pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 144085 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #850 on: March 13, 2014, 08:52 »
+4
Getty loves to "donate" other people's assets! Example those .15 image sales that should of been 400.00


« Reply #851 on: March 13, 2014, 08:55 »
+1
I here you tickstock, my portfolio has a lot of spiritual stuff that faith backed folks like, for me it may be 50%

« Reply #852 on: March 13, 2014, 09:00 »
+10

Getty loves to "donate" other people's assets! Example those .15 image sales that should of been 400.00

For me, that is the major sticking point. I should have the option to say yes or no to some materially new type of distribution. My copyright, my choice

Getty treats contributors badly by refusing to give an opt out. They absolutely could - technically - but they refuse

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #853 on: March 13, 2014, 09:01 »
+3
They seem to have hidden it very well.
I just went to gettyimages. Was switched to gettyimages.co.uk, which I'd never noticed happening before, and I can't 'easily' get onto gettyimages.com  (like google).

No word of the free giveaway anywhere on the front page.
Clicked on a random editorial image and couldn't see how to do the 'free embed thing' on anywhere on the file page .

(maybe my point about how 'free', but 'not free' in the small print, is illegal in the UK was acted on  ;) .  I'd like to think so but suspect I just wasn't seeing it.)

Can someone do a screenshot of how to do it on the .com site and I'll check again.
Or someone show me how to do it from the .co.uk site.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 09:16 by ShadySue »

« Reply #854 on: March 13, 2014, 09:05 »
+2
I agree Jo Ann , I just don't view Getty as a perk anymore. This keeps up we will need donations!  ;)

« Reply #855 on: March 13, 2014, 09:09 »
0
To be fair, some have done very wel and I've never had a lot of images on Getty, and have non on there now.

Very interesting ShadySue

Shelma1

« Reply #856 on: March 13, 2014, 09:09 »
+13
Free is free, Getty calls it free. Restricted use for free, is still free. No matter how you twist it.
You don't really believe that do you?  Getty has had all it's images available for a long time for free, as in free comp images.  If you think free is free no matter what then this new program hasn't changed anything has it?

You and I know those are two completely different things. Comp images are for internal use only, to present to clients. They're not shared with anyone else and don't appear on the internet. Only large, established companies have access to them, and then only a small portion of their employees are granted access. If the concept isn't bought the images are discarded. If the client does go with the images they pay high RM rates. So with free comps you're letting potentially high-paying clients see how your image would look in a campaign. With embedding it's the opposite. Anyone can do it, the images can be shared, and people looking for free images are not looking for expensive RM licenses.

Ron

« Reply #857 on: March 13, 2014, 09:14 »
+5
Thats basically what I said, apples and oranges, but then I saw the note to self and deleted my comment.  :)

« Reply #858 on: March 13, 2014, 09:15 »
0
Can someone do a screenshot of how to do it on the .com site and I'll check again.


I just went to www.gettyimages.co.uk and selected "FC Barcelona v Manchester City" from "Sports of the week". When you hover over a single photo and the popup appears, you can select the embed function. You are right, I didn't see it advertised anywhere...

« Reply #859 on: March 13, 2014, 09:16 »
+14

Getty loves to "donate" other people's assets! Example those .15 image sales that should of been 400.00

For me, that is the major sticking point. I should have the option to say yes or no to some materially new type of distribution. My copyright, my choice

Getty treats contributors badly by refusing to give an opt out. They absolutely could - technically - but they refuse

Well said.

I personally get the feeling that Getty/Carlyle would rather not have to deal with the photographic community.  Even though we are their suppliers, they treat us like they are doing us a favor by giving us 20%. 

Their narrative - voiced over and over by their spokespeople - is that this "is going to be good for the photographers".  And the implied message is "trust us on this one".

Trust is earned - and as for me, when you burn me repeatedly with these free giveaways of my images as "promotional/marketing efforts by Getty", you've violated my trust.

The only thing I trust about Getty is that they'll do whatever they think is best for themselves - with no regard for their suppliers/contributors/photographers.

« Reply #860 on: March 13, 2014, 09:17 »
+4
That's my point 'free' doesn't always mean the same thing just like using a small image inside the embed viewer is very different than getting a free image with an RF license.

From photographer point of view it is free as he will get nothing, not even single cent from this.
While the buyer will use his photo and safe his money,
Getty will sell advertisement via the embed viewer,
the advertiser will pay Getty to distribute his marketing messages over internet.
Everybody will get what they want but photographer will get nothing.
That's not true at all.
Well, what do you mean "not true at all"?
Looks like you know much more then we do.
Please enlighten us.

