pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 144087 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #875 on: March 13, 2014, 09:49 »
+4
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

I'm talking about when you go to a Getty image and click on download a comp.  The images aren't available at all sizes, I'm pretty sure that article is wrong.


I was talking about full-resolution images that are provided to ad agencies and publishers to use in their comps.

I wasn't aware that Getty was giving away what I would consider XS versions of their images for free all these years. Just tried it and downloaded one. So glad I'm not with Getty.


« Reply #876 on: March 13, 2014, 09:50 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:09 by tickstock »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #877 on: March 13, 2014, 09:51 »
+1
It is advertised on the front page of the U.S. site, however. Takes up the whole page above the fold.

That appears to be legal in the US, but not here.

This is the UK front page, with Embed - with no explanation - right at the very, very bottom of the page (I circled it in red)

Shelma1

« Reply #878 on: March 13, 2014, 09:57 »
0
All sizes! Wow I didn't realise that.

That's not true as far as I can tell the article is wrong.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/03/06/getty-to-allow-embedding-for-non-commercial-use-of-images?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_32
Getty Images has taken a major step towards addressing unauthorized image use by allowing low-resolution (~0.17MP - and if that's hard to visualize check out the picture in this story) embedding of images


I've posted a question to the author to ask him to confirm. I can only get low-res embedding, so perhaps this feature is only available to certain people or he got his facts wrong.

« Reply #879 on: March 13, 2014, 09:58 »
+1
Thanks tickstock for clearing that up.still lost sales.

« Reply #880 on: March 13, 2014, 10:48 »
+2
Was wondering if exclusives are still uploading to iStock as usual or, like myself, are stopping completely to see how all this pans out. Once our images are released into the ether for free the damage is done and I'm reluctant to risk wasting my time creating stuff that will never see a return due to this free giveaway.
Also, if we drop exclusivity will this automatically remove, eventually, our images from Getty and their availability for embedding?

« Reply #881 on: March 13, 2014, 10:50 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:09 by tickstock »

« Reply #882 on: March 13, 2014, 10:52 »
+6
Interesting article here from the Motley Fool (sorry if it's been posted before) http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/10/why-gettys-new-image-sharing-doesnt-threaten-shutt.aspx regarding Getty vs Shutterstock. This quote stood out: "Getty's new policy does allow media companies to use free images, but Getty retains the right to place ads on the images or use them to collect user data, making companies unlikely to use them for free. The plan could even backfire as the decision has upset photographers who don't want their images used free for only Getty's benefit, and that could drive more of them to develop relationships with other buyers such as Shutterstock."
Maybe the media is starting to take notice of the photographer's side in all this.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #883 on: March 13, 2014, 11:06 »
+2
Was wondering if exclusives are still uploading to iStock as usual or, like myself, are stopping completely to see how all this pans out. Once our images are released into the ether for free the damage is done and I'm reluctant to risk wasting my time creating stuff that will never see a return due to this free giveaway.
Also, if we drop exclusivity will this automatically remove, eventually, our images from Getty and their availability for embedding?
I haven't been making images specially for stock ever since it became obvious that new files were falling in the best match and weren't selling (in  general). Then they started accepting what appeared to be hard drives full of images with little image QA and no keyword checking at all, so it was clear they had an Evil Plan (the very words I often used, though I didn't for a second imagine they were going to force ALL files into cheap subs, or the free giveaway (embedded) schemes). Then when they reduced indie files so that ours could be 5x or even 7x the cost, our fate was sealed, except for those with impossible to access (but still in demand) niches.

My upload rate in 2013 was way below all previous years, and I've only uploaded a few 'markers' this year. Looks like that's all I'll be doing in the foreseeable future.

« Reply #884 on: March 13, 2014, 11:09 »
+4
I wonder if (when) Getty starts trying to monetize this with ads in the embeds if they will be put on the adblocker lists - and thus make the images disappear too. Certainly not what the bloggers would want to have happen. My guess is that Getty will try to make it unobtrusive until they have enough penetration and Carlyle can sell and then it will be up to someone else to try to squeeze some money out of it.

farbled

« Reply #885 on: March 13, 2014, 11:25 »
+4
All sizes! Wow I didn't realise that.

That's not true as far as I can tell the article is wrong.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/03/06/getty-to-allow-embedding-for-non-commercial-use-of-images?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_32
Getty Images has taken a major step towards addressing unauthorized image use by allowing low-resolution (~0.17MP - and if that's hard to visualize check out the picture in this story) embedding of images


I've posted a question to the author to ask him to confirm. I can only get low-res embedding, so perhaps this feature is only available to certain people or he got his facts wrong.

I've seen it listed in a few official places that the size is only about .17 mp.


I guess it would be fair to say that it is confusing if even some journalists get it wrong. I can only imagine it'll get thoroughly misunderstood by everyday users as well.

« Reply #886 on: March 13, 2014, 11:30 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:09 by tickstock »

farbled

« Reply #887 on: March 13, 2014, 11:40 »
+4
  A lot of the confusion is coming from people reading the headlines and not looking just a tiny bit deeper.
Kinda sums up the internet. :)

edit: also makes the point for one of the reasons behind the embed platform, people don't understand copyright and licensing and (some) "believe" if an image is online its free to use.

