MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #625 on: March 09, 2014, 13:01 »
0
Lets say this is our idea and we the artist want to start this model. First no rt. click of course and then 20cents for clicked view and no commercial use! If Sean stated this experiment I would probably trust it I do think it is a new way to make money so how can we improve it and use it for your own good instead of Getty. What would it take for this model to work? Can it work? Please I am as angry as you but I can look down the road as well.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #626 on: March 09, 2014, 13:01 »
+4
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?
Not for me, because my images are almost totally not aimed at the commercial market. So 20c would be even worse than starting at SS.

« Reply #627 on: March 09, 2014, 13:03 »
+1
So Spotify pays way to little for it to be worth it. With all the brain power here and the indie Symbo Sites I bet we could hatch a play like this only much better. Help me think this through.

« Reply #628 on: March 09, 2014, 13:05 »
+1
But if you got 20cents per view of your image at SS my bet is you would be pretty rich by now. You see I just don't trust Getty with our best interest in mind. I do like the concept here so lets figure it out.

« Reply #629 on: March 09, 2014, 13:06 »
+10
"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"

Put your thinking in line with .20 per 10000 views, I think.

« Reply #630 on: March 09, 2014, 13:21 »
+6
@bunhill,

it might seem like black and white to you. But don't worry, if SS messes up, we will let them know...

And if Getty did something sensible - abolish the RC system, add the option of exclusive images on istock, the way they have for getty, or simply just real time view for the coming sub sales...they will get my applause.

Getty had nothing to do with the microstock revolution. That was the work of Bruce and his team and then later all the other micro agencies. Getty just bought istock, the way they always try to buy innovation.

They have no track record of in house innovation. It is not part of their company culture.

They are buyers, not innovators. Nothing wrong with that if it is done well. But looking at istock and all the mess they have been creating in the last few years for themselves, they just don't seem to be organically connected to online business 2014. They always come across as still living in the eighties or nineties.

The fact they always keep pointing the blame "elsewhere" tells you everything you need to know. Today business leaders take charge of their own mistakes. Blaming others does not inspire confidence.

But if they do turn the company around and work in a positive, energizing way, their reputation will improve with their success.

« Reply #631 on: March 09, 2014, 13:24 »
+14
There are things Getty could have done to make this much more palatable. (like set it up as some sort of streaming buffet - you pay and then you can pick which images to have shown on your web site).

I think Sean is probably much more realistic with the $ numbers when they do make some $. just a few cents for many many views. now multiply that by .2 and that doesn't leave much for the artist. Multiply it by .8 and 35 million and it might be a nice chunk for Getty.

My guess is that artists see nothing for a while as they don't show ads or anything like that in the hopes that it becomes more popular. Ideally (for Carlyle) they get massive participation and can sell it for big $ without having to try to place ads. Then the next sucker tries to monetize it and it annoys the bloggers enough so that they take them out (perhaps).

There is nothing in their track record to make me optimistic about this move other than the fact that their IT can be so poor that maybe it will fail because of that.

« Reply #632 on: March 09, 2014, 13:31 »
+2
I certainly agree with the .002 per 1000 views as far as Getty goes but could we do it different? It's early in the game, I bet we could.

Ron

« Reply #633 on: March 09, 2014, 13:33 »
0
From a certain person no longer amongst us

Quote
Now if you are a member of GI you can go in to their own Forum and read, not many are worried over there. Why not? because some House members have received PMs telling us exactly whats it all about and its confidential info, as always.

Some 90% of people screaming/shouting over at the MSG for example are just hangers-ons, latching on to something they havent even got a clue about but of course. It sounds good, makes them feel a little important.

« Reply #634 on: March 09, 2014, 13:36 »
+5
...But if they do turn the company around and work in a positive, energizing way, their reputation will improve with their success.


Your posts have been very clear, thoughtful and to the point, but dismissing them as "groupthink" is just an attempt to dismiss them en masse without addressing any of the issues. iStock and Getty's reputations are in the toilet with lots of us because of what they've done, not because of groupthink, however the expression "save your breath to cool your porridge" comes to mind with respect to the spin doctors who for whatever reason feel they need to troll these threads to open our eyes to how we have not been once again damaged by the actions of istock (subs) or Getty (yet another giveaway with no opt out).

As with the Google deal, if it was such a good idea, it should have been easy to offer contributors an opt in - people would be rushing to participate. As it is, there is one beneficiary (if any) and that's Getty/Carlyle. I had noted their alexa ranking last week as part of a comment on the subscription deal. I just checked and surprise surprise it has improved since the announcement:

Global last week /today
3,003  / 2,858

USA last week/today
1,107 / 932

« Reply #635 on: March 09, 2014, 13:37 »
+2
Nobody posts in those forums.  The most recent post in one if the sub forums is from me from a year ago.

« Reply #636 on: March 09, 2014, 13:38 »
+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.

true -- but how many of the thousands of microstockers can even attempt that?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #637 on: March 09, 2014, 13:45 »
+3
If they are ust trying it out, why not use their wholly-owned content to start with; then let people opt in, if they choose.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #638 on: March 09, 2014, 13:48 »
+8
If Getty had run this in a test market somewhere and it had proven successful, then were rolling it out internationally, it would have been welcomed by excited contributors looking forward to making more money. The fact that there's no test, they've sprung it on contributors with no opt out, and they're not sure it'll even work shows they're doing this for reasons other than the way they're attempting to spin it. It's either out of desperation, a way to falsely inflate the value of the company to get a better sell price, or to knock out smaller competitors and perhaps swallow them up to monopolize the market. It's just very fishy they've done no pretesting of such a big decision.