« Reply #861 on: March 13, 2014, 09:18 »
-5
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:10 by tickstock »

« Reply #862 on: March 13, 2014, 09:19 »
+1
The only giveaway I was ever interested in is "image of the week" it put you on the front page of the site!

Uncle Pete

« Reply #863 on: March 13, 2014, 09:20 »
+2
Quote is Craig Peters from Getty:  ...the company has "certainly thought about" monetizing usage data, but has no specific plans.

There's the 20% per click plan. Imagined but not visible on the Getty radar.

(Craig Peters - Senior Vice President, Business Development, Content and Marketing at Getty Images. Not someone on a web forum or some anonymous source claimed to be knowing something, by an anonymous post here.)
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 09:33 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #864 on: March 13, 2014, 09:23 »
+2
Comp images are available for everyone though and could easily wind up all over the internet, people can will do whatever they want with them whether it's against the rules or not.

And you don't think that the facts that (a) this would be illegal and (b) Getty has quite a reputation for defending their image rights might dissuade a few people from doing so?

« Reply #865 on: March 13, 2014, 09:24 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:10 by tickstock »

« Reply #866 on: March 13, 2014, 09:25 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:10 by tickstock »


« Reply #867 on: March 13, 2014, 09:26 »
+4
Comp images are available for everyone though and could easily wind up all over the internet, people can will do whatever they want with them whether it's against the rules or not.

And you don't think that the facts that (a) this would be illegal and (b) Getty has quite a reputation for defending their image rights might dissuade a few people from doing so?
I think it probably does and it hopefully it will with the embed program.

But with the embed program it is legal and encouraged to use the image "for free" instead of buying it (as long as you use the viewer)?

Shelma1

« Reply #868 on: March 13, 2014, 09:29 »
+3
Free is free, Getty calls it free. Restricted use for free, is still free. No matter how you twist it.

You don't really believe that do you?  Getty has had all it's images available for a long time for free, as in free comp images.  If you think free is free no matter what then this new program hasn't changed anything has it?


You and I know those are two completely different things. Comp images are for internal use only, to present to clients. They're not shared with anyone else and don't appear on the internet. Only large, established companies have access to them, and then only a small portion of their employees are granted access. If the concept isn't bought the images are discarded. If the client does go with the images they pay high RM rates. So with free comps you're letting potentially high-paying clients see how your image would look in a campaign. With embedding it's the opposite. Anyone can do it, the images can be shared, and people looking for free images are not looking for expensive RM licenses.

That's my point, they are different things but both are 'free'.  Comp images are available for everyone though and could easily wind up all over the internet, people can will do whatever they want with them whether it's against the rules or not.  I don't think those free images (comp images) are a bad thing, people can go to the internet already and get tons of free images from Getty, Shutterstock, or iStock.  Again those 'free' images are different than the embed free images or a free image with an RF license.


Please define what you mean by "comp images." I think we're talking about two different things.

And I was really surprised by this sentence:

"It's noteworthy that embed codes are available for all the sizes and resolutions offered."

In this article:

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2333358/Free-Getty-Images-What-is-Getty-Giving-Getting-in-Return

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #869 on: March 13, 2014, 09:36 »
0
Can someone do a screenshot of how to do it on the .com site and I'll check again.


I just went to www.gettyimages.co.uk and selected "FC Barcelona v Manchester City" from "Sports of the week". When you hover over a single photo and the popup appears, you can select the embed function. You are right, I didn't see it advertised anywhere...

Thanks, you're right.
Let's hope, if they're not advertising it, people in the UK won't notice it, which would protect much of my Getty content.  :)

Shelma1

« Reply #870 on: March 13, 2014, 09:38 »
+1
It is advertised on the front page of the U.S. site, however. Takes up the whole page above the fold.

« Reply #871 on: March 13, 2014, 09:44 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:10 by tickstock »

« Reply #872 on: March 13, 2014, 09:45 »
+1
All sizes! Wow I didn't realise that.

« Reply #873 on: March 13, 2014, 09:46 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:10 by tickstock »

« Reply #874 on: March 13, 2014, 09:48 »
+4
A lot of back and forth here over what is essentially Semantics. Whereas the "s" word that comes to mind whenever I contemplate this affair is Shafted*


* Ripped off, cheated, treated with contempt or unfairly, made a mug of, sold a rotten kipper etc


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
11783 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
4184 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
2931 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
3943 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 06:11
by emicristea
107 Replies
40013 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle