you're totally wrong and you can see the same going on for music downloads, videos, ebooks, etc

Google, Facebook, Apple, Sony, Samsung, Lenovo ... they're all spending 90 to get back 100 ... none of them is making "good money", they look super rich because they operate on huge volumes but it takes nothing for them to lose billions the next quarter because of whatever unplanned scenario in the market.

Getty itself could crash and burn next year for all we know, and so Shutterstock or iStock, their net margins are too slim to properly cover their as-s, it;s a terminally ill market in reality and they stay afloat because the banks give them fat loans.

If they can barely make profits how can you expect they pay us well ? They can't.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #581 on: March 09, 2014, 03:47 »
-1
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.

Assignments, Prints, Exhibitions, that's where the money is.


« Reply #582 on: March 09, 2014, 03:49 »
+5
If you replace the "We" with "I" your posts will make a lot more sense hobostocker.

The micro community is made up of digital entrepreneurs. Those of us who understand sales and business will always make money.

But yes, there is a large group of talented artists who have either never bothered to think about their business or just shut their eyes and say "I don't want to deal with this money stuff - that is what my agent does." This song is usually accompanied by "I want to be free to be creative!"

I teach at a photography art school, I hear this many times. Very talented people, but it is clear someone else will be making the money of their talent.

For these people Getty is ideal, they'll do all the difficult business thinking for them.

So if you personally cannot see how to make money from your images at a time with incredible and growing demand for quality files, why should we explain it to you?

The community of artists here at msg has extremly successful people.

All this talk about the general public supplying millions of files daily makes no sense. They will never produce quality content consistently.

And using smartphones won't help either, you still need to know how to shoot. The iPhone cannot think for you.

Stock media production takes a very unusual set of skills and a lot of discipline and frustration resilience to make it work.

So, I am not worried about selling my files, but I do need to work with companies who have selling licenses as their main focus.

And I need to react to market trends and understand what the management decisions of companies really mean.

If you have never had a webshop, you have no idea how easy it can be to sell products to all the corners of the world. You will be amazed from where people might buy your stuff, even if they can buy something similar at home or cheaper from amazon.

Thiis is why I don't understand the production companies like Plainpicture, Blend, Tetra images....they can have the same success as stocksy if they want to.

They can still supply Getty if they want. But if they keep part of the content exclusive to their own site, it will be easy to market that specific collection and they will have something unique to draw the customers in.

Image buyers love fresh content the market hasn't seen yet. This is what they pay money for.

With Gettys free for all embedding viewer, the value of fresh content that is not all over the internet has gone up a lot.

So if you are personally pessimistic about your own business, your choice. Keep working those assignments, prints and exhibitions. This is what you personally understand. Good for you.


But I think most people here who do stock will just go and continue to make money.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 03:59 by cobalt »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #583 on: March 09, 2014, 03:51 »
-4
Do YOU work for free ?

You do if you upload to Getty.

Getty is still the only agency who knows how to sell its sh-it.
Good luck with the other third-tier agencies promising the moon.




Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #584 on: March 09, 2014, 03:55 »
-5
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.

Realistically, the maximum they could give us is 30-40% of a sale but then they would make zero profits.
Sorry, not gonna happen !



« Reply #585 on: March 09, 2014, 03:59 »
+5
Do YOU work for free ?

You do if you upload to Getty.

Getty is still the only agency who knows how to sell its sh-it.
Good luck with the other third-tier agencies promising the moon.

The majority of people here have been making money and feeding families without sending Getty a single file. They have been doing it for years.

Are you sure you shouldn't spend more time over in the getty forum with the real "professionals"?

So the unwashed masses of msg can continue to discuss how to make money with the agencies on the right.

Getty isn't even on that list.

Ron

« Reply #586 on: March 09, 2014, 04:06 »
+3
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.

Realistically, the maximum they could give us is 30-40% of a sale but then they would make zero profits.
Sorry, not gonna happen !
Thats not very realistic then

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #587 on: March 09, 2014, 04:09 »
-2
So if you are personally pessimistic about your own business, your choice. Keep working those assignments, prints and exhibitions. This is what you personally understand. Good for you.

But I think most people here who do stock will just go and continue to make money.

I'm not throwing my stock business out of the window anytime soon and frankly i don't see any big decrease in sales as far as i'm concerned.

I'm just saying there are more profitable ways to monetize our work and stock is just one of the many ways photographers can earn a living.

It's you guys who are full of doom and gloom in this long discussion, not me, actually i'm pretty realistic about the market reality because i've seen the same sh-it going on in other industries before, music, audio, video, web design, content, mobile apps, and even outsourcing, all pushing prices down until they reached the rock bottom, what we're seeing now in stock is nothing new at all and we're still having it better than in other fields so we can't complain too much, it's still easier to shoot images than recording songs or coding a mobile game or writing articles for a pittance.

And what about fun, it's a lot more fun to deal with clients face to face than with a computer screen.

« Reply #588 on: March 09, 2014, 04:12 »
+3
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.

Great post Martha and I would love to see it come to pass which it will if enough people have the courage to work for themselves, the skills and talent are available in abundance, just the will to do so is currently seems to be lacking.  I just wish there was as much energy put into Symbiostock as there is in complaining about certain other agencies

« Reply #589 on: March 09, 2014, 05:07 »
+3
Hobostocker, will you be so nice and tell why don't you use edit option to your posts? It would be much easier to read this forum...
Thank you.
Sorry for OT.


... I just wish there was as much energy put into Symbiostock as there is in complaining about certain other agencies
Great point!
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 05:09 by Ariene »

« Reply #590 on: March 09, 2014, 05:29 »
+4
Shutterstock is spending half of their earnings in advertising and then they've to pay for a whole data center, employees, engineers, and all .... in the very best scenario they're making a 20% net gain per year and this is sustainable only because they're paying us a pittance.

If Shutterstock moved from the Empire State Building somewhere to a Buffalo or Syracuse suburb, they could save a lot of money and return some of it to their contributors.

« Reply #591 on: March 09, 2014, 05:31 »
+6
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.

Assignments, Prints, Exhibitions, that's where the money is.

Assignments - maybe for some. Prints, Exhibitions - in your dream!


« Reply #592 on: March 09, 2014, 06:15 »
+11
Its hard to see how Gettyor anyone, reallycan claim with a straight face they are creating an innovation . . . and a few sentences later, says they have no choice but to take this course of action.

There is zero innovation that comes from having one choice. Thats what people with blinders on do: the only thing they can.

So which is it??? Innovation or no choice? Its not both because it can not be both. If they really had no choice then stop claiming this as an innovation. Disruption, yes. Innovation, no.

« Reply #593 on: March 09, 2014, 06:22 »
+2
Shutterstock is spending half of their earnings in advertising and then they've to pay for a whole data center, employees, engineers, and all .... in the very best scenario they're making a 20% net gain per year and this is sustainable only because they're paying us a pittance.

If Shutterstock moved from the Empire State Building somewhere to a Buffalo or Syracuse suburb, they could save a lot of money and return some of it to their contributors.

Better yet, move somewhere like Chapel Hill or Atlanta where it's even cheaper, and they'd probably get some serious tax breaks to do it. Not to mention the weather and quality of life are better.

« Reply #594 on: March 09, 2014, 08:34 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:21 by tickstock »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #595 on: March 09, 2014, 08:54 »
+3
Article includes internal video from Craig Peters describing embedding to contributors:

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2014/03/getty-images-progressive-destructive/
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 09:02 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #596 on: March 09, 2014, 08:56 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:21 by tickstock »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #597 on: March 09, 2014, 09:09 »
+4
"The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency."

http://www.pdnonline.com/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml

That's from 2011.


So I realized, which is why I replaced it. But it is interesting to see how long photographer's organizations have been encouraging people to bail out of Getty.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #598 on: March 09, 2014, 09:19 »
+2
"The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency."

http://www.pdnonline.com/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml

That's from 2011.


So I realized, which is why I replaced it. But it is interesting to see how long photographer's organizations have been encouraging people to bail out of Getty.

In the UK, they've been saying it since well before 2006 - I know that for a fact, because Getty was the Big Ogre in the UK long before I started iStock, which was in late 2006.

All it goes to show is that you can't get enough traction to fight the beast. Probably mostly because even though people realise that Getty is a threat, they are not agreed on the best way to proceed outwith their clutches. Divide and conquer. And the legal threat from 2011 seems to have come to naught.

FWIW, I wrote to the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies (BAPLA) when the Getty-Google thing was announced and got an auto- reply promising a response within 48 hours. I didn't get that, and my follow-up email only got the auto-receipt reply too. For those who haven't heard of it, BAPLA is the UK sister organisation of CEPIC in Europe and PACA in the USA, and Getty is a member.
"BAPLAs core objectives:
    Represent picture libraries and agencies of all sizes and types.
    Encourage best practice within the industry.
    Lobby at UK and international level to ensure the core principles of our industry are protected.
    Develop and deliver solutions on 21st Century copyright.
    Channel the knowledge and expertise of the wider picture community."

« Reply #599 on: March 09, 2014, 09:50 »
+1
Are you sure you shouldn't spend more time over in the getty forum with the real "professionals"?

So the unwashed masses of msg can continue to discuss how to make money with the agencies on the right.

IMO it is shocking the way in which anyone who does not go along with the groupthink here gets dismissed. Often people who have years of background in these markets and how image is sold. Whilst anything anti-Getty is popular, however wild or ignorant of the actual economics.

People here especially should be savvy re the implications of an internet economy and at least see the logic and benefits behind Getty beginning to gradually address and explore the way in which the licensing model must begin to change in response to how images are used. Especially people who were once happy (and right) to justify as inevitable the old microstock model when that was the new thing which disrupted a previous very brief status quo.

Also - IMO at every stage every historical iStock controversy has turned out to be nothing much (with the possible exception of f5 which was idiotic IMO and signalled how out of their depth the old team were) . Why not step back and take a calmer longer term view. React to how things actual happen instead of seeing everything as a 'sky is falling' event.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 09:52 by bunhill »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13168 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
5332 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