Shelma1

« Reply #888 on: March 13, 2014, 11:41 »
+3
I guess it would be fair to say that it is confusing if even some journalists get it wrong. I can only imagine it'll get thoroughly misunderstood by everyday users as well.
That part doesn't seem confusing at all (AFAIK that's the only person who claims the images can be full size) and even if someone was confused they can't make the images larger because of it.  A lot of the confusion is coming from people reading the headlines and not looking just a tiny bit deeper.

But that's the problem...most people do only read the headlines and don't look much deeper.

« Reply #889 on: March 13, 2014, 11:48 »
+9
Well, whatever is happening at iStock, it seems to be juicing Shutterstock's sales quite nicely. I'm well on my way to a BME in March.

Batman

« Reply #890 on: March 13, 2014, 15:37 »
+9
Well, whatever is happening at iStock, it seems to be juicing Shutterstock's sales quite nicely. I'm well on my way to a BME in March.


That's good. There's an alliance of anonymous people here who try to change every thread into something bad about SS or divert attention to somebody other. They are probably paid agents of IS trying to bring down SS. Read their posts over and over the same turned off search attacks or changing the subject to something wrong at SS.

http://www.examiner.com/article/snowden-government-infiltrates-websites-uses-social-media-to-deceive-destroy

The operation of injecting all sorts of false material onto the internet to target individuals or companies. These same anonymous people have one goal, attack SS and cause confusion. Reputation-destruction, infiltrate online communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse.

When IS came up with this plan or subs they defended it and kept attacking claiming SS caused that all. Covert agents and pseudo-independent advocates to cognitively infiltrate online groups and websites.

There's no other reson why a small anonymous group would be so set against SS and trying to divert attention and blame from IS over and over.

« Reply #891 on: March 13, 2014, 15:40 »
-7
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:09 by tickstock »


Shelma1

« Reply #892 on: March 13, 2014, 15:43 »
+10
Paranoid aren't we?  Or maybe just ignoring the posts about how great Shutterstock is in the Getty thread?  I guess your post was aimed at advancing the discussion on the Getty embed program?

I think when one person in particular tries to switch every iS discussion to SS we're far from being paranoid.

« Reply #893 on: March 13, 2014, 16:08 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:09 by tickstock »

« Reply #894 on: March 13, 2014, 16:11 »
+6
I'm not part of any group, there are things I really like about SS, but the .25 per download is not one of them ;)

There are good and not so good about both.

I think we all need to stick together as a community of creatives.


My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com

« Reply #895 on: March 13, 2014, 16:16 »
+1
I'm not part of any group, there are things I really like about SS, but the .25 per download is not one of them ;)

Kim, to paraphrase the immortal words of some long-gone philosopher or other: The 25 download too shall pass.

Shelma1

« Reply #896 on: March 13, 2014, 19:44 »
+3

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #897 on: March 13, 2014, 20:09 »
0
Attorneys are not thrilled with Getty embedding:

http://www.zenlegalnetworking.com/2014/03/articles/social-media/gettys-new-embedding-feature-dont-get-excited-yet/


So, that blogger is currently buying iS images, but would like to move to free images, but being a bit smarter than many, doesn't like a lot of the jots and tittles.
"The cynical side of me says that the reason for this is because Getty really wants to keep its paying customers in that category,"
I should coco. (expletive deleted)

I wonder how many actual buyers will move over. Everyone would prefer 'free' to 'pay'. The sort of person who doesn't care if there are Google Ads on their blog likely won't care much about this either (except that they don't get the money from the ads).
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 20:20 by ShadySue »

« Reply #898 on: March 13, 2014, 20:29 »
+2
Interesting article here from the Motley Fool (sorry if it's been posted before) http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/10/why-gettys-new-image-sharing-doesnt-threaten-shutt.aspx regarding Getty vs Shutterstock. This quote stood out: "Getty's new policy does allow media companies to use free images, but Getty retains the right to place ads on the images or use them to collect user data, making companies unlikely to use them for free. The plan could even backfire as the decision has upset photographers who don't want their images used free for only Getty's benefit, and that could drive more of them to develop relationships with other buyers such as Shutterstock."
Maybe the media is starting to take notice of the photographer's side in all this.


No, they won't. They have almost 100K Flickr photographers who willing to do anything just to be be able to post Getty Artist badge on their Flickr page. There are good bunch that have huge RM ports. The embed program will not affect this group too much because they are not interested in small sales, and this campaign might give them the right exposure as their photos stand out and there is potential that buyers could be coming back to them. However, the majority are amateur with mediocre and replicable portfolios, have no where to go.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 20:35 by onepointfour »

Shelma1

« Reply #899 on: March 13, 2014, 20:39 »
+4
Attorneys are not thrilled with Getty embedding:

http://www.zenlegalnetworking.com/2014/03/articles/social-media/gettys-new-embedding-feature-dont-get-excited-yet/


So, that blogger is currently buying iS images, but would like to move to free images, but being a bit smarter than many, doesn't like a lot of the jots and tittles.
"The cynical side of me says that the reason for this is because Getty really wants to keep its paying customers in that category,"
I should coco. (expletive deleted)

I wonder how many actual buyers will move over. Everyone would prefer 'free' to 'pay'. The sort of person who doesn't care if there are Google Ads on their blog likely won't care much about this either (except that they don't get the money from the ads).


This is what worries everyone, I'm sure. I've seen my images on blogs, but now people who bought those images can embed for free. And people reading blogs aren't shopping for images, so it's not like they're going to click and buy. I think this is primarily to start running advertising, which will bring Getty money but nothing or next to nothing for contributors.


 

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