« Reply #639 on: March 09, 2014, 14:00 »
+8
From a certain person no longer amongst us

Quote
Now if you are a member of GI you can go in to their own Forum and read, not many are worried over there. Why not? because some House members have received PMs telling us exactly whats it all about and its confidential info, as always.

Some 90% of people screaming/shouting over at the MSG for example are just hangers-ons, latching on to something they havent even got a clue about but of course. It sounds good, makes them feel a little important.

I've been reading the Getty Contributor's forum at Flickr for the past few days and there are plenty of people jumping up and down. Getty personnel are fielding some of the questions but the answers are often glib and patronizing - scant on detail about any compensation to the contributor and vague on when the embedded images will actually stream advertising and start to accrue revenue.

As usual, your man is talking out of his other hole.

« Reply #640 on: March 09, 2014, 14:01 »
+2
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.

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


that's a percentage, not an amount. I will give you 20% of my earnings from driving racecars.... I have no hands.

« Reply #641 on: March 09, 2014, 14:03 »
+3
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.

true -- but how many of the thousands of microstockers can even attempt that?

Assigments & co. will provide enough work for about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of people bit more involved wih photography


« Reply #642 on: March 09, 2014, 14:09 »
+1

that's a percentage, not an amount. I will give you 20% of my earnings from driving racecars.... I have no hands.

Isn't it so darn frustrating trying to change the ISO with your nose  ;)

farbled

« Reply #643 on: March 09, 2014, 14:19 »
+2
I think I'm over it now.

I keep having to remind myself that the "stock industry" or "photo buyers" as only one thing means next to nothing nowadays. It's too broad a subject and too broad a pool of customers and users.

I strongly suspect that a huge amount of potential buyers will know nothing about Getty, or Shutterstock, or any other agency until they have a need for an image and click on the first agency or site that comes up in Google or another search engine with what they need. I also think this will have a negligible effect on established companies with accounts at agencies, except at Getty of course (whether they'll like this or hate it remains to be seen). Just my opinion, and I'm working on my plan B for just in case it does impact my target market(s).

« Reply #644 on: March 09, 2014, 14:31 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:19 by tickstock »

stocked

« Reply #645 on: March 09, 2014, 14:42 »
+3
Nobody posts in those forums.  The most recent post in one if the sub forums is from me from a year ago.
There are lots of posts on this deal and most all of them have been responded to by Getty.
They avoid answering any questions about how the money this deals brings (ad-money but also money made with the data from this deal) is shared.

« Reply #646 on: March 09, 2014, 14:48 »
-4
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:19 by tickstock »

« Reply #647 on: March 09, 2014, 14:52 »
+16
A few home truths that we should probably come to grips with.

Microstock will never be a source of reasonable income (time/ effort invested to returns made) for most of us - at least I can speak for myself.

Just in the last month we have had 2 issues that go to show how the agencies view contributors.  This Getty embed deal - good or bad - contributors were neither consulted nor given opt out.  And just before that the DP - Shotshop deal that paid contributors lowly sub rates while the eventual sale was for hugely greater amounts.  And if you scan over the last year or two, almost every other agency has unilaterally decreased our commissions, to increase their share.  Furthermore many have forced us into accepting the sub model with absolutely no justification if one sees the volume generated for an individual contributor. Some agency wont let you opt out of the partner programs or give you take it all or leave it all, opt-in ultimatums.  And while all this is going on there are more and more contributors and uploads, that have now taken the larger agencies to 20 million+ images - further strengthening them to act willfully backed by large and growing reserves of images.

What does all of this tell me?  That most of us (microstock contributors) are seen by the agencies as a large photography- interest group of some sort, perhaps not too different from Flickr, and we need to get our 'kicks' because our work gets featured somewhere and rejoice if a few pennies get thrown in our direction.  Its maybe not how we see ourselves.  Its how the agencies appear to see us.

I like Shutterstock.  Sure its sub based. That is their model from the outset and one can take it or leave it.  They justify it with regular, consistent volume month over month, in most months.  But Shutterstock cant be the one answer for all of us for all time.  Anyway with time we are likely to see sales spread thinner over more and more contributors.  Simply because the market is not growing at the rate of supply to all indications.

It seems clear that we are not a cohesive group of any sort that can influence the microstock business chain in a meaningful way.

We see this again and again.

So I think its time to clean up my little microstock house - get out of all dysfuntional type agencies and deals.  Be happy with whatever microstock income I make every month from a few 'good' and carefully selected agencies.  And focus lots more positive energy into more productive avenues of photography.  Nothing else I do can get as bad as all this.  That's the point.

Meanwhile I, and I hope most other contributors, should actively STOP contributing to agencies that willfully act contrary to our interest.  That is the one thing we can do which will make a difference - and may change the writing on the wall.

stocked

« Reply #648 on: March 09, 2014, 14:55 »
+2
Nobody posts in those forums.  The most recent post in one if the sub forums is from me from a year ago.
There are lots of posts on this deal and most all of them have been responded to by Getty.
They avoid answering any questions about how the money this deals brings (ad-money but also money made with the data from this deal) is shared.
I think we all know what's going to happen to money made from data, I don't expect it's different at any of the competitors either.  Do you?
Well others don't let embed my images for free. The data received from the embeds is actually very valuable.

« Reply #649 on: March 09, 2014, 15:04 »
+2
Nobody posts in those forums.  The most recent post in one if the sub forums is from me from a year ago.
There are lots of posts on this deal and most all of them have been responded to by Getty.

Last I saw, there were two, both positive of course, because no one likes to rattle the cage.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13165 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
5330 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
49328 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