pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197228 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #600 on: March 09, 2014, 10:02 »
+12
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.
That may be your experience, but I can firmly say that both the RCs thing (never got to 35% which I would have under the old system almost three years ago, so that's a lot of money I've lost) and their auto-Collections move (how long have you got?) have both demonstratively impacted me negatively.
So forgive me if I don't share your optimism.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 10:38 by ShadySue »


« Reply #601 on: March 09, 2014, 10:12 »
0
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.


I completely agree, I would feel much better about SS if they made the same type of business decisions that most responsible corporations make. I worry that shutterstock is in this shorter term to take advantage of the stock run up.

Companies that are successful long term, do not ignore the people who help them get there. How many Fortune 500 companies stiff the people who help them grow by offering zero cost of living increases for well over 8 years?

And very few Fortune 500 companies take Shutterstock's approach and locate their main offices in the Number One most expensive realestate and cost of living location in the United States. In fact we are seeing the opposite, companies are moving out of expensive metro areas, so that they can remain competitive and offer employees better quality of life. No wonder shutterstock has high employee turnover.

There are plenty of high tech metro locations which shutterstock could have chosen that would offer a qualified workforce, low housing and lower cost of living expenses for shutterstock's workforce. This would result in higher employee retention, lower training, healthcare and other associated company expenses.

The PPI Tech/Info Job Ranking
http://tinyurl.com/kk9zjpd

America's Top 25 High-Tech Hotspots
http://tinyurl.com/lgbncxh

Americas Leading High-Tech Metros
http://tinyurl.com/7zmxekd

Where Techies Call It Home [Infographic]


Manhattan and Brooklyn Highest Cost of Living Nationwide
http://tinyurl.com/9ractoa

Snip
Manhattan and Brooklyn are the most expensive places to live in the United States, according to research from the nonprofit Council for Community and Economic Research.

The organization uses pricing data from across the country for almost 60 different items, based in six areashousing, utilities, grocery items, transportation, health care, and miscellaneous goods and servicesto measure the cost of living.

MANHATTAN RENTAL MARKET REPORT
http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report

Snip
To begin 2014, average rents across Manhattan increased 2.07% since the previous month, climbing to $3,833. Pricing for each Non-Doorman unit type across the borough increased since the previous month:

Studios (+1.69%), One-Bedrooms (+0.94%), Two- Bedrooms (+1.22%).

Fifth among worlds priciest office markets
http://tinyurl.com/lf5ek7a
Manhattans Madison and Fifth avenues, with rents averaging $127 per square foot, is the worlds sixth-priciest office market, up from eighth place last year.

The [Madison and Fifth avenues] submarket is home to many of the citys trophy assets, which command higher asking rents, and is a desired location for occupiers like hedge funds and private-equity firms willing to pay triple-digit rents,

Paying the Rent: The Worlds 12 Most Expensive Office Locations
http://tinyurl.com/l44hyve
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 10:15 by gbalex »

Ron

« Reply #602 on: March 09, 2014, 10:20 »
+2
getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringement

Shutterstock

« Reply #603 on: March 09, 2014, 10:20 »
+3
Did you want them to hire an all new staff in Buffalo or pay to move them all?

"As with every choice we make, this was a decision driven by data. By analyzing the addresses of our 300+ NYC-based employees, we discovered the new location would save our staff an average of 3 minutes of commute time each way."

Sorry, back on topic.

« Reply #604 on: March 09, 2014, 10:26 »
0
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.

Well, he didn't say when, or how much... in an infinite universe, in infinite time, anything will happen sooner or later.

« Reply #605 on: March 09, 2014, 10:29 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:20 by tickstock »

« Reply #606 on: March 09, 2014, 10:33 »
-1
Did you want them to hire an all new staff in Buffalo or pay to move them all?

"As with every choice we make, this was a decision driven by data. By analyzing the addresses of our 300+ NYC-based employees, we discovered the new location would save our staff an average of 3 minutes of commute time each way."


Sean I am sure that you are aware that there are companies who move thousands of employees and still find the move cost effective.

To put it into perspective, we are talking about 300 employees and 10 plus million dollars spent on rent and tenant improvements to house those 300 employees over the last year alone.

« Reply #607 on: March 09, 2014, 10:34 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:20 by tickstock »

farbled

« Reply #608 on: March 09, 2014, 10:40 »
+1
20%, when they start monetizing it. 

"There are multiple statements from people in positions to make them along with more information on the Getty website (if you are a Getty contributor you can go there and see more details).  You can look a couple posts up and see the link ShadySue posted.  jjneff posted a quote from Lobo.  "

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/03/gettys-greg-peters-on-why-free-images-are-good-for-photographers-and-for-the-photo-industry.html


Not seeing it. Where does it say 20% in the article you cited? And the 20% referred to in ShadySue's link was about the 80-20 split in what sells and what doesn't. I'm not a Getty contributor, so can you please cite something to back this up?

« Reply #609 on: March 09, 2014, 10:41 »
+12
from bunhill:"
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.
"

Getty's reputation is related completly to their track record of success - or lack thereof - in the last few years.

Shutterstock has been increasing the earnings of artists, istock/getty are making people less and less money.

They also don't communicate professionaly and spring "experiemnts" on people without asking the owners of the content.

Like I said before: a simple opt in button would have been the professional way to work.

If you love the project and are excited about it...go ahead and opt in.

But it is entirely unethical, not to mention completly arrogant to go over everyones heads.

Obviously if the last few years had been successful, reactions would be different.

The only people responsible for the reputation of gettyimages is gettyimages.

But of course it is easier to play the blame game and assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid.

Give the artist an opt in and prove they can make money. Because all we see from the last few years is experiments and falling income.

They could have easily started this project in a way that gave them positive buzz from the artist. Unfortunately, they decided they prefer all the negativity they are getting now.

Or did you seriously think our reactions haven't been factored in?

The controversy has been intentionally provoked.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 10:43 by cobalt »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #610 on: March 09, 2014, 10:42 »
+9
The controversy has been intentionally provoked.
And has successfully diverted heat from the low-payout subs issue.

« Reply #611 on: March 09, 2014, 10:44 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:20 by tickstock »

farbled

« Reply #612 on: March 09, 2014, 10:48 »
+6
20%, when they start monetizing it. 

"There are multiple statements from people in positions to make them along with more information on the Getty website (if you are a Getty contributor you can go there and see more details).  You can look a couple posts up and see the link ShadySue posted.  jjneff posted a quote from Lobo.  "

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/03/gettys-greg-peters-on-why-free-images-are-good-for-photographers-and-for-the-photo-industry.html


Not seeing it. Where does it say 20% in the article you cited? And the 20% referred to in ShadySue's link was about the 80-20 split in what sells and what doesn't. I'm not a Getty contributor, so can you please cite something to back this up?

There is the quote that jjneff posted a page or two ago from Lobo.  In the link he refers to the Getty contract also.

Aaaaand we're back to the original statement when you told Sean that there was more than one source when he mentioned Lobo. Ok, I'm going to assume in the absence of any reliable sources that the 20% is completely made up, except for an opinion by a forum censor.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #613 on: March 09, 2014, 10:49 »
+7
20%, when they start monetizing it. 

"There are multiple statements from people in positions to make them along with more information on the Getty website (if you are a Getty contributor you can go there and see more details).  You can look a couple posts up and see the link ShadySue posted.  jjneff posted a quote from Lobo.  "

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/03/gettys-greg-peters-on-why-free-images-are-good-for-photographers-and-for-the-photo-industry.html


Not seeing it. Where does it say 20% in the article you cited? And the 20% referred to in ShadySue's link was about the 80-20 split in what sells and what doesn't. I'm not a Getty contributor, so can you please cite something to back this up?

There is the quote that jjneff posted a page or two ago from Lobo.  In the link he refers to the Getty contract also.


Yebbut how often has Lobo said something, no doubt prompted by TPTB, which has not come to pass, or not in the way he first said it.

« Reply #614 on: March 09, 2014, 11:01 »
+10
Great article, Sean.  This sentence sums it up for all the freebie hunters out there and should be put on every blogger's forum on the web.

