pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197269 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #650 on: March 09, 2014, 15:05 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:18 by tickstock »


« Reply #651 on: March 09, 2014, 15:06 »
+3
Hi JoAnn,

I was quoting bunhill. the "groupthink" term isnt from me. Sorry if my quote looked funny.

Its interesting to read about the flickr group but also no surprise. Its a different crowd of people. I was excited about VOX too, but now I have the experience from Vox, the Microsoft deal and the Getty Google deal. And many years of Getty management (expectations set - results received...or not...)

When they have their own experience, they will understand this board better.

Getty and many istock admins think of msg as a terrible place and would NEVER dare post here in person. Which makes you wonder how they will handle the investor community if there really ever is an IPO. msg is a warm fuzzy place with lots of rainbows compared to those boards.

Unlike Shutterstock or other agencies, whose admins have no problem interacting with people online on public boards they cannot control. They work in an internet company, this is completely normal for them.

Again, a simple opt in or opt out button solves everything. Let the people who are enthusiastic about the project enjoy it. And the rest of us would join if they can show us the money.

Just look at the way Shutterstock handles their reputation - they communicate respectfully and thoughtfully and they have no track record of shitstorms on the internet. They work very hard at being a reliable business partner and know how to work with a large international customer and contributor group.

Whereas Getty has a long history of pain. They seem to love the drama, that is why they keep provoking it.

Makes no sense to me, but if they wanted to have positive reputation, they would just do things correctly to achieve that.

It is not rocket science and doesnt need a huge investment. Words are cheap.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 16:27 by cobalt »

« Reply #652 on: March 09, 2014, 15:07 »
-7
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:18 by tickstock »

« Reply #653 on: March 09, 2014, 15:10 »
+5
I get paid for every Facebook sale, there is no need to opt out. Every time my file gets used, I get a normal sub download. And the customer doest even get the file, the tiny thumbnail is only incorporated into the Facebook ads. If they want something larger for prints, they have to go to SS and buy a file.

Here is Michaels summary, he tried it (and he bought one of my files, so I can verify it is correct):

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/shutterstock-and-the-facebook-deal/?fb_action_ids=10152378985371802&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

It is actually a better deal than the normal sub download (no XXXL for 33 cents).
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 15:13 by cobalt »

« Reply #654 on: March 09, 2014, 15:13 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:18 by tickstock »

« Reply #655 on: March 09, 2014, 15:15 »
+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.
There are at least 5 pages from what I remember.  No one is being excessively rude if that's what you mean.

Wow, it must have blown up since last I looked, when there were just two responses.  Both positive.

« Reply #656 on: March 09, 2014, 15:17 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:18 by tickstock »

« Reply #657 on: March 09, 2014, 15:17 »
+7
I get paid for every Facebook sale, there is no need to opt out.
Oh because YOU like the deal there is no need for an opt out?  Didn't you just say "Again, a simple opt in or opt out button solves everything. Let the people who are enthusiastic about the project enjoy it." ?

It's not 'a deal'. It's a simplification of a process that can already be done.  That's all.

« Reply #658 on: March 09, 2014, 15:18 »
+4
It is a sub deal. It is not different from anything else they do. A normal API deal.

Offering files for free on the internet with the vague promise that one day down the line there might be ad revenue is.

They didnt change their business model, this is exactly what I signed up for and what I am sending them my files for. 33 cents (or more) a download.

Honest and upfront.

But here are the downloads that people get from Getty:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359726&page=1

Is this what you are expecting to get?

I am sure they are getting 20%. But 20% of what?

« Reply #659 on: March 09, 2014, 15:19 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:18 by tickstock »

« Reply #660 on: March 09, 2014, 15:25 »
+6
What are you trying to imply? That somehow with Facebook SS is making a lot more money than with their regular subscription service?

The 28 -30% they claim to pay out is consistent with the data from the balance sheet they publish every quarter. SS is a publicly traded company.

They cant hide.

In any case - what does it have to do with Getty offering 35 million files for free on the internet to UNREGISTERED users? Of very expensive content, even RM content?

ETA: You can also just go and supply pond5 if you like. Always 50%, no subs and you can set your own prices. Works great with video. And Im not aware of any major dramas in the last few years.

Now back to the topic.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 15:34 by cobalt »

« Reply #661 on: March 09, 2014, 15:33 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:17 by tickstock »

« Reply #662 on: March 09, 2014, 15:37 »
+5
:)

I know this whole discussion is hard. We all make our living from our work. But for many people who are shy or simply not very good with English these discussions on MSG are extremely helpful.

Its the main reason I am here so often. I get a lot of emails or phone calls if something drastic happens,especially from the German community. So I just point them to msg and they keep following here while they have their own discussions on the German boards.

Others discuss it on Facebook etc..but msg is widely read and even if discussions swing wildly here, they are very useful.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #663 on: March 09, 2014, 15:46 »
+11
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.

Exactly how I feel and am proceeding.  I've dropped Getty House and iStock and am feeling better about that every day.  Just got the latest edition of Photographers Market and will get back into self marketing.  Will stick it out with a couple of the agencies I am with and look at others that charge reasonable prices and pay reasonable rates.
I used to do very well with self marketing but got lazy when signing on with some of the better agencies several years ago. Time to go back to the beginning.

« Reply #664 on: March 09, 2014, 16:04 »
+3
I was quoting bunhill. the "groupthink" term isnt from me. Sorry if my quote looked funny....

It was quite clear where the groupthink term came from - no worries there. I was trying to avoid giving any attention to the poster of that comment as I try not to "feed the trolls" and I ended up blending things badly in my post.

« Reply #665 on: March 09, 2014, 18:12 »
0
It is a sub deal. It is not different from anything else they do.

Except that none of the end users of those images had to pay for subscriptions.  All we know is this: SS made a deal with FB for use of images.  Every time one gets used, the contributor get 35 cents.  So what was actually "paid" for that image, in total, over time, by FB?   I don't know.  Does anyone, outside of SS?






« Reply #666 on: March 09, 2014, 19:11 »
+5
It is a sub deal. It is not different from anything else they do.

Except that none of the end users of those images had to pay for subscriptions.  All we know is this: SS made a deal with FB for use of images.  Every time one gets used, the contributor get 35 cents.  So what was actually "paid" for that image, in total, over time, by FB?   I don't know.  Does anyone, outside of SS?

Right, they didn't have that purchase barrier of ponying up for a full subscription.  Opens the door to a whole new audience.  Since the usage is less and the pay is the same, why would I care what was 'paid'?


« Reply #667 on: March 09, 2014, 19:26 »
0
heading off topic here - but more of a comment on the FB deal:

It does make you wonder if one could open up a freelance cooperative design company and purchase a subscription (or more) and then for a small fee designers could join and get subs from SS. As long as that small fee was less than the cost of a SOD it would be attractive to them. Not as good for photographers (but still maybe a higher percentage than a normal sub), and probably very unpopular to SS. I am guessing if it isn't outlawed in the TOS it would be soon if it became popular.

« Reply #668 on: March 09, 2014, 19:39 »
+2
It is a sub deal. It is not different from anything else they do.

Except that none of the end users of those images had to pay for subscriptions.  All we know is this: SS made a deal with FB for use of images.  Every time one gets used, the contributor get 35 cents.  So what was actually "paid" for that image, in total, over time, by FB?   I don't know.  Does anyone, outside of SS?

Right, they didn't have that purchase barrier of ponying up for a full subscription.  Opens the door to a whole new audience.  Since the usage is less and the pay is the same, why would I care what was 'paid'?

I guess at the end of the day, if you don't care what the buyer (FB) actually paid - in whatever form - and are satisfied with what SS chooses to pay you for your work- then so be it.

Back in the old days images were "sold" for a "price" and we got a percentage of that price, and maybe we would have cared if we found out the agency was selling them for $10 and giving us 50 cents.  I guess that's just obsolete 20th century thinking.

What if SS wasn't in the picture, and FB offered this "deal" on its own? You upload all your images to FB, and if one is used in an ad you get 38 cents.  Would you sign up?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 19:54 by stockastic »

« Reply #669 on: March 09, 2014, 21:23 »
0
I was quoting bunhill. the "groupthink" term isnt from me. Sorry if my quote looked funny....

It was quite clear where the groupthink term came from - no worries there. I was trying to avoid giving any attention to the poster of that comment as I try not to "feed the trolls" and I ended up blending things badly in my post.

it's completely exasperating that you consider me to be trolling. For simply expressing a different perspective. My use of the term 'groupthink' was  in relation to exactly this kind of attitude - ie that there should be only one way of considering a thing.

farbled

« Reply #670 on: March 09, 2014, 21:31 »
+4
... sorry, decided not to post another opinion. I need more sleep to write coherently.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 21:54 by farbled »

shudderstok

« Reply #671 on: March 09, 2014, 23:06 »
+4
@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.

i am sorry, i just woke up and seem to missed out on "Bruce and his team" and all of his innovations..."

In the year 2000, istockphoto, a microstock image website, began which later impacted the stock photo industry by driving prices of royalty-free images down as low as $1 per image. It was done because of the recent availability of high-resolution digital cameras in the mass market and the ability for amateur photographers to upload their images and to the website.

true it's a success story for sure, but i don't see any "innovation" there.

you guys go on and on about bruce like he invented the wheel. he merely re-invented it but sold images for $1,

RF? nope that was also around too.

online stock photo agencies? done

now if you consider allowing anyone with a digital camera to submit images for 20% of $1, the yes your almighty Bruce is an industry leader, but an "innovator"?

the only problem with what you deem to be an "innovation" followed by copy cats a few years later in 2004, is the price of photos has dropped, or shall i say have been in complete free fall. and it has become now widely accepted that anyone with a digital camera is a real pro.

this has also been enabled technology and the internet of course.

i'd really like see your list of innovations by "bruce and his team" or does selling out the the devil for $50 million and dropping the "community" count as one.










shudderstok

« Reply #672 on: March 09, 2014, 23:08 »
-1
@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.

i am sorry, i just woke up after a decade long slumber and seemed to have missed out on "Bruce and his team" and all of his innovations..."

In the year 2000, istockphoto, a microstock image website, began which later impacted the stock photo industry by driving prices of royalty-free images down as low as $1 per image. It was done because of the recent availability of high-resolution digital cameras in the mass market and the ability for amateur photographers to upload their images and to the website.

true it's a success story for sure, but i don't see any "innovation" there.

you guys go on and on about bruce like he invented the wheel. he merely re-invented it but sold images for $1,

RF? nope that was also around too.

online stock photo agencies? done

now if you consider allowing anyone with a digital camera to submit images for 20% of $1, the yes your almighty Bruce is an industry leader, but an "innovator"?

the only problem with what you deem to be an "innovation" followed by copy cats a few years later in 2004, is the price of photos has dropped, or shall i say have been in complete free fall. and it has become now widely accepted that anyone with a digital camera is a real pro.

this has also been enabled technology and the internet of course.

i'd really like see your list of innovations by "bruce and his team" or does selling out the the devil for $50 million and dropping the "community" count as one.

« Reply #673 on: March 10, 2014, 00:50 »
+2
What did Bruce ever do to you? Where your files selling for 500 dollars all the time before? And do you seriously believe that if your income went down it had something to do with him?

You could have taken advantage of the platform he and others created and made as much money as Lisegagne, Sean or Yuri if you had wanted to. Lots of smart photographers did, nobody stopped you from joining them. It still is a completely open platform, no need to buddy up to anyone to join. Just make great content and earn money.

But I suppose it is easier to blame others for the loss of income, when all you did was miss the amazing opportunity the internet brought us all.

I was referring to the following statement by Jonathan Klein in the BJP article:
"says Jonathan Klein, co-founder and CEO of Getty Images, in a prepared statement. Innovation and disruption are the foundation of Getty Images"

I dont consider giving the products away for free to combat the stealing of said product an innovation. My personal opinion of course.

But if they do find a way to bring in serious money with it for the artist, Ill be happy to give them credit.

When Bruce was in charge of istock (until 2009) my income and that of most other artists was growing steadily. When he left they introduced the RCs and many other changes and our income went down. They also focussed their energy on Thinkstock and actively encouraged istock customers to spend their money there. Was the internet or industry so different in 2009 than in 2012? No it wasnt. The reason istock didnt grow and revenue was falling was because Getty decided not to grow it the way Bruce did. Or they simply didnt know how to grow it successfully the way Bruce and his team did. istock was the market leader in micro stock. Now it is Shutterstock. Who do you think is responsible for that?

Now Bruce and his team opened stocksy, and again I am making more money than I expected to make from the files that I have there. Somewhere along the line I got to connect Bruce with money. Others here connect Shutterstock and Jon Oringer with money because that is where they are seeing their biggest growth.

Money doest happen by itself, it needs good entrepreneurial skills to harvest it.

And today I see Bruce and his team again set an example for the industry. stocksy is a total success, if anything they are over delivering of what I was expecting them to do.

If Bruce can start an agency that pays out 50% royalties and 100% of extended licenses and go from zero to the success and branding they have in one year - yes, for me that is innovative entrepreneurial work.

And it begs the question  - all the smaller production houses with excellent content - what are they doing wrong?
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 01:27 by cobalt »

« Reply #674 on: March 10, 2014, 01:14 »
+6
If Getty build 3 tier content supply with:
Getty -the most expensive
Istock - middle priced
Thinkstock - cheap sub model

Why they are making Getty's most expensive content free
And don't include Istock and Thinkstock content in this deal?

Just a thought.
What do you think?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13166 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
3809 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
107 Replies
49330 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