"Basically, youve given up control to part of your blog to a company whos goal is to make as much money for themselves while sharing the least with the people that enable it to make that money."  Sean Locke

Make it clear to them that it's not just the image creators that Getty is abusing, it's potentially ALL content creators.  Why any blog writer would associate with Getty after seeing what they'll do to their own artists is beyond me.

« Reply #615 on: March 09, 2014, 11:02 »
+9
Did you want them to hire an all new staff in Buffalo or pay to move them all?

"As with every choice we make, this was a decision driven by data. By analyzing the addresses of our 300+ NYC-based employees, we discovered the new location would save our staff an average of 3 minutes of commute time each way."

Sorry, back on topic.
Who cares where they are, no one is going to get a raise anytime soon.  I see you haven't corrected your article.  Or replied on the topic, are you still thinking they are planning on not paying?

As far as I know, this usage is still "promotional use", which requires them to pay zero.

And if %20 turns out to get $.0001 per usage, that's still zero in my book.

« Reply #616 on: March 09, 2014, 11:22 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:20 by tickstock »


« Reply #617 on: March 09, 2014, 11:24 »
0
If this link was already posted please remove, I did not go through all 25 pages to check. :)
Anyway interesting text to read.
http://thedambook.com/getty-did-what/

« Reply #618 on: March 09, 2014, 11:37 »
-5
But of course it is easier to play the blame game and assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid.
That's what the msg group often seems like to me: Shutterstock good, Getty bad. Black and white.

I find it disappointing and depressing that some people who were once so bullish about the old microstock model, when that was disrupting established markets a decade ago , can now be so negative about the inevitable further evolution of these models. As if only some change is good. Why not be more positive and interested ?

Surely any business should position itself where it believes the market will go. Personally I believe that free will completely replace cheap in some uses. That certainly does not mean that pictures stop selling or that people who own and manage content will stop earning money from it.

Surely an interested conversation about the what-ifs are what this thread should be about. Instead of worrying etc.

« Reply #619 on: March 09, 2014, 11:44 »
+9
You still have images on Getty (part of the embed program) can't you go there and see more details on the deal?  I don't see why you wouldn't want to be truthful accurate.  One of the biggest reasons people trust you is because they believe you to be an honest, objective person.   Also where are you getting that Getty has claimed this is 'promotional use' looking it up on Google I find your article shows up calling it promotional use but I don't see anyone from Getty or even any other articles claiming that.  I'm sure I'm just missing that, you can provide those links if you like, and no they don't have to be legally binding.   ;)
And if the advertising revenue turns out to be millions, paying out 20% is very much different than 0.

If it isn't "promotional use" then what is it?  If you want to tell me what clause allows them to give usage away for free with no benefit to the other party in the contract, I'll consider changing that part of the article.

And no, there are no details listed anywhere else.

OM

« Reply #620 on: March 09, 2014, 11:48 »
0
Just out of interest, does anyone know whether the EyeEm collection is also part of the 35M?

« Reply #621 on: March 09, 2014, 12:01 »
-4
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:19 by tickstock »

« Reply #622 on: March 09, 2014, 12:44 »
+1
Trying to think this through on a positive side to try and grasp both sides. What if you got paid via advertising 20cents per ad view on our image would it be worth the risk seeing it is  non-commercial use? No I am not a Getty fan boy I am just trying to see if there is real money to be made with this concept. How do people do with youtube ads? do they work? Seeing that images are easier to share the views could be higher then youtube for a lot of them. Forget Getty for a moment...is there any money to be made with this model?

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #623 on: March 09, 2014, 12:55 »
+4
Very few people make money with advertising on YouTube.

Besides, YouTube is a whole different animal. It started out as a way for regular people to post and share silly videos of their families or pets. Getting revenue from it was an unexpected bonus.

On the other hand, Getty started from the beginning as a rep for photographers to make money. The two have pretty much gone in opposite directions, IMO.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-22/its-getting-harder-to-make-money-on-youtube

Ron

« Reply #624 on: March 09, 2014, 12:57 »
+10


 

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